Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Archive 023

message: Policy page says:
:We sometimes give an alternative formulation of the non-bias policy: assert facts, including facts about opinions — but don't assert opinions themselves. There is a difference between facts and opinions. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute".
In the vast topic of the Theory of Evolution, there is a "serious dispute" (in America anyway) over the fossil record. About 45% of Americans are Creationists who believe all forms of life originated around 10,000 years age. This has got to be the biggest rejection of a scientific finding that I've ever seen. But the question is how to describe this dispute according to NPOV. 
Among scientists, there is no dispute whatsoever. All biologists, geologists, physicists, etc. accept the premise of carbon dating, which legitimates the fossil record. In other words, fossils show the shape of dead animals and tell us when they died.
Among laymen, there is certainly a serious dispute. We should describe this dispute, and explain why so many laymen disagree with the scientific finding. Do they disagree with the science of this matter, or do they simply exalt religious dogma over science? And should we describe support of the fossil record POV as "scientific" and rejection as "pseudoscientific" or simply as "majority" vs. "minority" views (among laymen, that is)? --Wing Nut 14:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest you take this to Creation-evolution controversy, where it has been discussed a thousand times in the past. To summarize here, though: Asserting facts about opinions and taking popular opinion into account makes sense when discussing opinions (as in our article on the Creation-evolution controversy, for instance). Discussing opinions, is, however, only a small portion of what an encyclopedia does; we also have to have accurate articles. This means that, per WP:V, we must always use the most reputable sources we can, and rely on expert opinions whenever they are available. Since Evolution is a scientific concept, the vast majority of the weight on its page must be given to experts on science; and all the relevent scientifically reputable sources, without exception, accept Evolution. Therefore our article on Evolution must reflect this. A paragraph near the end mentioning the social controversy it causes makes sense, of course, but going beyond that and giving unscientific sources any meaningful weight in an article on science would be inapproprate. --Aquillion 16:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or take it to talk.origins TalkOrigins, either way, this isn't the place. FeloniousMonk 16:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Note that Wikipedia is for the entire world, so when determining the proportionality of viewpoints under Undue weight, one must do so within the context of the world population.  Note that there's also a third possible reason for why laymen reject evolution:  they have been propagandized and are unaware of evolution's overwhelming acceptance among scientists.  Remember, here in America, the public is being told the lie that scientists - not laymen - are divided over evolution.  It stands to reason that if these American laymen were aware that the overwhelming scientific majority supports evolution, they would do likewise.  This does not require any assumption that these people are deliberately rejecting science or deliberately preferring dogma.  Perhaps they prefer science, but have been lied to about what scientists support, and what science is.  Kasreyn 23:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Can depend on context

message: This may sound like a silly question, but I am serious.  Is it "a NPOV article", or "an NPOV article"?  On the one hand, "NPOV" begins with a consonant, but on the other, it begins with the sound "enn".  What do people think? --David Mestel(Talk) 19:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "An" is always used before a vowel sound, not depending on it being a vowel letter. It is also often used in front of "h" whether or not there some pronunciations would have a vowel sound there. —Centrx→talk • 20:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, of course.  Thankyou.  I think that the reason some people say "an hotel" is from a time when it was common for people to drop their aitches. --David Mestel(Talk) 06:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends, do you think of the abbreviation as if it were pronounced (En-Pov, En-Pee-Oh-Vee) or do you read it as Neutral Point of View? Personally, I would refer to an article meeting NPOV criteria as an "NPOV'd article", or the policy itself as the NPOV policy. --tjstrf 07:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indefinite article 

message: See: 
Article headers can often be NPOVed comparatively easily, while it can sometimes take months to NPOV an entire article.  When agreement on the header does occur, it seems to have utility for readers to know the header is not disputed.  Any thoughts on Template:POV-body being placed after introductions, above articles' table of contents (meaning it still must be read before readers can reach the TOC)? --Nectar 08:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't we have already ? ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 15:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal: Template:POV-body 

message: I've changed "British" to "European Anglophone", as I think it is more accurate, and encompasses not only English, Welsh, Scottish, and British, but also Irish. - FrancisTyers · 13:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this an improvement? How many Englishmen deny that Britain is part of Europe? And some Continental anglophones speak American. Septentrionalis 16:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: British

message: In case anyone else out there sometimes entertains questions and doubts about the concept of NPOV, which underlies many of the assumptions used by many wikipedians, here are some links to debates about NPOV and Wikipedia.
1. "In the continuing debate on the merits & problems of Wikipedia, David Shariatmadari writes in openDemocracy of a group project to fix the imbalance in its coverage reflecting "the concerns of your average white, male, 'technically inclined', developed world 20-40 year old": "Wikiproject: Countering Systemic Bias" http:// *** tinyurl.com/n9wu3 (Note: I added "***" since tinyurl is on Wiki-spam list. Sorry.)
2. "Robert McHenry, former editor-in-chief of Encyclopedia Britannica, counters that the real problem with Wikipedia is that it lacks planning & "a clear vision of what the goal is: http:// *** tinyurl.com/lnlef" (Note: I added "***" since tinyurl is on Wiki-spam list. Sorry.)
3. "Jaron Lanier writes critically of online collectivism in general & Wikipedia in particular in "Digital Maoism: The Hazards of the New Online Collectivism" [1] ,
4. "This triggered responses from various renowned digerati including Esther Dyson & Howard Rheingold [2] "
5. "Robert Y. Eng, Prof. of History/Dept. Chair, Univ. of Redlands Annotated Directory of Net Resources on E & SE Asia: [3]"
6. Roy Rosenzweig, "Can History be Open Source? Wikipedia and the Future of the Past" http://chnm.gmu.edu/resources/essays/d/42 (This article was originally published in The Journal of American History Volume 93, Number 1 (June, 2006): 117-46.
My point with all this is to simply introduce a process of discussion and debate that would be impossible to raise were we only to think within the assumptions of NPOV. Such discussions are meant to make Wikipedia a more informed, self-conscious, and intelligent area. The members of Wikipedia's production of knowledge are all members of specific cultures, geographic locations, historical times, genders, class, and race. All these, and more, affect the knowledge being produced in Wikipedia, and we would all be better of to recognize these affects rather than hiding them by waving the false flag of NPOV.
Wikipedia and many of its members contend that a neutral point of view (NPOV) is both desireable and possible. This contention guides most of the contributors and writers in Wikipedia. But not everyone currently participating in Wikipedia agrees with these fundamental assumptions.
For many people, the concept of NPOV is impossible and undesirable. The reasons underlying their position are many and varied. For some, NPOV is a myth that deludes both writers and readers. "No NPOV" thinkers may argue that it is better to state a point of view and be responsible for it rather than seeking to gain some sort of "objective" consensus which is destined to change later on. As an example, it has been argued that beauty is neither universal nor objective. Therefore, trying to impose, or at least create, a unified meaning for beauty is a hopeless task. Beauty does not derive from the object, but from the viewer. Thus, the number interpretations on what is beautiful depends on the number of viewers. To hold to the view that a "neutral" standard for beauty exists is seen as mistaken, and, such a standard would possibily inhibit the many voices and definitions that fall outside such a standard.
Certain issues (justice, beauty, criminality, among many others), states "No NPOV", need direct reference to individual and group contexts. Markers such as national identity, gender, age, geography, religion, etc. mean "neutrality" is never more than a localized, temporary consensus, and is not a universal and permanent form of knowlege. Meaning does not derive from an object, meaning is subjectively assigned to objects by people.
As stated by John Berger in Ways of Seeing, "out of true with the present…assumptions obscure the past. They mystify rather than clarify. The past is never there, waiting to be discovered, to be recognized for exactly what it is." The "No NPOV" view is that history is, however, waiting to be constructed for what people want it to be.
[edit]
The "No NPOV" arguments raise direct concerns for the level and style of discourse and definition of "what is acceptable" with Wikipedia. For Wikipedians, and other people, who contend that people who adhere to No NPOV should think about removing themselves from Wikipedia since they do not share its "highest ideal," a contradiction appears. Wikipedia seems to justify its existance partly through the argument that a person need to agree any group's "highest ideal" inorder to speak. Wikipedians have often stated that the purpose of Wikipedia is to invite discussions. The asking for the departure of "No NPOV" adherents directly undermines that ideal.
[edit]
Inherent problems in arriving at a NPOV
NPOV, takes as one of its premises that "neutral" means no side of an argument is omitted and all may be included. "No NPOV" questions such a stand by asking questions such as these: Who is to say when all arguments have been included? And if even one argument is excluded, is it still NPOV? How is everyone to decide what is to be included and what is to be excluded? Is not the very act of deciding the criteria for inclusion/exclusion "non-neutral"? How does a group go aboout deciding whether "neutrality" has been achieved and once achieved would future changes risk be "un-neutral"?? Are such decisions made using a simple majority? What if the majority states one article is NPOV one day, but either the group in the majority or the views of the same majority, shift?
For example, if the majority of a population were to democratically decide that the earth is flat, are "the world is round" arguments to be excluded since they are considered to be far fetched?
NPOV also seems to contend that the goal of each article is not to reflect a particular point of view on the topic, but to include various facts and opinions without showing bias towards or against any of them. "No NPOV" questions whether this is always possible. When mutually exclusive views are housed within the same "argument" the argument runs the risk of becoming self-contraditory. Or, the article may turn into little more than a collection of mutually contradicting assertions that generate more confusion than it does understanding.
As one example, some historians contend that on June 25, 1950, North Korean armed forces invaded South Korea, thereby begining between two separate nations a war intended to spread global communism. Yet, other historians (especially those in North Korea) may argue that the June 25, 1950 was an only extension of conflicts that had been going on for years earlier, that the war was a civil war between two domestic rivals in the same nation, and that UN forces were the foreign invaders who illegally sent troops into the Korean peninsula.
One example that already exists in Wikipedia is the discussion page for Dokdo. How is a single, coherent argument to emerge from there?
When multiple mutually-exclusive points of view are housed within the same article and no "resolution" is allowed, says the "No NPOV", then readers may very well be unable to acheive an understanding of the issues involved.
Moreover, No NPOV argues that the real process in Wikipedia is not simply about inclusion. It is equally (or more) about exclusion. "No NPOV" states this so as to bring attention to an important part of the process of debate within Wikipedia and to help foster even more careful discussions among members. No NPOV fully supports open debate and the exchange of views so as to enable members to participate, learn, teach, and change. Stated simply, "No NPOV" is less concerned with answers than it is with the process of questioning. Hongkyongnae 02:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is well said, and I agree with it. I think that the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ addresses this to a certain extent. If this response (that "neutral" is not a philosophical stance but a simple linguistic prescription) is not convincing to the majority of people who believe No NPOV, then I think the word "newcomers" should be removed from the "common objections and clarifications" section. (Anecdotally, I first read this section and agreed with it, then read the FAQ and felt that it was sufficiently addressed. But I am certain that there are some who hold No NPOV who would feel that the FAQ was invalid, for instance a strategic retreat not really reflected in the general NPOV righteousness here. I think that if there are such people who maintain a principled objection yet may continue to work with Wikipedia, the word "newcomers" violates NPOV by casting them as outsiders.) --Homunq 11:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Just say no to NPOV

message: At WP:RS discussions, I'm afraid a problem has risen which examplifies the foundational misunderstanding that editors come away from this policy with.  NPOV states that published information will be used to present a neutral point of view to the reader.  There are two definitions of "publish" being kicked about at Reliable Sources, these conflicting points of view have been the source of many editing difficulties.
*one understanding of "publish" is that the word, used here in NPOV means, "published to a public" (any distributed information to any group of persons, private OR public). This is represented by User:Fahrenheit451 (and others).
* the other understanding of "publish" is that the word used here in NPOV means, "published to the public" (distributed to the broad, general public without regard to race, creed, job, membership or any other paramenter but being able to, possibly, pay for the information).  I am in this group.  The discussion has gone on for some time.  It has created a clog in the normal flow of things which the discussion of WP:RS normally handles.  As a possible solution, what do editors here think of including a clarification of "publish" in NPOV which NPOV means, to clarify its statements ? Terryeo 03:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV as represented by 2 definitions of "published information" 

message: Wikipedia:Content forking says:
*Sometimes, when an article gets long, a section of the article is made into its own article, and the handling of the subject in the main article is condensed to a brief summary.  This is completely normal Wikipedia procedure; the new article is sometimes called a "spinout" or "spinoff" of the main article, see for example wikipedia:summary style, which explains the technique.
*Even if the subject of the new article is controversial, this does not automatically make the new article a POV fork.  However, the moved material must be replaced with an NPOV summary of that material.  If it is not, then the "spinning out" is really a clear act of POV forking:  a new article has been created so that the main article can favor some viewpoints over others.
*Summary style articles, with sub-articles giving greater detail, are not content forking, provided that all the sub-articles, and the summary conform to Neutral Point of View.
FM and I have been having a months-long disagreement over what constitutes a POV fork and whether either he or I have ever tried to make one. I say that splitting off a controversial aspect into an article of its own is not necessarily a POV fork, provided that both (1) the new article on the subtopic is neutral and (2) the parent article is given a neutral summary of the subtopic. 
I'm not sure what FM's position on this is, but he has repeatedly accused me of "creating POV forks" (which would be against the policy I support!) but never explains how any of these 'forks' ever violated NPOV. --Uncle Ed 21:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about climate cycle as an example, then? William M. Connolley 21:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

text: There's been no shortage of explanations, only a shortage of listening. FeloniousMonk 21:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Summary articles, that is, articles that have been split of a main article due to article's size, are not POV forks if the main article contains a good summary of the split one. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 15:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why does an article have to have a summary of a sub article, according to you? Many articles that I helped with, contain jsut sentences with links to the subjects; that's more efficient than to do the same work double. Harald88 18:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Not all subarticles are POV forks