Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Archive 022

message: I can't find a policy about this. Let's say hypothetically in an article about the Japanese tea ceremony an editor wants to add a few pictures of tea ceremonies, that happen to depict details only found in a minority form Mushanokōjisenke.  One picture would be fine (it is a legitimate school), but this would seem to me to be a form of visual undue weight. Is there a policy?  Even for one picture, if the differences are related to a dispute between schools, should the captions explain or allude to the dispute? Gimmetrow 17:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know, this hasn't been the topic of much discussion.  It would be difficult, and perhaps counterproductive, to write a policy around this, but it is certainly important enough to invest the time in having thoughtful conversation about the issue at relevant Talk pages.  Jkelly 17:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We are discussing it at the relevant pages, but some policy guidelines might help move the discussion forward. The "Undue Weight" section has a list of ways undue weight can be given.  I would suggest perhaps adding to the list "selection of images."  Gimmetrow 17:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Added one line to help clarlify this. Undue weight is not only about text, but about all other material such as images, external links, tables and formatting devices, TOC labelling,  article sections, etc. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 21:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Undue weight with images?

message: I have been told (and people have implied) that undue weight somehow can be attributed to articles specifically devoted to a minority subject. I find this odd as it specifically adds in the following sentence, directly contradicting such thinking:
*"None of this is to say that tiny-minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can give them on pages specifically devoted to them."
Either if i'm wrong or if i'm right, I think this needs further clarification - since people seem not to be "getting it". Any comments? Fresheneesz 18:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In an article about a minority view lets say in Mathematics, you can expand as much as you want about that minority view. But you will not give it too much coverage on the main article about Mathematics. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 18:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  question about undue weight 

message: See for example, :Category:Dictators, deleted first on September 2004, re-created again and deleted again on May 30, 2005, recreated again and deleted on May 2006. Reason for deletion: "Violates POV by endorsing a subjective view, which could never have unbiased criteria as to what a dictator is." At the same time, we have List of dictators, which has very specific criteria/treshold for inclusion needed to maintain NPOV, resulting in a very useful and encyclopedic list.
We need some wording added to NPOV to clarify to contributors, the proper use of categories and lists as it pertains to NPOV. Any proposals on how to address this in policy? ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 14:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Precedents

message: * Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial#Categorisation (suggested for comparison by Francis Schonken 16:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Precedents (2)

message: I've taken a big gulp, and moved the entire FAQ answers (unchanged) to a separate page Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ, summarising the questions and linking to it in the main policy.
This is because, when you stand back and look at it, these are really essays and "chat", rather than policy. And no other policy page has nearly 18kbytes of FAQ's as part of the main body of the policy itself.
Part of why WP:NPOV is so long is it's trying to be chat and justification, and all I can think of is that's how it grew up, historically. But it's not really Wikipedia policy style in 2006. A crucial policy like this should be a summary that clearly sets out what is and isn't okay, how certain things are handled - in other words, policy. Explanation is part of that, but not 18k of FAQ's as an essay section at the end. Thats just not sensible. 
FT2 (Talk | email) 23:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for addressing this. I think it works better. I will add a more prominent link to the FAQ. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 00:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I also think it's a good move, but we probably should put the policy tag on the FAQ page also, as I know a number of pieces of that material is cited as policy, and has had the detailed discussion to justify identifing it as that.  Otherwise, great work in dividing it. JesseW, the juggling janitor 05:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Although the "Discussion" section title is not inappropriate for the content now gathered under that title, I'd avoid to use "Discussion" as a section title on the policy page, while confusing: the "Discussion of the WP:NPOV page" would normally refer to this talk page (and or its archives), and now, somewhat confusingly, it could also refer to a section on the policy page itself. I think I'm going to change the section title to "Rationale, history and example" or something in that vein for the time being. --Francis Schonken 11:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That'd make sense. FT2 (Talk | email) 11:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Policies aren't essay or debating articles really -- especially not when the essays are discussion-chats 18 KB long. Thats not sensible. A list of questions with a bolded header saying "answers and discussions in /FAQ"... I don't think anyone's going to miss the point. Those who understand NPOV will understand it, those who don't will see where to go for more information on whatever their pet concern is. What's for sure is that 18 KB of chat just doesn't belong in the main policy. FT2 (Talk | email) 18:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAQ answers moved to /FAQ page 

message: Articles such as Criticism of Islam, Dhimmi CAIR have been flooded with POV-driven polemics. Dhimmi is a prime example. Almost all of the content of the article is founded in sources such as Bat Ye'or (if you don't know about her, see the talk page on Dhimmi. Articles on Islam or on topics related to Islam are flooded with anti-Muslim polemics and crititisms. If NPOV is non-negotiable, there must be actions that can be taken in this regard. Relying on the good faith of the partisan editors there isn't working. Any suggestions? His Excellency... 15:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that page has already been through mediation. Would a request for comment be the next step? Tom Harrison Talk 16:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Absolutely no regard for WP:NPOV on Islam-related articles

message: Since WP:NC moved from being a guideline to a policy it can potentially come into conflict with WP:NPOV. If this subject is of interest to you please share your opinions at WP talk:NC#NPOV and naming convention conflicts --Philip Baird Shearer 11:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV and naming convention conflicts 

message: :In particular, to elaborate on the last comment above, if you are able to prove something that nobody currently believes, Wikipedia is not the place to premiere such a proof. Once a proof has been presented and discussed elsewhere, however, it may be referenced.
*I removed this last sentence from NPOV because it has ABSOLUTELY NOT RELEVANCE to Undue Weight.
*The argument that "there is no consensus" to remove it demonstrates the STUPIDY of the consensus. Surely we're not claiming that even though the sentence probably does not belong here, we can't remove it until everyone agrees it does not belong.
*The argument that it "breaks the link" between WP:NPOV and Verifiability and No original is GARBAGE. (1) The link between these policies is made in the second paragraph of NPOV. (2) Such a link does NOT BELONG in Undue weight. Any "fact" that fails the "No original Research" policy will NEVER be considered for Undue weight. --Iantresman 10:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As WP is governed by consensus, you can't just ignore the principal when you don't like the results. You say the sentence probably does not belong here, but Francis Schonken obviously disagrees with you. You can be bold, but any change made to a policy or guideline without prior consensus is fair game for reversion. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 14:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Francis did not appear to disagree. He mentioned consensus and connection with other policies. But consensus by itself is no reason, and I actually agree with his link to other policies, pointing out that the connection is already made, and the placement of the sentence is incorrect. --Iantresman 14:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: An explanation would be appreciated. "No" shows disagreement, but no reason why. How is this sentence related to Undue Weight? --Iantresman 17:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It's so odd. I was just hunting for this line to quote to a bullshit artist on a talk page. Leave it in please. Marskell 17:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problems with the sentence elsewhere. But it does not belong in undue weight. --Iantresman 17:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: And to state the obvious: premiering a proof unpublished elsewhere is probably the most obvious example of giving undue weight imaginable. Marskell 18:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It is very common for people who have just managed to get their New Great Thing on the project to spam it everywhere.  Just zis Guy you know? 21:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, and the policy on No Original Research explains why it is not suitable for Wikipedia, and the second paragraph of NPOV points people to No Original Research. Such unwanted text is not considered under Undue Weight, just as everything listed under "What Wikipedia is not" is not considered under Undue Weight.--Iantresman 08:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Undue weight & No Original Research Link

message: I have had to restore contributions I made three times now. The article is about Steve Sailer. PLease explain why and how I have violated the NPOV policy! --Zaphnathpaaneah 04:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this would be more properly dealt with on that article's talk page, or even the Request for Comment page, though that's generally for stuff a bit more serious than that. In response to your question though, are long quotations actually suitable as article sections? Wouldn't they be better placed on, say, Wikiquote, or in the reference section as is done in other locations in the article? And what does this have to do with POV in the first place? --tjstrf 05:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Steve Sailer]] Article Arbitration please