Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Archive 011

message: Significant changes need to be proposed on the talk page and a consensus formed for them before they're included.  · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 18:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The proposal is quite simple: Remove the section entitled "Why should Wikipedia be unbiased?". The section is almost 100% repetition of what has been said in section 2: The neutral point of view, and some other sections also. Do you really need me to show you how the page would look without the section? I have tried to abbreviate it, but my efforts are being ignored with no comments just reversions. Bensaccount 18:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is one of our core policies.  I don't see what it hurts to have a section that retierates what's already been said -- (tell me, then show me, then tell me again).  Is there any consensus for your desire to remove the section? · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 18:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Saying the same thing twice in slightly different wording is detrimental because it allows for slight differences to start appearing without being noticed. These lead to parallel policies on the same page depending on which repetition is being cited as the policy. The consensus stands at what I proposed since nobody has given a good reason to keep this. Bensaccount 18:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not the way consensus works. For instance, I have said I oppose what you're doing.  Looking through the edit history, obviously others do as well.  That means there is a de facto consensus against what you're seeking to do.  So, please quit.  We can discuss this, but stop deleting the material for now, please. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 18:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

text: There is no consensus to keep section 4 it either. I am not aware of any policy that says there must be a consensus for each edit. There is at the least three editors that have the same complaints about section 4. The only reason why I do not remove it is that I am more interested in improving our common understanding of the policy than to change the main page because whatever is achieved at the level of our understanding is much more important, fundamental, stable, etc. than what happens in the main page. However, it is also necessary to modify the main page and I don't see that we can blame Bensaccount for trying. --Lumiere 18:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If someone disputes an edit, then consensusbuilding begins. That is fundamental to how Wikipedia works. Obviously, if noone disputes an edit, then there's no need for consensus on that edit. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 18:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is there so much reverting going on on this page? 

message: Messing around with the key policy of Wikipedia like this is blatant disruption. I've blocked Bensaccount for 48 hours and locked the page. If an admin disagrees hugely, go ahead and you try childminding him. In the meantime, experienced admins are invited to try to bring the page back to something that people do actually accept as policy  - David Gerard 18:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reverted the page to the last edit made by an administrator prior to when Bensaccount began editing this page: November 17 diff. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 18:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Did you consider politely asking him to edit a draft version instead of blocking him? Did you consider it might be the case that this policy really needs work and maybe even a complete rewrite?. And no, NPOV it is not "sacred" nor a "taboo issue" nor a "dogma". It's a commnunity policy, not an ideology. Please reconsider your actions.--84.228.107.148 21:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, yeah. Sue me - David Gerard 21:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

text: 84*, I already asked Bensaccount to edit a separate draft and he blew me off. Yes, it's a community policy. You should not be surprised that the community will protect its founding policy from a couple of users who do not represent the community.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 11:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I presume sensible admins with a clue can edit it as makes sense in the light of their experience, which would include you - David Gerard 21:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Locked

message: :Naturally, Wikipedians themselves do have their own points of view. Wikipedia is a thoughtful and loving community in which everyone is welcome to contribute: Wikipedians aspire to treat their own opinions as being no more and no less valid compared with those of everyone else.
This paragraph was reverted back by some admins as a part of an unilateral revert that might even most likely have destroyed useful edits. In any case, I think it needs to be corrected:
:Naturally, Wikipedians themselves, including the admins, do have their own points of view. Wikipedia is NOT a thoughtful and loving community in which everyone is welcome to contribute: Wikipedians, aspire to treat their own opinions as being no more and no less valid compared with those of everyone else, but the difficulty is some admins fail to fulfil this desire for higher achievements.  
--Lumiere 19:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I own up to responsibility for putting the above paragraph in the policy. I was inspired by the recent dispute over Userboxes and Jimbo's pronouncements on the matter. However your rewrite seems to be just an attack on the Admins. With 800 or so admins, there are bound to be some who occasionally fail to live up to the high ideals of Wikipedia. An admin has no privilege over other users when it comes to content disputes. David | Talk 21:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I was careful to only refer to some admins in my new version, which of course was not a genuine proposal.  Sometimes one needs to react to the attitude of some. I understand that it can make some innocent people feel uncomfortable. The goal was only to point out that the specific behavior that can be seen in this talk page did not achieve this ideal standard. --Lumiere 22:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedians maybe, but not some admins 

message: I think I found a funny way to explain where is the problem with the NPOV policy. The problem is that it looks like the NPOV policy have been applied to itself: it contains different formulations that are like different viewpoints on it. Perhaps we should push this situation to the extreme and have statements such as "Bensaccount says that the policy is ...  Others such as Harald88 say..."  That will be a policy with a neutral point of view! The readers will be able to judge for themselve! --Lumiere 02:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the policy needs to be (a) defined better (b)enforced. It would help sort out so many content disputes.  I find that I am having the same kinds of disputes over and over again, because people disagree on how Neutral point of view should be interpretted.  If the policy was better defined, editors could demonstrate whether an contributor was contravening the policy. --Iantresman 15:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Partially just for fun, but not entirely