Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Archive 015

message: Please stop all these proposals for reform. The neutral point of view policy is a fundamental policy of Wikipedia. Yes, it is reasonable for newcomers to Wikipedia to have questions about it, and it is also fair to say that the comments on the project page are not as good as they could be in explaining to newcomers what the policy is, but that does not make it reasonable for you to make fundamental changes to it. Lumiere, Anon 84 and Sonny jim are all inexperienced editors (in some cases having no real experience of editing outside of this page). It is right for you to be curious, and good that you are willing to help to improve things - but changing the wording of our foremost content policy is not a good idea for newcomers. Please create content - write on subjects that interest you - and once you've gained experience of how we work, then by all means consider how you can improve the wording of our policies.
I have archived all the previous discussions - please leave them there. Try out our articles. Improve them. Write new ones of your own. Enjoy Wikipedia! jguk 18:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that there are proposals for reform, but for clarification; and that can't be a bad thing. If a fundamental policy is misunderstood by newcomers, then it definitely needs clarification. --Iantresman 20:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

text: That's a good one! --Lumière 18:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sonny Jim news/poll 18:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I suggest that User:Jguk's advice on this subject should be taken to heart.  Jkelly 20:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I suggest that people also take to heart that we are sincerely interested in Wikipedia. As we explained above, it came to be a natural first step that we first clarify the policies. Jguk's advice basically means that we will not be able to work on Wikipedia, not by resentments or anything like that, but just because we sincerely do not see how we can work on the type of articles that interest us if the policies aren't clear enough. --Lumière 21:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Please stop all these proposals for reform

message: I went through the diff (actually, various sectional diffs, made with ediff) between the current version and the one from March 2005 (specifically, this version).  There have been a number of important changes, which I'd like to alert people to.
*Various new sections have been added: 
**History of NPOV - Pointers to old forms of the policy.  Excellent historical work,, IMO.
**:I got some help from Larry Sanger and the village pump people with this. The point was to replace the so called "original formulation" with the actual history. Bensaccount 16:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Writing for the enemy" is a historical phrase used wrt NPOV, so please do reference it, at the very least. Kim Bruning 16:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is still a "writing for the enemy" section under common objections. If we could get this page unprotected I could try and merge what you want restored into this section. Bensaccount 16:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The page is now unprotected; please go ahead! JesseW, the juggling janitor 04:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes since March 2005 

message: Seems to have been originally broken out into a seperate section by SlimVirgin in this edit.  Was re-written by Bensaccount as of this edit into it's current state.  No talk page discussion that I am aware of. JesseW, the juggling janitor 04:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Bias'' section

message: Heavily cut by Bensaccount.
Parts of the old version I think should be re-inserted, and why:
#Insert "Everybody with any philosophical sophistication knows that. So how can we take the "neutrality" policy seriously? Neutrality, lack of bias, isn't possible."
#:All the other objections have a italized statement of the objection, this should have one too.
#Replace "rather that where bias can be detected, it can also be eliminated." with "to characterize disputes rather than engage in them."
#:That is the standard phrsing of the policy.  We are re-stating the policy there, we should use the standard phrasing.
#The whole rest of the old version.
#:I'm not as sure about this one as I am about the other two.  I happen to like this answer, and feel it is a nice response to post-modern or philosopical critics of Wikipedia.  However, it probably should go into Common Criticisms, or Replies to our critics, rather than the NPOV policy, as I can't see that it particularly helps to develop or explain the policy itself.  So, make this proposal to re-insert the old text into one of the two pages mentioned above. JesseW, the juggling janitor 04:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ''There's no such thing as objectivity'' section

message: Removed by Bensaccount, saying it was: "misleading. Other editors or other POVs are not "the enemy". The section was not missed."
I agree that the title was misleading, but I think there were some good pieces that should be restored.
I think the last part of it: "The other side might very well find your attempts to characterize their views substandard, but it's the thought that counts. In resolving disputes over neutrality issues, it's far better that we acknowledge that all sides must be presented fairly, and make at least a college try at presenting the other sides fairly. That will be appreciated much more than not trying at all."
and " "Writing for the enemy" might make it seem as if we were adding deliberately flawed arguments to Wikipedia, which would be a very strange thing to do. But it's better to view this (otherwise puzzling) behavior as adding the best (published) arguments of the opposition, citing some prominent person who has actually made the argument in the form in which you present it, and stating them as sympathetically as possible. Academics, e.g., philosophers, do this all the time. Always cite your sources, and make sure your sources are reputable, and you won't go far wrong." are both good, and should be re-inserted, somewhere.  I will go into more detail if requested. JesseW, the juggling janitor 04:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Writing for the enemy" is a historical phrase used wrt NPOV, so please do reference it, at the very least. Kim Bruning 16:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is still a "writing for the enemy" section under common objections. If we could get this page unprotected I could try and merge what you want restored into this section. Bensaccount 16:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The page is now unprotected; please go ahead! JesseW, the juggling janitor 04:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ''A consequence: writing for the enemy'' section

message: : NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all   significant  neutral and well supported views in proportion to the prominence of each. To be acceptable for inclusion a view must be neutral as described elsewhere in this policy and it must be well supported as specified in the  no original research  and  verifiability policies. Now an important qualification.  Articles that compare acceptable views ...
This is a proposed variation on the first few sentences of "Undue Weight". Italic is used here to mark new content, but will not be used in the final version in the project page.  --Lumière 18:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. This is dismantling the entirety of the concept of NPOV. All views are explained neutrally, not all neutral views are explained. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. What viewpoints are significant is verfiable without relying on subjective opinion. What viewpoints are "Neutral and well supported" is not. FeloniousMonk 21:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To me, such an evisceration of the current standard only bodes ill for Wikipedia as it opens the door for countless minor viewpoints that have "x references on google" (a somewhat useless indicator of representation), and in addition, "neutral and well-supported" lends too much subjectivity to the process.  To me, the fact that someone is even willing to gut NPOV is an indication of just how well the concept is working.  I would hazard a guess that someone was not able to get his or her viewpoint into an article and decided to propose a recipe for disaster. Jim62sch 00:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Undue weight

message: "we do not want to reject a view that is well supported in accordance with NOR and verifiability only because it is held by a tiny minority" 
The existing policy is already clear on this: "Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all..." This is established and widely accepted policy, and your changes are attempting to alter that. I'm just one of many who'll object on a number of grounds. 
:To the contrary, my changes entirely support that. In any case, I am happy that you agree that WP:no origibal research and WP:verifiability are not in conflict with the Undue Weight section in the above. --Lumière 00:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that you avoid the question. We will not progress if we do not know what is meant by "significant".  Is it in this kind of context that we have a "community wide consensus"? --Lumière 00:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: This a misunderstanding. The paragraph that I proposed does not say at all that the weight given to a view is based on its verifiability.  It clearly says that the weight is based on the "prominence of each view", and this is exactly as it was before. Nothing changed at this level. The paragraph only reminds us that the views must be well supported as defined in WP:verifiability and WP:no original research. That's all.  --Lumière 00:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I totally agree. Again, this is just a misunderstanding. The paragraph does not say at all that verifiability should be used to determine the weight. As you say, verifiability only says that we should not accept content that is not verifiable (i.e. does not have a reputable source.) This is perfectly in accord with the proposed paragraph. We have no disagreement here. What I find useful is that you seem to say that WP:verifiability cannot be found in conflict with WP:neutral point of view. This is my point. The paragraph just try to make it clear. It is not enough that you and I agree. It should be very clear for the new comers. --Lumière 00:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Sure, but again it was just a misunderstanding. There was no attempt to change the NPOV policy that you and I understand, as I can see above. The goal is just to clearly explain it in the context of the other policies, which will be very useful. --Lumière 00:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply point by point to FeloniousMonk

message: I appreciate your intention not to dilute the policy, and your right that there was nothing (very) wrong with the formulation per se. However, I still think that it is necessary to place this section in its context. The formulation can be very good, but the link with other policies was missing. A situation in context is very standard and considered necessary to communicate well a new concept, and it is a new concept for the new comers. What I understand now is that I am better do that by adding new sentences. I propose to add two sentences at the end, after the three points: 
:The three points that are mentioned above should not be interpreted as a replacement to the WP:verifiability and WP:no original research policies. To be acceptable for inclusion in an article, in addition to the requirements of the neutral point of view policy, any content should be acceptable in accordance with the WP:no original research and WP:verifiablity policies. 
Similar sentences (see above) were already accepted by many editors.  I hope this will  not be considered as a dilution of the policy.  Clearly, the goal is to place the policy in its context. This was always my only goal. I am sorry that my first attempts diluted the policy.  --Lumière 03:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This, as said above, seems like it would already be obvious, but, also as I said above, I cannot see a harm in the addition.  I have no opinion, positive or negative, on this proposal; but can you point me to where you provided evidence of confusion on this point among editors? (I assume you did, somewhere in the volumnious archives, that's why I'm phrasing this in this way.) JesseW, the juggling janitor 04:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, it is just by principle that I have this request.  Note that it is also a good principle to say what we believe is obvious. Nothing is so obvious for new comers. I am very happy that you find it obvious. --Lumière 05:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Two additional sentences to Undue Weight instead 

message: The real problem is not whether or not we keep "significant". The problem is to keep it without a reasonable definition for it. There is no problem to keep "significant" if we define its meaning as follows: A view is significant relative to an article if (1) it is held by a significant minority or a larger group and is relevant to the article or (2) it is held by a tiny minority and the article is exclusively devoted to this view. With this definition, the requirement that a view is significant is perfectly in accord with the Undue weight section.  The problem is that some people would like to keep "significant" with a definition that is so vague that, when it used to resolve a dispute, could exclude case (1) or (2) above. With this vague definition of significant, one gains the power to completely suppress well Sourced Information even if it held by a majority!  I am not saying that someone will try that, but in principle it can happen. For example, one could say that an article about standard classical mechanics is not significant because it is too elementary. My point is that as long as we do not define what we mean by significant we open the door to any kind of argument like that. 
Those who want to remove the term "significant" in the first sentence do not want to remove the concept that views must be selected in proportion to the prominence of each. The fact that the view of a tiny minority does not have its place in Wikipedia, except in their own ancillary articles, is very clear in the Undue weight section and nobody wants to change that. Removing "significant" in the first sentence will not change that. The problem with "significant" is that it is not well defined. It is a new term that is not defined at all in the section.  Concretely, the problem is that such a vague notion allows the suppression of any well sourced information. Why would someone wants to insist to have this power? --Lumière 16:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should we allow complete suppression of well sourced information? 

message: The undue weight section is the part of the article describing how to "fairly represent" views. I find it vague and skewed towards certain details while ignoring the bigger picture. Heres how I would rewrite the section:
:NPOV says that when there are conflicting views, these views should be fairly represented. Fair representation requires consideration of factors such as popularity (majority, minority, or tiny minority), significance (relevance to the article), and expertise (expert vs amateur). Once there is consensus regarding these factors, views are represented proportionally. Undue weight should not be given to views which do not meet these qualifications. 
This could be followed by examples of what qualifies as a majority view, significant view, or an expert's view. etc. Bensaccount 19:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: prominence and popularity are not the same thing. Please watch your formatting; in a numbered list comments to signatures must begin with a #, followed by the appropriate number of colons, to maintain numbering. Thanks. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you think that the difference between prominence and popularity answers my question? Bensaccount 16:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

text: It was meant as a correction: the first sentence reads NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints, in proportion to the prominence of each.. I concur the later use of "popularity" might be misleading. However, your statement that popularity is the only criteria is in error. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think that popularity is the only criteria in the remainder of the section, and the most natural interpretation of significant should be consistent with that. Of course, if you decide to play with the meaning of "significant", the first sentence can mean about anything. --Lumière 18:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The "Undue Weight" section

message: ====Support====
#Yes - See above.Bensaccount 19:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Poll: Do you think the "Undue Weight" section should be changed?

message: #Yes - See above.Bensaccount 19:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: #I oppose the proposed change on the grounds that it is formulaic. What is "significant" in any given case is easily arrived at by appropriate use of consensus processes. Remember that NPOV does not operate in a void, and it is not the whole of Wikipedia policy. In other words, it's not broken so it doesn't need fixing.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 23:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose

message: # Discuss: It was not made clear that this was a poll to find the current state of consensus, so I oppose having a poll at this time. (standard pulling-an-elian vote :-) Kim Bruning 19:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discuss. Let's not hold a poll, but hold a consensus-finding discussion instead.  

message: # Polls are evil. - KillerChihuahua?!? 19:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: Reply to comment above by Bensaccount, reposted here:
Have you even read the section in question? "Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views". According to the Undue Weight section, popularity is the only qualification. Bensaccount 16:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: prominence and popularity are not the same thing. Please watch your formatting; in a numbered list comments to signatures must begin with a #, followed by the appropriate number of colons, to maintain numbering. Thanks. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you think that the difference between prominence and popularity answers my question? Bensaccount 16:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

text: It was meant as a correction: the first sentence reads NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints, in proportion to the prominence of each.. I concur the later use of "popularity" might be misleading. However, your statement that popularity is the only criteria is in error. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think that popularity is the only criteria in the remainder of the section, and the most natural interpretation of significant should be consistent with that. Of course, if you decide to play with the meaning of "significant", the first sentence can mean about anything. --Lumière 18:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: This discussion started with another look at the NPOV policy summary:
All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly and without bias
The question is if this is a good summary of Jimbo's requirement, and if it is well expanded on in the article. It rapidly became clear that "representing views fairly" is not well described, instead some (but not all!) aspects of it are treated seperately; and that also an additional word "significant" in the article is ambiguous which could lead to a misunderstanding of NPOV. 
lumiere did some suggestions how to correct this lack of explanation and his approach looked reasonable to me; it seems quite feasible to deal with this matter without introducing any new rules -right? Harald88 22:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which two (or, if you're using "ambiguous" loosely, more than two) meanings does "significant" have? --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 23:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I can't reply for one day, maybe someone else can copy lumiere's overview above back here, thanks. Harald88 01:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

text: A view is significant relative to an article if (1) it is held by a significant minority or a larger group and is relevant to the article or (2) it is held by a tiny minority and the article is exclusively devoted to this view. 
In contrast with other possible definitions, this proposed definition creates no conflict with other policies. In particular, it cannot be used to entirely remove a well sourced view from Wikipedia. It does not matter how we define "relevant" there will be no conflict with other policies.  There is some hint to what is meant by relevant in the remainder of the section. I don't think more is needed, but if anyone has a way to better explain what it means, I see no problem with that. --Lumière 02:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Trouble enters as soon as the word significant appears in the definition of significant. — Saxifrage ✎ 09:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, because it's not a definition the word "significant", but of its use in this context.  The phrase "significant majority" is slightly vague, but easily defined more precisely.  The two uses don't support each other, so there's no possibility of circularity. --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 18:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yep, there was no problem. --Lumière 19:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  Good one! Replace it there by "notable" (whcih is defined elsewhere) and it should work. Harald88 10:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  PS there is also a range of subject matters that view people published about; in that case notability is the only concern. Harald88 10:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  retake: fair presentations of views 

message: Somone added:
"These policies, which have mandatory application, are complementary and should not be interpreted in isolation."
Please back that up by references, in particular "are complementary". Next we can p[ut it back in (preferably with the links). Thanks in advance! Harald88 23:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This IS the reference.  This is black-letter, set-in-stone policy.  If you want to make a change, propose it in the proper places and then gather a broad and significant consensus. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 00:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I only demand you to tell us where you copied "are complementary" from, as I wondered for some time about their ranking. Thanks, Harald88 01:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hello? Perhaps someone else can help out on this? Harald88 20:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks, that is helpful. What I enguired about was the addition of the word "complementary", setting them all at equal level - which was a point for me to verify, as I know no valid source for it. I had guessed, from what I read from Jimbo, that NPOV is a "higher commandment". That makes a big difference in evolution of policies: equal standing carries the risk that this policy may be eroded by another policy, possibly violating its original intent. 
Anyway, I now found that this change happened on your referred WP:V page by Slimvirgin, on 29 September, and also without any motivation nor any discussion on the Talk page, as far as I can see. Thus I'll demand Slimvirgin to back it up. Harald88 20:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: You would be better off, asking nicely. WP:AGF ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 20:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  As it happens I did so, and the resulting discussion was good but unsatisfying: In the end, he could cite no source! Thus I will do a retake of this as a new subject below. Harald88 21:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  clarifying phrase from intro 

message: Clearly, Bensaccount's proposal is dead.  The following comments can be useful to consider the following proposals:
#A modification of the first sentence of the section Undue weight: 
#:NPOV says that, when two or more viewpoints are considered for inclusion in an article, the article should represent all significant viewpoints, in proportion to the prominence of each. 
#Together with the first sentence that is proposed above:
#:We consider "significant viewpoints" as a shortcut for "viewpoints that are held by a significant minority or larger group." 
#Together with the first sentence that is proposed above:
#:We consider that a viewpoint is significant or non significant if it is declared so in a consensus.  
#Without modifying the current sentence: 
#:We consider that a view is significant relative to an article if (1) it is held by a significant minority or a larger group and is relevant to the article or (2) it is held by a tiny minority and the article is exclusively devoted to this view. 
#Together with the first sentence that is proposed above:
#:We consider that a viewpoint is significant if it is relevant to the article.  
Please this is not a pool. Stop voting. We only want thoughtful comments. --Lumière 06:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just more of the one or two here who won't or can't accept consensus attempting to force the issue. It's getting really tiring. Like Dunc pointed out: "What part of "non-negotiable" don't you understand"? FeloniousMonk 16:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: A royal waste of time, IMO. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 16:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I join Hipocrite, Jossi, FM and JesseW. Jim62sch 10:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment in view of a better understanding of the issue 

message: According to Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable". I hereby include a useful definition:
Dogma:
# A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church.
# An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true. (doctrine)
# A principle or belief or a group of them.
NPOV is scripture set in stone. Do not attempt to modify, interpret or clarify it, or it will lose its original meaning. This is your God's wish, obey it.
--Anon84.x 12:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hehehehe, behave! Kim Bruning 13:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hey mom, what are you doing on this wiki? --Anon84.x 13:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Please stop all debates

message: Related to the above, from an earlier discussion (pushed into archive oblition before discussion): 
:A consequence: writing for the enemy - Was removed in full - discussion?  
:The section was misleading. Other editors or other POVs are not "the enemy". The section was not missed. Bensaccount 16:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to believe that the policy is for guiding individual editors in their work here at Wikipedia. You could not be more wrong! 
Instead, this policy does instruct editors, both on their own and as group how to strive for NPOV. It's essential that Wikipedia isn't seen as a battlegound of opinions, whereby each editor defends a single POV against that of others, so that only after negotiation a kind of NPOV will be obtained -- but still mostly biased towards the POV of the editor who has most persistence, or that of the majority of editors. IMO it's crucial that the contrary is emphasized, that such is not an acceptable way of operation. 
 
Thus, now that its necessity has been demonstrated I disagree with the omission of the whole "writing for the enemy" paragraph, and insist that we put this deleted policy piece back.  
Note that I don't disagree with rephrasing (for example enemy -> "enemy", taking Bensaccounts point) and also a little trimming is of course open for discussion. But first put it back. Harald88 20:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed. This is one of these points "lost" in the attempt to simplify. Let's put it back. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 20:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Per Harald and Jossi. FeloniousMonk 20:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Writing for the enemy

message: On this page: "NPOV is one of Wikipedia's four content-guiding policy pages." On pages for the other three policies, mention is only made of "three content-guiding policies". In need of review. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.5.97.52  (talk • contribs) 
:Some consider WP:NOT to be a content guideline. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 22:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  three or four content guiding policies? 

message: ... I won't be supplying anymore of it, and encourage others to do the same.  Watch the page, revert ill-formed, misguided or bad faith edits, and leave it at that. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 04:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. JesseW, the juggling janitor 04:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: As usual, sound advice from Katefan. FeloniousMonk 04:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed. Excellent advice. --Anon84.x 20:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A note to editors re: troll food 

message: :Somewhat belated objection: this section is incoherent. It asserts that the only difference between fact and value (for the purposes of this article) is the presence or absence of serious dispute. This is of course unsettling, but the problem has been around a while and it's not specific to this recent revision. But, we now have exacerbated this. We've used this definition specifically to make the "God exists" a matter of opinion and sidestep the whole agnosticism POV problem, but we haven't made "stealing is wrong" a matter of fact (being a moral judgement held by the overwhelming majority worldwide). Worse, we've said "...without mixing in opinion, or at least talking about value", which is now horribly circular.  Fool 16:23, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. When I wrote that, I had a few alternatives in mind, but as I try to write them out, either they fall flat or else they alter text that's been in the article for quite some time. I hate to be one to criticize without offering constructive suggestions, but I'm really stuck. Fool 17:42, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Coming back to this, I think basically the attempt to define "fact" has to go. My proposal follows:
----
We sometimes give an alternative formulation of the non-bias policy: assert facts, including facts about opinions — but don't assert opinions themselves. Certainly, there are bound to be borderline cases where a fact is disputed but we're not sure if we should take the dispute seriously, or where the distinction between fact and value will itself necessarily be in dispute. Nevertheless, there are many propositions that clearly express undisputed facts, and others that clearly express values or opinions. That a survey produced a certain published result is a fact. That there is a planet called Mars is a fact. That Plato was a philosopher is a fact. No one seriously disputes any of these things. So we can feel free to assert as many of them as we can. On the other hand, that stealing is wrong is a value or opinion. That the Beatles was the greatest band is a value or opinion. That the United States was wrong to drop the atomic bomb over Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a value or opinion. 
Where we might want to state an opinion, we convert that opinion into a fact by attributing the opinion to someone. So, rather than asserting, "The Beatles were the greatest band", we can say, "Most Americans believe that the Beatles were the greatest band," (... etc ...)
----
... there you go. I think this destroys the incoherencies while strengthening the main point of the section.  Fool 14:09, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I'll move this onto the project page then? Fool 19:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Fool's rewrite (August-November 2005)

message: Since the "truth"/"verifiability" discussion was revived on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability I'd definitely want to return to the version that was worked out as a collaboration of Nauraran, Func, myself, gilbertggoose and Ann Heneghan - and not Fool's version.
Sorry I didn't give a reaction to this before. --Francis Schonken 08:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What's the essential difference, or (better), do you have a link? Harald88 13:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A link had already been provided, immediately under the section header above. --Francis Schonken 17:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: After retrieval from archive

message: Yesterday I added a paragraph with information suppression examples to the NPOV_tutorial; Francis Schonken however reverted the page. Interested people, please discuss on that article's Talk page about the reason to suppress this much demanded instruction part, or reinsert that information, thanks. Harald88 08:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Information suppression suppressed 

message: There shouldn't be edit warring over this page, THE foundation document for Wikipedia's editorial practices -- if there are reversions ongoing, that means those who sought to include (or exclude) the text in question have not adequately surveyed the community's opinion on whether it is proper. I've protected the page until this stuff can be sorted out.  · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 16:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 16:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I support this action. NPOV is scripture set in stone. --Anon84.x 16:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Most excellent! Jim62sch 23:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes and the admins can still edit it anyway. --Lumière 01:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And your point? Jim62sch 12:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Important modifications will still be possible. --Lumière 16:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So? — Saxifrage ✎ 03:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is only one good interpretation, and even though you doubt it, I am a good team player!  --Lumière 12:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The only qualified interpreter is Jimbo himself. NPOV is scripture set in stone --Anon84.x 18:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: Hi there!
I posted this at WP:RFC/P, but was hoping I might get some additional interested people here. There has been an ongoing argument at Flag of Western Sahara about the name of the flag. 
Western Sahara is a region claimed by Morocco and a government in exile of indigenous people, the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic. Both parties control a portion of the territory and both claim the whole of it. The flag is the flag flown by SADR, but it is generally known as the "Flag of Western Sahara", mainly because Morocco does not recognise the term Western Sahara (calling it Moroccan Sahara), so there is no other flag which also might bear the name. There have been extensive discussions about comparisons with Flag of Tibet, and Flag of Taiwan, but up until now no conclusion. 
To break the stalemate, a vote has been proposed here, and we would very much appreciate any and every input. The more the merrier!
Thanks and greets, The Minister of War (Peace) 08:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming issue at [[Flag of Western Sahara]] 

message: It occured to me, while reading the AFD for Republicans Block Investigation of Domestic Spying Program, that the precedents used to delete such material would also be applicable to many historic documents which were/are POV, such as the United States Declaration of Independence, were they not already historic.
I'm not saying the article should have been kept. This is just a thought I wanted to bring up. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 23:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Er, Keith - there was no AfD on that article.  It was WP:PRODed.  Maybe you were thinking of some other article? JesseW, the juggling janitor 08:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Treating POV as POV is NPOV, right? 

message: Apparently this page has been protected or perhaps my account has tagged or blocked.
Better wording in section "Avoiding Constant Disputes":
"This has to be asked repeatedly as each new controversial point is stated. It is not our job to edit Wikipedia so that it reflects our own idiosyncratic views and then defend those edits against all-comers; it is our job to work together, mainly adding or improving content, but also, when necessary, coming to a compromise about how a controversy should be described, so that it is fair to all sides."
Would be  "...  It is not our stated goal to edit Wikipedia so that it reflects our own idiosyncratic views and then defend those edits against all-comers; it is our community's coordinated mission to work together, mainly adding or improving content, but also, when necessary, coming to a compromise about how a controversy should be described, so that it is fair to all sides."
For the priveleged editor who undertakes this clarification task ... feel free to use your own preferred alternate wording.   The word I object to is "job".  This word usually implies compensation via cash or some other consideration and while it might fairly be used to describe activities of some of the stacked Board members or perhaps our professional compensated staff members, they are a very tiny slice of a very large community of uncompensated volunteers. Lazyquasar 23:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarification Request