Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Archive 002

message: :: Thanks for helping me clarify the "algebra" of NPOV.  For example, I changed the heading on this section to clarify the idea here.  After thinking about your comments, I find the following.
::# Likely the final page should not cite dictionaries.  That is, artful editing generally would make the page flow better than just quoting dictionary definitions.
::# Many times a particular dictionary definition may not provide encyclopedic interest.  In that case, editors would agree readily that the particular POV in that dictionary definition was non-interesting.
::# Dictionary definitions will not resolve which POV is right--merely validate that the POVs in the dictionary definitions are appropriate POVs to detail in Wikipedia somewhere.  For example, dictionary definitions will not resolve whether "America is a republic or a democracy"--merely validate at most that there are two opposing POVs that are both appropriate POVs to detail in Wikipedia somewhere.
::#* Older dictionaries illustrate the point.  Older dictionaries serve to validate that the hilariously old-fashioned ideas in them were actual POVs back in time.  And hence, those POVs in older dictionaries serve to validate those old-fashioned ideas as appropriate for detailing in Wikipedia pages as part of the history of ideas.  But neither the older or the newer dictionaries can settle which POV is right.
::# However, in constructing pages, including associated disambiguation pages, for a controversial area, dictionary definitions always would serve one important function, namely validating that the POVs in the dictionary would NPOV qualify for representation in some page.  This would apply in any situation where there was disagreement among editors whether the POV in the dictionary definition was to be allowed "print space" on the page. (Typos are readily identified by the publisher.)
::# Hypothesis. Hence, NPOV could always be achieved by detailing the POVs in the dictionary definitions together with detailing the opposing POVs of experts.
:: It appears to me that the above states a falsifiable hypothesis on all dictionary definitions.  That is, one counter-example that would falsify the above hypothesis would be from the following:
::* Find a word W in a dictionary D such that the D definitions for W together with opposing expert opinions would NOT make a NPOV page.
:: An example in support of the above hypothesis would be the word work for which the dictionary definitions state the following two POVs together with others.
::# POV 1.  Work is the transfer of energy from one physical system to another, especially the transfer of energy to a body by the application of a force that moves the body in the direction of the force. (There would be several alternative statements of this POV.)
::# POV 2.  Work is one's place of employment.
:: According to the hypothesis, an NPOV report on the concept of work could always be achieved by constructing a set of pages, together with appropriate disambiguation pages, of the POVs in the dictionary definitions of work surrounded by the POVs of the experts on work that differ from the POVs in the dictionary definitions of work.
::* In particular, NPOV would require that the non-scientific POV 2 on work would not get cut from a disambiguation page on work.  ---Rednblu | Talk 17:27, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Digesting the suggestions: I plan to edit this section as we go along :) 

message: From the current version of the text:
"To state outright that "the existence of God is an opinion", "subjective", or "a personal decision", while seeming to be sensitive to the issue, implies that there is no fact being discussed (postmodernism or strong agnosticism), or that it is relatively unimportant (secular bias), or that God only exists in the human mind (Atheism)."
This seems to me to be saying that if I write in an article: "There is no agreement on whether God exists; it cannot be stated as a fact.  A statement as to God's existence or non-existence is an opinion," I am violating the NPOV.  If so, what formulation of the statement of the fact of the disagreement among reasonable people on this question would be acceptable? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:03, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: A point that troubles me

message: I'm wondering on what is the proper NPOV with articles that are not really pseudoscience, but something along those lines. With pseudoscience, it's easy to say first that this is pseudoscience, and everything that follows is according to those who believe it. But then there are cases such as Travis Walton abduction, where a person claims he's been abducted by aliens. Obviously, the majority of people, here on Wikipedia and elsewhere, would say that the claims are false. However, saying that on the page would actually be POV - likewise, insisting that he was indeed abudcted would be POV.
The solution used on that and several other articles I've seen is extensive use of words such as "claimed", "allegedly", "reported", etc. I suppose it's good from the NPOV side, but I find it annoying sometimes to read an article where every fact is preceded by "allegedly", etc. Would it be NPOV to state at the beggining something like "the following description of the events is according to X", and then describe the events using "normal" language? - User:Solver
:Well it may be annoying to have allegedly, but sometimes that is necessary. Otherwise Wikipedia is making statements that are not correct, with one proviso at the beginning of the text that it is one POV.  In fact, stating that the majority of people disagree with a minor POV is a fact if it is true. That means it is not POV to state that, especially if it can be cited to a reliable source. - Taxman 17:09, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
::But that does make it quite hard to state it all properly. The NPOV article says, "The neutral point of view attempts to present ideas and facts in such a fashion that both supporters and opponents can agree." Therefore, we can say that the majority of people disagree (and should say, if that's a fact), but we can not say things like "alien abductions are hoaxes", "extra-sensory perception does not exist", etc., because it's not netural and there are many supporters who would disagree. Solver 17:17, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV regarding unusual claims