Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Archive 001

message: Can I get some feedback?  I am having difficulty with entries on a Republic and Fascism.  This is response to one of the discussions:
:::You can't make that a conclusion. It might also be possible that a word only has meaning inside a certain context of space, time, and maybe also within the context of a single discussion. It happens all the time in formal languages, in any case. Please see: Namespace. Define each year as a new namespace. Now you can have it both ways. The language can evolve, and yet meanings do not change in the same way. Handy philosophical tool that. Kim Bruning 19:18, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defining and Using a Socratic 

message: :That God exists is an opinion. That the Beatles were the greatest band is an opinion. That the United States was wrong to drop the atomic bomb over Hiroshima and Nagasaki is an opinion. 
While I'm all for the NPOV, there is a flaw in the concept as described.  Existence of an entity is not in the realm of opinion.  It is a fact: either true or false.  God either exists, or He doesn't.  And our opinions won't cause Him to exist or not.
What is really being said by "That God exists is an opinion." is that it is too much trouble to prove to people (including ourselves) so we just set it aside as a useless thing to argue.  But it isn't opinion.  --M4-10 05:08, 8 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an opinion, for the purposes of our NPOV policy, because it is not undisputed fact. Martin 19:29, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're right, there either is, or isn't a God. Our opinions don't affect that (at least, in most theologies ;) ), however, which one of these realities is the right one is a matter of opinion, since there is not enough undisputed evidence either way. This is true of a lot of other issues such as 'what killed the dinosaurs?' (there is a right answer, but there is not concensus on what it is). Mark Richards 19:37, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  If it's true that "That the United States was wrong to drop the atomic bomb over Hiroshima and Nagasaki is an opinion.", then it's an opinion that 99,99% of the world's population shares. Couldn't the writer of this article find an example which is less insulting to Japanese people? :( Alensha 19:14, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fact, Opinion, and God's existence 

message: HELP
I have a problem at Heck Cattle, one of the editors is mindbent on the idea that the Aurochs and cattle are two separate species, and the the Breeding back of the Auroch is "erroneous". I have tried to make the page neutral by pointing at the fact that even though, the aurochs may have a proper name, cattle is domesticated aurochs and so the same species. However, is set on having his own narrow point of view in the article. What should I do. --Wiglaf
:Dogs are domesticated wolves, but they are considered a seperate species to them.  
:As I see it, the people that you are disagreeing with have provided evidence (in the form of a scientific paper) suggesting that at least some scientists view aurochs and domestic cattle as seperate species.  You are asserting as fact, without evidence, that they are not.  If your contention is that the paper does not represent mainstream scientific opinion, then you should provide evidence (in terms of references from other scientific works).  If your contention is that other non-scientists have a different view than the scientific opinion, you should provide evidence as to who has this belief, and the basis for it, and if they represent a non-trivial group those beliefs should be included in the article as such (just as the beliefs of scientists are recorded as such).  
:Proof by assertion doesn't get you far round here.  --Robert Merkel 03:59, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Heck Cattle

message: Should all articles include criticism sections? Should no articles contain criticism sections? Where is the line between "Criticism" and "Alternative views"?
For example, it is clearly POV to have a criticism section in Judaism's external links but not in Christianity's.
Criticism and alternative views should follow the introduction and main discussion of the article.
(Hyacinth)
:Moved from main article to talk page, as this seems to be more of a request for discussion than a guideline or consensus. —Steven G. Johnson 22:09, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)
=== Criticism and Alternative views: from Village Pump ===
Please comment on: NPOV#Criticism_and_Alternative_views:
Should all articles include criticism sections? Should no articles contain criticism sections? Where is the line between "Criticism" and "Alternative views"?
For example, no example stays uncontested long enough to list here.
Criticism and alternative views should follow the introduction and main discussion of the article.
:Wikipedia is not a place for conspiracy theories (as a certain ex-user was quite fond of). →Raul654 05:38, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)
:I'm not sure I get what you are asking us to do. There is no poll in progress at NPOV#Criticism_and_Alternative_views. It seems reasonably obvious that some articles -- on controversial topics -- need criticism sections, but one is unlikely ever to have a criticism section on, say, an article about a city. 
::(You clearly haven't seen the dump I live in...) --bodnotbod 19:49, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC) )
: As for the specifics of your remark: I don't see a criticism section in Judaism's external links or Christianity's. Am I missing something?
: Right now, the article on Christianity has a remark on the Ebionites poorly integrated into the article in a section entitled Alternative Views. The article Jew has a very extensive discussion of the Karaites much better integrated into the article. Yes, the material on the Ebionites seems oddly placed. I would integrate a mention of them into the article just like we have done for Arianism. Is that what you are asking? -- Jmabel 18:41, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)
::I think it is quite conceivable to have a criticism page for a city and this is an example that may be ridiculous. There seem to be two kinds of articles:
#Reviews: Reads like bulleted Pros and Cons
#Kids books: Always positive and not too substantial (as they must avoid controversy)
Where along this spectrum do you wish Wikipedia articles to lie? Hyacinth 19:18, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism and Alternative views 

message: Please comment on: NPOV#Criticism_and_Alternative_views:
Should all articles include criticism sections? Should no articles contain criticism sections? Where is the line between "Criticism" and "Alternative views"?
For example, no example stays uncontested long enough to list here.
Criticism and alternative views should follow the introduction and main discussion of the article.
:Wikipedia is not a place for conspiracy theories (as a certain ex-user was quite fond of). →Raul654 05:38, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)
:I'm not sure I get what you are asking us to do. There is no poll in progress at NPOV#Criticism_and_Alternative_views. It seems reasonably obvious that some articles -- on controversial topics -- need criticism sections, but one is unlikely ever to have a criticism section on, say, an article about a city. 
::(You clearly haven't seen the dump I live in...) --bodnotbod 19:49, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC) )
: As for the specifics of your remark: I don't see a criticism section in Judaism's external links or Christianity's. Am I missing something?
: Right now, the article on Christianity has a remark on the Ebionites poorly integrated into the article in a section entitled Alternative Views. The article Jew has a very extensive discussion of the Karaites much better integrated into the article. Yes, the material on the Ebionites seems oddly placed. I would integrate a mention of them into the article just like we have done for Arianism. Is that what you are asking? -- Jmabel 18:41, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)
::I think it is quite conceivable to have a criticism page for a city and this is an example that may be ridiculous. There seem to be two kinds of articles:
#Reviews: Reads like bulleted Pros and Cons
#Kids books: Always positive and not too substantial (as they must avoid controversy)
Where along this spectrum do you wish Wikipedia articles to lie? Hyacinth 19:18, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism and Alternative views: from Village Pump 

message: I think that the NPOV policy should be more clearly connected with the Cite sources policy. First, I would suggest that Wikipedia:Cite sources be prominently linked to from Wikipedia:NPOV. Secondly, that there be a paragraph on Wikipedia:NPOV discussing the relation between the policies. Hyacinth 20:05, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Cite sources

message: * There is A and B. they have anti-opinion to each other.
* So, What is NPOV??
* I recommand new NPOV policy.
* To allow that they write two part equally.
For example,
----
=== APPLE ===
....
There is two view, white and black
==== White view ====
Apple is white. not black.
becuase...
Acording as recent scinence study...
...
==== Black view ====
white is incorrect. Apple is black
...
----
* This policy is real NPOV...I think...
* Reader will see two view equally. and can have a correct NPOV.
* This is for article page, not discussion.
* This thinking method is Buddhism's and Confucianism's
thirdid 07:46, 2004 Sep 6 (UTC)
----
Copied from VP
[[== NPOV resources ==
Do we have (and if not, should we have) a page of external resources on understanding/developing/encouraging the Neutral Point of View? It's not always an easy concept, even for experienced editors, and we're all prone to falling into errors. This is a fantastic resource, and I feel it should be on some sort of "recommended reading" list. For example, how many of us can claim we've never fallen victim to confirmation bias? --195.11.216.59 14:49, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Your link gives a series of articles on fallacies and bad arguments. Poor reasoning, including confirmation bias, isn't necessarily an impediment to NPOV. I could, for example, reason very badly and conclude that the moon is made of cheese; I could still write from a neutral point of view about the moon's composition. The ability to reason soundly is a skill that we should encourage, but I don't think it necessarily correlates with neutral writing. — Matt 22:25, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: Indeed. The former really drives me nuts - it's an understatement to merely say that politicians use it! Our entire govt. runs by telling people how great the govt is, is defiance of the minor trickle of really dodgy stuff they get up to. It works. People mostly vote the same old, same old, despite us having a highly representative voting system (vote your preferences, vote always goes to someone). zoney ▓█▒ talk 16:58, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Real NPOV 

message: ....
There is two view, white and black
==== White view ====
Apple is white. not black.
becuase...
Acording as recent scinence study...
...
==== Black view ====
white is incorrect. Apple is black
...
----
* This policy is real NPOV...I think...
* Reader will see two view equally. and can have a correct NPOV.
* This is for article page, not discussion.
* This thinking method is Buddhism's and Confucianism's
thirdid 07:46, 2004 Sep 6 (UTC)
----
Copied from VP
[[== NPOV resources ==
Do we have (and if not, should we have) a page of external resources on understanding/developing/encouraging the Neutral Point of View? It's not always an easy concept, even for experienced editors, and we're all prone to falling into errors. This is a fantastic resource, and I feel it should be on some sort of "recommended reading" list. For example, how many of us can claim we've never fallen victim to confirmation bias? --195.11.216.59 14:49, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Your link gives a series of articles on fallacies and bad arguments. Poor reasoning, including confirmation bias, isn't necessarily an impediment to NPOV. I could, for example, reason very badly and conclude that the moon is made of cheese; I could still write from a neutral point of view about the moon's composition. The ability to reason soundly is a skill that we should encourage, but I don't think it necessarily correlates with neutral writing. — Matt 22:25, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: Indeed. The former really drives me nuts - it's an understatement to merely say that politicians use it! Our entire govt. runs by telling people how great the govt is, is defiance of the minor trickle of really dodgy stuff they get up to. It works. People mostly vote the same old, same old, despite us having a highly representative voting system (vote your preferences, vote always goes to someone). zoney ▓█▒ talk 16:58, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  APPLE 

message: white is incorrect. Apple is black
...
----
* This policy is real NPOV...I think...
* Reader will see two view equally. and can have a correct NPOV.
* This is for article page, not discussion.
* This thinking method is Buddhism's and Confucianism's
thirdid 07:46, 2004 Sep 6 (UTC)
----
Copied from VP
[[== NPOV resources ==
Do we have (and if not, should we have) a page of external resources on understanding/developing/encouraging the Neutral Point of View? It's not always an easy concept, even for experienced editors, and we're all prone to falling into errors. This is a fantastic resource, and I feel it should be on some sort of "recommended reading" list. For example, how many of us can claim we've never fallen victim to confirmation bias? --195.11.216.59 14:49, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Your link gives a series of articles on fallacies and bad arguments. Poor reasoning, including confirmation bias, isn't necessarily an impediment to NPOV. I could, for example, reason very badly and conclude that the moon is made of cheese; I could still write from a neutral point of view about the moon's composition. The ability to reason soundly is a skill that we should encourage, but I don't think it necessarily correlates with neutral writing. — Matt 22:25, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: Indeed. The former really drives me nuts - it's an understatement to merely say that politicians use it! Our entire govt. runs by telling people how great the govt is, is defiance of the minor trickle of really dodgy stuff they get up to. It works. People mostly vote the same old, same old, despite us having a highly representative voting system (vote your preferences, vote always goes to someone). zoney ▓█▒ talk 16:58, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Black view