Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Archive 025

message: Currently the section on the FAQ says:
*What about the case where, in order to write any of a long series of articles on some general subject, we must make some controversial assumptions? That's the case, e.g., in writing about evolution. Surely we won't have to hash out the evolution-vs.-creationism debate on every such page?
: No, surely not. There are virtually no topics that could proceed without making some assumptions that someone would find controversial. This is true not only in evolutionary biology, but also in philosophy, history, physics, etc.
: It is difficult to draw up general principles on which to rule in specific cases, but the following might help: there is probably not a good reason to discuss some assumption on a given page, if an assumption is best discussed in depth on some other page. Some brief, unobtrusive pointer might be apropos, however. E.g., in an article about the evolutionary development of horses, we might have one brief sentence to the effect that some creationists do not believe that horses (or any other animals) underwent any evolution, and point the reader to the relevant article. If there is much specific argument over some particular point, it might be placed on a special page of its own.
Should it say some thing like:
*What about the case where, in order to write any of a long series of articles on some general subject, we must make some controversial assumptions? That's the case, e.g., in writing about evolution. Surely we won't have to hash out the evolution-vs.-creationism debate on every such page?
: Wikipedia policy is verifiability, not truth WP:V. If an assumption is made, it is helpful to express it. If the assumption is expressed, it is less likely that a statement will be actively contested, compared with saying something occured and not expressing the assumption. E.g., "according to evolutionary theory, the cow came into existence approximately....etc.". If necessary, several viewpoints based on different assumptions can be mentioned in this manner while retaining a neutral point of view. Remember: "Let the facts speak for themselves." In certain cases of popular non-scholarly consensus (basically most people believe something occurred) with dissident on the part of some but not all scholars, it may be helpful to give the popular consensus first (attributing it as "popular"), followed by an "if not": e.g.,"So-and-so is popularly attributed with inventing the gadget (or finding the thing or accomplishing the feat)... If this was not the case, it has been speculated that...."
: In the case of a majority of consensus of scholarship on a given point, it is helpful to identify this consensus. E.g., in an article about the origin of an specific animal, the article would explain that the majority of biologists (or other scholars) have concluded (or believe, or profess, or teach, or publicly hold) that the approximate origin of a certain species was approximately ____ million years ago. In this case, it is unnecessary to explain creationist or religious views of the origin of an animal (views which can be explained on articles about creationist and religious theory) unless it specifically applies to that animal (such as with a cow, the Christian origin would be unnecessary, but if the Hindu origin was that cows were the original rulers of the earth before humans, this would be significant--I doubt Hindus believe that but hopefully you get the point). It also makes it unnecessary to engage in a controversy as to the precise date among scholars (in the case of the evolution of an animal species, precise dates as to the origin of a species would be rare) unless it is necessary to make such a delineation. Although the actual origin of an animal may be contested (any references Wikipedia can use were only written within the past 10,000 years at most), it is highly unlikely that the fact that there is a "majority consensus of scholars" on a topic will be disputed unless there is a significant number of scholars who believe (or profess, teach, etc.) otherwise. In this case it may be important to include this different scholarly viewpoint. If this is done, it may be helpful to include the approximate percentages of scholars who hold such a view (such as: at the US National Council of Biology in May of 2005, a poll of 4000 of the leading biologists was conducted in which 74% of biologists attending professed that the cow and the horse were more closely related by evolution than the horse and the giraffe, 19% professed that the giraffe and horse were more closely related by evolution than the horse and cow, and 7% professed that that all three species were of equal evolutionary distance from one another--this is not the true, but just an example for lack of another right now).
I did an awful job of it (and I would never want this used in its current form!) I will check back later.JBogdan 12:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that a large expose about another policy belongs in this policy. Apart of that, I think that you're right that reference must be made to WP:V. Harald88 21:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Making necessary assumptions

message: I read this phrase in an Wikipedian's essay somewhere (help out if it rings a bell) about the best manifestation of an NPOV tone is one that is dispassionate and not appearing emotionally involved with the subject. Much to my suprise, this point is not really incorporated into the current guideline. (Though it is somewhat alluded to in the line that NPOV is "neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject." and in Karada's Sadam Hussein quote ) All in all the guideline is currently "conflict-driven" in how it presents itself, as if an NPOV tone is only used in articles where there is an inherent conflict between views (ala Abortion). But in practice, I think it is more of a matter of what is an encyclopedic tone--regardless if there is a conflict present. I think the phrase "Dispassionate narrative" conveys this point well and I would like to see it included in the guideline as a way of describing what an encyclopedic, NPOV tone would be. Would there be consensus for this inclusion? Agne 00:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Dispassionate narrative" or "Dispassionate, encyclopedic narrative" communicate the idea of presenting information without emotional heat.  Possibly, in an encyclopedia created purely by scholars the other end of the spectrum would manifest.  That is to say, the thing could be so dry and encyclopedic as to be colorless and uninteresting.  But here, with thousands of editors, that possibility seems remote in the extreme.  Therefore YES ! Terryeo 00:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I don't think we could ever get to the point of being so dry as to be colorless. However, we do tend to swing quite easily to the other end of the spectrum with a lot of emotional writing. I always cringe when I see an article with exclamation points (talk pages excluded, of course :p) or the word "actually" in it. Agne 00:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  LOL ! Terryeo 03:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

text:  Mmmhm. Nobody can truly write an article (not even a whole bunch of scholars!) that is 100% free of emotion. It is not humanly possible. The thing is that any emotionality in the article should not lead to significant biases that would degrade the encyclopedicity (is that a real word?) of it. 70.101.147.224 05:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispassionate narrative 

message: This article is an absolute mess.  It provides no coherent well sourced definition of a Black person and just rambles on and on about various people who were labled Black in different times, places, and languages, and tries to merge them all together as a coherent ethnic group. It would be like trying to merge Native Americans and people from India into a coherent article called Indian people. It makes no sense. We had requested mediation and the mediator said we should use the census as our source. Here's what the U.S. census says:
A Black is “ a person having origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa. It includes people who indicate their race as "Black, African Am., or Negro,"or provide written entries such as African American, Afro American, Kenyan, Nigerian, or Haitian.”  
Black Africa is a synonym of sub-Saharan Africa and all of the non-African groups mentioned (i.e. African-Americans, Haitains) are descendents of the recent African diasporas.  And yet we still have editors insisting that South Asians be given equal weight in the article and be considered Black.  These people provide no cited definitions or census classifications to defend their assertions, instead they cherry pick from different sources in different countries for examples of South Asians being labeled Black, often in different languages.  But by the same logic, I could argue that the Black Irish are Black.  The point is the people editing that article need to be forced to adheare to a coherent sourced authoritative definition of a Black person, or the entire article should just be deleted as POV and unencyclopedic.
Dictionary.com[],  the free dictionary online[].,  the U.S. census[],  and the British census[] all emphasize the idea that Blacks are of African origin-in fact it is against the law for a dark-skinned person of South Asian or Australian origin to claim to be black in the census.  An article by the BBC makes a clear distinction between Blacks and the dark skinned people of South Asian ancestry[].  This article about race in biomedicines says “The entities we call ‘racial groups’ essentially represent individuals united by a common descent — a huge extended family, as evolutionary biologists like to say. Blacks, for example, are a racial group defined by their possessing some degree of recent African ancestry (recent because, after all, everyone of us is out of Africa, the origin of Homo sapiens)."[].  I really need help getting the editors of that article to stick to a coherent definition, instead of just pushing their own POV. Editingoprah 06:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An early subtitled paragraph in the article presented a narrowly used information about black people (other uses) and I cut it out of there and pasted it near the end section of the article where it is more appropriate.  good luck. Terryeo 18:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Desperate help needed at the [[Black people]] article! Please get involved!!

message: What do you all think of the following language borrowed from the Orthodox Wiki? I was thinking it could be modified for Wikipedia's use:
"OrthodoxWiki will be, so far as is reasonably possible, worded from a neutral point of view (NPOV). That is, disputes between Orthodox Christian groups will be characterized and described rather than entered into."--Pravknight 03:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested NPOV language borrowed from sister Wiki

message: In a recent post on Citizendium-l Larry Sanger includes a link to the formulation he had made as of December 21, 2001 . 15:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Views of the Law Giver

message: "Stay away from the article" Guy told me, but that is a violation of some kind of Wikispirit, this is a free encyclopedia and anyone can edit. You can't tell me to stay away. Having said that, a policy project is not an article, and while democracy is wonderful, policy should be accurate, precise and to the point. And so should the editing. If any article in this Wiki needs to be owned, this is it. For better or for worse. 
That doesn't mean I can't propose changes and that is what I am doing. I am nominating a policy change
Let's insert this quote (below) appropriately, and write a new nutshell from it. 
Executive summary 
::Wikipedia has an important policy: roughly stated, you should write articles without bias, representing all views fairly. Wikipedia uses the words "bias" and "neutral" in a special sense! This doesn't mean that it's possible to write an article from just one point of view, the neutral (unbiased, "objective") point of view. That's a common misunderstanding of the Wikipedia policy. :::The Wikipedia policy is that we should fairly represent all sides of a dispute, and not make an article state, imply, or insinuate that any one side is correct. 
Why this? Because I think that it is a very good statement of Wikipolicy as it was first envisioned. It says what somehow has been distilled out of today's version. Maybe it is more clear, ot explicite. There is a message there that, as it points out, is commonly misunderstood. --
And, it follows, I propose that we use this:
:::The Wikipedia policy is that we should fairly represent all sides of a dispute, and not make an article state, imply, or insinuate that any one side is correct.  
in a nutshell.
The original statement ended with this - 
::It's crucial that we work together to make articles unbiased. It's one of the things that makes Wikipedia work so well. Writing unbiased text is an art that requires practice. The following essay explains this policy in depth, and is the result of much discussion. We strongly encourage you to read it. 
----
Comments by Tommysun : I understand this policy as it was stated in the executive statement, and I undertand the mis-understnding of that policy as well, I think it is mis-understanding of this policy that is at the core of edit wars. 
:::The Wikipedia policy is that we should fairly represent all sides of a dispute, and not make an article state, imply, or insinuate that any one side is correct. 
It has gotten that editors want to write what they think is correct. And then there are those who want to correct what they think is incorrect. The article should be correctly edited. But it shouldn';t be the correct article. I think I got it, the data should be correct, but the article shouldn't say that this or that data is more correct.
 
The data should speak for itself. 
Obviously the founding writers knew what they wanted to say, probably spent a great deal of time working it out.  But over time, apparently the wording changed for one reason or the other and look at the problems that resulted. We may think we are saying the right thing but are we?
For example I still think that meaningful is a better word than significant. Opps, the nutshell says all sides. All significant sides? Or all meaningful sides? I can imagine the arguments over what is significant and what is not significant. What is meaningful is not so arguable, Neutral is a better word...
(About protection. Perhaps the policy statement should be protected, And perhaps each policy change must go through the discovery>description?diagnosis>design>implementation stages or some sort of protocol before it is inserted. Edits would be meaningful that way.
Tommy Mandel 06:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed additions to article

message: Does the NPOV policy apply to file names? I’m asking because of :Image:Capitol-tragedy600.jpg, the latest image added to the Wisconsin State Capitol article. It’s illustrating supposed erosion of the state law that limits heights of buildings near the capitol. It would be inappropriate for the article itself to call the effect a tragedy, but is it OK to hide that bias in the name of the image file? --Rob Kennedy 02:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it would. However, since it's rather inconvenient to rename images, I doubt it is enforced often. If you want to save it, reupload it to a more neutral name, and change it that way, you can. --tjstrf 15:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  File names 

message: On Sept 28, someone added to the intro (I think taken from the old nutshell wording) that illustrations must confirm to NPOV. This is tricky. We can ask that there be an overall NPOV balance of illustrations (at least as far as possible), but we can't ask of each separate image that it not be POV, just as we can't ask of each individual sentence that it not be POV. I suggest we leave the image issue out until it's been thought about some more. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The current issue is naming the illustration in a markedly POV way, see above. Fred Bauder 12:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text: --Iantresman 17:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A specific example of how a category can be POV is the effort to place the article Shekhinah in  Category:Goddesses. The question of whether the Shekhinah has ever been regarded as a godess in the Jewish religion (or any other religion) is highly debatable, to put it mildly, and the categorization would appear to take sides on the issue. --Shirahadasha 05:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro

message: Why reliable source instead of reliable source? Tom Harrison Talk 01:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources (and wiki mail) indicates a lot of people don't think it should be a guideline. In particular there is circular thinking that it should be a guideline because policies link to it and policies should link to it because it is a guideline. For now, it should be de-linked and allowed to find its place on its own. When what it is is settled, the linking can be reconsidered. There is growing momentum to delete it altogether; thinking WP:V is fine without it. WAS 4.250 05:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not just a guideline, but a central guideline, despite objections. FeloniousMonk 05:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I've restored it. FeloniousMonk 05:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reliable sources

message: The proposed Attribution policy as it stands only extremely biased sources are considered problematic.  Run-of-the-mill bias is left for NPOV to handle.  While I see sections on avoiding bias in the article, I see nothing explicit about how to handle biased sources.  I have no proposal at the moment, and the point is implicit: find less biased sources if possible, and sources reflecting a competing POV otherwise.  I mention this in case anyone thinks that more detail is needed. Robert A.West (Talk) 22:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Handling biased sources

message: Hi.
With regards to the whole neutral-point-of-view thing, which part is the most debated? It seems that the "undue weight" part recieves a lot of debate. Why? 74.38.32.128 02:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That might be right, it might be that people mistakenly think "neutral" means all points of view should be treated the same.  But if they do, then WP:NPOV is not well written.  The most published point of view should be presented as the most published point of view, and so on. Terryeo 18:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a point of clarification:  There is no reason whatsoever to pay any particular attention to the "most published" point of view if "most published" is based solely on volume.  This distinction needs making because, believe it or not, there are certain editors who have tried straight-faced to claim that if a single entity which promotes a particular POV manages to churn out seventeen zillion copies of various publications devoted to that POV, that sheer volume somehow makes it the "most published" or "most widely published" point of view.  Of course, that would be entirely ludicrous. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It might be worth having the policy point out exactly what is meant by "most published" because certainly volume of sales figures into it.  Elements would include "volume of sales", "quantity of publications created", "age of earliest publication", and "number of languages published in". Terryeo 07:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would not object to having the policy point out exactly what is meant by "most published", because most the elements you suggest that it should include are elements it seems obvious to me it should exclude.  There is no reason whatsoever to pay any particular attention to the point of view published in the most languages; the very suggestion seems ludicrous.  Neither is "quantity of publications created" any sort of meaningful metric in this regard; does my opinion somehow double in importance if I pound out two hundred rambling screeds from my attic typewriter instead of one hundred?  If I translate my argument into more languages than any other publication have I somehow given my argument more importance than any other publication?  "Age of earliest publication" may be of historical interest, but not much else; it certainly has very little to do with the criterion we have been designating as "most published".  The only one remaining is "volume of sales figures" and since it only takes a sufficient amount of money to manipulate that metric we are ill-advised to pay any special heed to that criterion either. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Allow me to point out, for the umpteenth time, that "most published" is irrelevant.  The phrase, and the concept, seems to originate with Terryeo: it appears nowhere in the NPOV policy, past or present, so far as I know.  The actual issue is to determine the relative prominence of published viewpoints.  This is not the same as "most published." BTfromLA 03:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I would take issue with your Scientologists statement because 1. the supposedly "revealed" information was stolen, perhaps portions of it have been deleted, perhaps it has been added to, etc. etc.  and 2. Any "revealed" information I've seen is pretty much full of specialized jargon.  Is it presented as historical fact?  As myth? There is little context and the status of it as being first stolen and then "revealed" gives the average reader little confidence.  It sounds more like critics are attempting to prevent knowledge about Scientology instead of fulfilling our common goal, "an encyclopedia of human knowledge". Terryeo 18:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would take issue with your claim that "the supposedly 'revealed' information was stolen" because you have been asked numerous times to produce some sort of evidence for your assertion and have never come through. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the issue is not whether something is true or not. WP is hopelessly underequipped to determine 'truth', whether current or 'ultimate'. Our modest and hopefully achievable goal is to determine verifiablity of notable items and present them neutrally, with proper weighting if there are multiple conflicting acceptable sources. Crum375 18:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Reading any Encyclopedia, it doesn't limit itself to TRUTHtm, but present information about subjects.  One man says, "Contract Bridge is played by 2 partnerships of 2 players" while another says, "Contract Bridge is a popular game which can be played by 2 and up to 100s of players.  Both of these statements are valid statements but neither statement by itself would be of much use unless supported by further reading and cited statements.  Wikipedia excells, it seems to me, in technical areas but becomes bogged in areas of controversy (such as Scientology and the Palestine subjects). Terryeo 05:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The way I have seen "undue weight" applied is that an unchallenged pack of lies is okay as long as its the majority’s pack of lies.--Ron Marshall 18:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if the majority believe something --pack of lies or no-- it will be an encyclopedic subject and merits coverage. As I've pointed out a few times, Wikipedia in the middle ages would give detailed coverage of how the earth was flat, and only minimal coverage of dissenting views such as its possible roundness. --tjstrf 18:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia in the middle ages would have quoted the experts such as Aristotle who taught the world was spherical, and presented empirical evidence to verify this, noting that the Earth's shadow during an eclipse is curved, and also that stars increase in height as one moves north. WAS 4.250 18:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  Were you able to get the majority to cite and reference their pack of lies ?  If not, what was the stop in getting Wikipedia's WP:V applied in that situation ? Terryeo 18:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  As a general note, 'Lies', just like 'truth' is a subjective assessment, as the 'ultimate' truth is a philosophical concept that is beyond our target as an Encyclopedia. Our goal is to present 'human knowledge'. We define that as the verifiable and notable published information that is available to us, presented in a neutral manner. When there are conflicting sources, we present them according to their prevalence, and may discard the extreme fringes if their proponents are in a tiny minority (e.g. a bunch of guys in a bar). In issues that are non-scientifically provable (aka non-falsifiable), we prefer to call opposing views opinions, as that is more civil than 'lies'. Crum375 18:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well stated, Crum.  Now if we can get that communicated to 99 % of the editors so they understand it that way and don't understand it any other way, we will have accomplished something ! Terryeo 01:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My words above are obviously merely a quickie summary of the essential WP mission and rules. My own impression is that a majority of editors here, especially the more experienced ones, and virtually all admins, are well aware of these rules and do a reasonable effort to abide by them. Crum375 01:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is true.  And in my experience the majority of people asserting that the dominant majority view is a "pack of lies" turn out, on closer inspection, to be conspiracy theorists of one sort or another.  As do a fair number of those seeking to weaken the undue weight clause.  Funny, that.  Guy 10:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me that censorship is inconsistent with NPOV, openness, and publishing articles that are presented as an accurate and fair representation of knowledge. This is particularly true of science articles. Undue weight can become a code word for unjustified censorship. I think there is a truth in packaging issue here. If articles are censored they should be presented as such. A statement of what was censored and the reason for censorship should be placed in the article. The justification for censorship should exist in the talk page as long as the censorship exists. In other words let the public know what is really going on and let the public judge if the censorship is merited. Another approach is to not publish articles on controversial subjects if Wikipedia is not going to create a set of rules that prevent unjustified censorship. Either of the approaches would be more truthful than what we have now.--Ron Marshall 16:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We already don't allow censorship. It's right there in WP:NOT. However, simply because we do not allow censorship does not mean we will write detailed treatises on fringe viewpoints, that would also be a violation of neutrality. --tjstrf Now on editor review! 17:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is something I still haven't yet understood. How is an article devoted to some "fringe" (whatever the frigg that means) viewpoint intrinsically biased? To me this sounds like we are treading into notability, perhaps adding more weight to the argument for that to be promoted up to official policy on the level of this (neutral point-of-view), verifiability, no original research, etc. as this seems to suggest a key relationship. 70.101.144.160 07:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: In general, difficulties manifest on discussion pages, Tommy.  If an article's discussion page becomes impossible, it usually migrates to one of the guideline or policy pages.  So the task is to write policy and guideline so it can be understood, and so it would be hard to NOT understand it.  The "rules" are "don't revert an edit 3 times in 24 hours", be civil, discuss contentious edits instead of just poking it in there and not discussing.  Blocks and warnings are used for those who don't abide by common civility. Terryeo 02:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: More correctly, it should migrate to the village pump, not the policy pages themselves. But what can you do? I mean other than tell the editors not to ask us for specific content dispute judgment on policy pages, because we already do that and it doesn't work. --tjstrf 02:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  One thing that might work would be to have a prepared channel for editing situations where two strongly held POVs have done all they can and need some disinterested, third parties to involve themselves.  One example of that is here which worked out well because one of the editors came to the policy page and requested some help.  The present, "Request for Comment" takes a fair amount of reading, preparation and is more formal.  Whereas a page designated for an editor to simply yell "help, I'm out of fishing line here", would be more simple and more direct. Terryeo 07:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: '''Bold text''' Most debated point? 

message: It should also not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one.
Well, up to a point, Lord Copper.  If there is a consensus view in the scientific community in respect of a particular scientific subject, with no significant dissent, then that view is, essentially, objectively correct.  The fact that some people believe the earth is flat does not make it any less a fact that it is not, and the fact that some people believe that the moon landings were faked does not downgrade the moon landings to being a theory rather than a fact.  But this clause is being used to argue for crank theories to be allowed to stand alongside what is, to all intents and purposes, established fact. Guy 10:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It must be emphasized that the determination of what is a concensus/mainstream view necessarily comes from the field, and not as a result of a synthesis by the editor in which case it would violat NO OR. 
Tommy Mandel 03:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  It should also not be asserted that... 

message: How is this sentence to be put into practise?
This applies to all content, including illustrations, maps, reader-facing templates, categories, and portals.
How can categories be NPOV? For example, if someone is placed in :Category:Anti-Semitic people (a category I think shouldn't exist, by the way), which for the sake of argument represents the majority published view about them, must we also have a category for the significant minority published view that they're not? And with illustratoins: do we mean that each illustration must be NPOV, or that overall the balance of illustrations must be? And how does it work with maps and templates? SlimVirgin (talk) 08:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, one example is the category "pseudoscience".  Scientology and Dianetics both get that catagory placed and reverted out, placed and reverted out. Another example is that a group of critical editors have manged to create their POV in a widely viewed article.  Xenu at Template:ScientologySeries is placed as a part of Scientology doctrine, while in actuality it is no part of doctrine and has no source of information that even implies that it is a part of doctrine except one gesture in one court case. Terryeo 04:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. Interesting point about the Anti-Semite category. How does someone get voted in. Is it because they themselves acknowledge that they "hate Jews" or something of the sort. Or is it because someone else is calling them anti-semitic. The first one is arguably NPOV, the second is not but is blatently POV. I agree with you about getting rid of the category, categories that lean toward subjective name-calling and stereotyping to not need to exist. Re calling Scn and Dn "pseudoscience"; perhaps you could make a case for Dianetics, though I consider it more protoscience and many of the core ideas are finding their way into more mainstream therapies, but Scientology is "an applied religious philosophy" and is not held to any limited viewpoint of what is "science" but deals in the umeasurable and is beyond the realm of science, at least as science finds itself defined in our modern era. --Justanother 05:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry, Terryeo, but since that example depends on premises that aren't true in our universe (" is no part of doctrine and has no source of information that even implies that it is a part of doctrine except one gesture in one court case") it's actually an extremely poor example. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh. I see.  You have addressed me.  You have told me that my communication to Slim is not a valid communication.  I see.  Why don't you respond to the discussion on the page, the question asked?  Then, if you wish to make a comment to me, use my user discussion page, please? Terryeo 01:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro again

message: Neutral point of view means that you include different point of views, but just in different sections, and in neutral language right?  Danke.100110100 11:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It does mean both neutral language and different points of view.  Often one point of view will be so different from another point of view that it makes good sense to present them in different sections.  In general, the most widely published point of view is presented as being most widely known. Terryeo 16:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Include different points of view?  Yes.  In neutral language?  Yes.   In different sections?  No, this is actually strongly discouraged.  The idea of "neutral point of view" is that you cover point A in NPOV fashion, and covering point A in NPOV fashion means looking at one camp's position on it, the other camp's position, the interesting minority position on that point, and the evidence to those positions.  Then you cover point B, point C, point D, et cetera, in similar fashion.  Devoting different sections to cover different POVs on the same points separately leads to almost all the same problems that would come from devoting different articles to cover different POVs on the same subject separately, a practice that Wikipedia expressly prohibits. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It greatly depends on an individual article.  Some articles might not have Points A, B, and C, while other aticles have quite a number of subsections.  In any event, neutral language is preferred over biased terms as much as possible in order to not color the article toward one point of view.  The idea being to communicate to the reader a particular point of view so the reader can understand it and explore it further if he wishes to.  Similarly with all the other points of view as well.  In this manner a reader can aquire the knowledge that he wishes without us editors "selling" him on our own, particular opinion. Terryeo 17:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV=? 

message: User Feldspar suggests he wouldn't mind the article pointing out what exactly is meant by "most published" and I find myself in agreement about that point. His points include:
* There is no reason whatsoever to pay any particular attention to the point of view published in the most languages.
* Neither is "quantity of publications created" any sort of meaningful metric.
* Age of earliest publication" may be of historical interest, but not much else.
* leaving "volume of sales figures" and since it only takes a sufficient amount of money to manipulate that metric we are ill-advised to pay any special heed to that criterion.
So what is our criteria for "most published" and "least published?"  That list seems to eliminate every element and the policy doesn't spell it out. Terryeo 08:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you should also take into account the objections raised by BTfromLA and tell us exactly where in policy you find the phrases "most published" and "least published". -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, but your edit summary claimed you were posting a "response to User:Feldspar's question".  How can that be, when my question was "exactly where in policy you find the phrases 'most published' and 'least published'" and you still have not told us anywhere you find those phrases? -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I begin this, posting about how our policies and guidelines apply to all the articles and uses a portion of the policy which singles out a selected group of articles, implying that the area, somehow, in some "special way", treat that area differently.  I expressed my reasons why that would be inappropriate.  In so doing I used the phrase, "most published" and used the phrase, "least published.  I have responded to your question. Terryeo 01:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, actually, you didn't.  The question was not "where in the writings of Terryeo do we find the phrases 'most published' and 'least published'?"  The question was "where in policy you find the phrases 'most published' and 'least published'". -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For reasons upon which readers are invited to speculate, Terryeo nominates "most published" as a replacement for the terms that actually appear in the policy--"significant," "important," "prominent."  "Most published" is way off track, and does nothing but introduce distraction and confusion.  To the extent there is a real question here, I think it is this: viewpoints that are significant, important or prominent among whom (and by what measure)?  Terryeo's pressrun = prominence argument seems to imply that viewpoints should be reflected according to their popularity within the public-at-large (as represented by the book-buying public, in Terryeo's case, which makes no sense at all--for one thing, buying a book hardly announces that you accept what it says as true).  This approach would seem inconsistent with the idea of an authoratative encyclopedia: if 25% of the public believes that you catch venereal disease from toilet seats, should 25% of the Venereal disease article be devoted to neutrally expounding the toilet transmission theory?  In that case, I think the ideas about disease transmission by medical experts would be the significant ones for Wikipedia, and folk beliefs that are known to be false would be deserving of little credence.  If that example is true, then the answer to the above question would be something like "significant in the eyes of recognized authorities in the field."  As with most applications of policy, the answer will necessarily vary from context to context, I suspect--some topics lack recognized authorities, and basically it'll be up to editors to determine where the most authoratative discourse is taking place on their particular topic.  I have to believe that this question has been hashed out before... is there a clear consensus about the voice of Wikipedia refelecting expert opinion as opposed to vox populi?  BTfromLA 05:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I talk about apples and you talk about oranges.  My statements are not in the area which you address.  In addition, there is an overtone of criticality, of asperity in your post which is unnecessary. Terryeo 08:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. He's talking sense, and you're not. You still haven't answered the question. yandman 09:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you for a flaming opionion, heh.  But you didn't comment about either the issue being discussed, nor did you attempt to smooth the criticality or find a common middle ground to further the discussion. Terryeo 11:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I would think that you would start with an introduction that states what something claims to be; or, better, what it could be argued to be by a rational supporter; and also introduces the controversy. Then the main section on what something itself claims to be or could be argued to be by a rational supporter in an NPOV tone and followed by the sections on controversy in an NPOV tone. Not hard and fast rule but just the idea of first say what it is then the controversy. I really don't think any of these "most"s really matter. It helps to look at some examples that are perhaps out of our range of interest. Take a look at Holocaust denial AKA Holocaust revisionism. That starts out with quite an long NPOV recital of what term to use and what the main arguments are. You are well into the article before serious criticism starts. It does not matter that Holocaust denial is not the "most" anything. The point is that the article is about Holocaust denial and it get first lick. --Justanother 20:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless I'm mistaken, the notion that Justanother proposes--that controversial topics be sympathetically presented before criticism and controversy is introduced, has been considered and decisively rejected.  It is sufficiently settled that an alternative to Wikipedia (Wikiinfo.com) sprung up which allows full and seperate expression of both sympahetic and critical views, without attempting to integrate them into a single article.  In other words, while individual articles may end up structured as Justanother proposes, WP policy favors a "neutral" presentation of controversial subjects as controversial subjects.  But this seems to wander away from the question of how we determines which are the prominent, important views, and in what proportion they should be represented.  BTfromLA 23:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most Published 

message: The topic of "what is NPOV as regards religion" is one that bears separate treatment so I will start a new topic on it. For now consider this; science is a limited subset of what I, if not wikipedia, would consider the most broad definition of philosophy, as is religion; see Philosophy of science and Philosophy of religion. They are on different forks, science dealing with the objective and measurable, and religion dealing with the subjective and unmeasurable. To "stand" on the science fork and evaluate religion is inappropriate, it amounts to practicing Scientism, elevating science to something I think most scientists and philosophers would say that it is not. Most of the world's population believe in the existence of a spiritual world beyond that we can see. That is the "most" everything; most believed, most published, etc. We need to ask ourself how can the spiritual beliefs of a religion be "controversial" (as opposed to the actions of the believers, which can be controversial). All religions have "outrageous" ideas; I know of one that believes that a bit of wine and bread placed in your mouth magically transforms into the actual blood and body of their savior. Another one, well you can go from there. Funny thing is that I just looked for the "Scientific criticism of transubstantiation" and it is all red. There is no criticism. But "we all know" that transubstantiation "doesn't really take place" because there is no scientific evidence that it does and, in fact, science would call it impossible (I am of course mimicking the atheistic and/or Scientism-laced viewpoint that we sometimes see). So why does transubstantiation get such nice treatment and Scientology "space opera" (of which Xenu is but a small part) is held up to scorn? Because the only fundamental difference I see is that Scientology, at least as regards the OT Levels, a mystery religion. There is no real difference in the "weirdness" of the beliefs or in the "unscientificness" of the claims. Yes, at times science and religion do go at it, as in creation-evolution controversy, but that is, IMO, more the exception than the rule; usually science and religion maintain their separation and limit themselves to their respective spheres. But what do we do about the treatment of transubstantiation vs. that of Scientology. Why the disparity? Here is my point. The religious beliefs of others only look weird, IMO, to those that believe that all religions are a crock (atheists and the Scientism folk, whether they know what they espouse or not) and to those that think that their brand of religion is the only one that makes sense. Neither of those viewpoints are NPOV, neither of them are befitting of wikipedia, IMO. The former is very much a minority viewpoint on this planet and would limit man and the human experience to that which can be measured with a scientific instrument. The latter may be a much more prevalent view on this planet but it is, by definition, POV. So what is the proper NPOV viewpoint? I would like to hear from others on this. --Justanother 22:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When a religion -- or, indeed, when any entity -- makes claims which are testable on a scientific basis, they should not be very surprised when those claims get tested, nor when the coverage of the results of such testing makes it to Wikipedia.  Especially when that entity claims to be a "precision science" (" is today the only validated psychotherapy in the world... Scientology is a precision science...the first precision science in the field of the humanities... The first science to put the cost of psychotherapy within the range of any person's pocketbook... The first science to contain the exact technology to routinely alleviate physical illness with predictable success" (The Hubbard Information Letter of April 14, 1962)) then it cannot very well assert that it should be immune from scientific examination as a "mystery religion". -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

text: It is worth noting that Catholics do not claim that a scientific test of the composition of a communion wafer that had been sanctified by the Mass would actually show that it was physically human flesh.  That would be absurd.  The way in which the host is transformed into the body of Jesus is not meant to be a chemical transformation of the sort that science could measure, even if it is envisioned as a physical transformation.  Catholicism has been fairly careful, for at least the past half century or so, to make clear that the faith is not in conflict with modern science.  When Christians do try to make claims that are explicitly at variance with modern scientific judgment, as for instance Young Earth Creationism, wikipedia calls them out just as much as it does the Scientologists.  But transubstantiation isn't really like that, because I would doubt there is a Catholic in the world who would actually expect that a scientific test would demonstrate that the communion wafer and wine had been transformed into human flesh and blood.  john k 04:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have frequently seen Hubbard's statements about precision, about repeatable results, dismissed because no one could reproduce them.  And this is still the situation today.  No group of researchers are willing to apply auditing procedures with sufficient precision.  A very exact and specific method of communication is required which must be drilled, throughly drilled, first.  Certain questions must be asked in certain sequences.  The procedures are very exact but because they are very exact they only get results if all of the preceeding actions are learned exactly too.  Yeah, anyone could.  But it would take them months of study.  Terryeo 08:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is exactly the issue.  Scientologists are making empirical claims about their religion that should, at least theoretically, be testable in the real world.  If you learn the methods, says Terryeo and his co-religionists, you can reproduce the results, and they work in an empirical, testable way.  Catholics do not say that true scientific tests would prove that the communion wine has been transformed into blood - they say that it is a mystery, and that science holds no sway in that arena, because it's not asking the right kind of questions.  This is a completely different way of looking at the world than scientologists have, and we shouldn't equate the two. john k 15:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is NPOV as regards religion?