Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Archive 020

message: :::Proposed changes:
:::1. Title: changed to NPOV wording, deleted second part (which unecessarily narrows the subject)
:::2.First paragraph: neutralized first sentence, deleted second, replaced 'pseudoscience' with 'alternative' in third
:::3. Second paragraph: replaced 'pseudoscience' with 'alternative bodies of knowledge' and 'alternative views', prefaced it with 'The existence of'
:::4. Third paragraph: replaced 'pseudoscience' with 'alternative bodies of knowledge' and 'alternative views' in second sentence
:::In general, I feel that this version preserves the original intent of this policy but uses language that is neutral and not offending to people representing alternative bodies of knowledge ('pseudoscience'). After all, Wikipedia is not written for scientists only. :) Aquirata 14:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I'm concerned: no way - not withstanding embellishing (not "NPOV") phrases, this reads like a pseudo-science POV-pusher's pamphlet. I think that above I've made clear what I'd think an improvement. If this is how that is understood, I'd prefer to keep the version that is currently on the project page. Even with its possible internal contradiction (depening on which philosophy of science one is adhering to), at least it makes more or less clear where it draws the line w.r.t. to pseudo-science (and with regard to SPOV). --Francis Schonken 16:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The current wording advocates SPOV. Wikipedia is NPOV. The contradiction is clear. Why would making the description neutral offend anyone if we are advocating NPOV? Aquirata 17:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, you didn't even read what I wrote?You're kind of making an assumption (in all clarity: *also* a POV assumption) that the NPOV policy should by definition be NPOV itself.Clear? --Francis Schonken 17:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One thinks it should be.  Sorry AvB Aquirata, but Francis is correct -- what you wrote reads like a pseudoscientist's bible.   •Jim62sch• 22:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Except that I didn't write it. You're wrong here Jim. I have no difference of opinion with Francis at this point. I think you're confusing what I wrote with someone else's contributions. We've met before on WP so you might have had some idea that I am not anti-SPOV (I'm anti-WP:SPOV - the unimplemented policy, not the scientific viewpoint). And if you don't remember me, it would help if you looked over my editing record before coming up with accusations. AvB ÷ talk 22:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

text: (ri) Yep, and I apologize.  I struck out your name and added the correct one.  Sorry.  •Jim62sch• 22:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This would be hilarious is it weren't an attempt at being serious, "alternative bodies of knowledge", which I guess means that my children's belief in Santa is knowledge, not folklore.  •Jim62sch• 22:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed changes

message: AvB, Thanks for taking the time to spell it all out. Let me try to paraphrase your post to see whether I understand it correctly:
*The term 'pseudoscience' reflects a non-neutral point of view 
*This term is used for categorization within Wikipedia
*This is not contradicting the NPOV policy because:
:*No Wikipedia policy or guideline covers terminology for categories; and
:*The assigned categories reflect consensus opinion in accordance with the NPOV policy
Is this correct?
As for the options:
*If you feel the policy does not reflect practical use, be bold, and where reverted, don't edit war but work towards consensus on the talk page. You tried, you failed.: I can't agree with this completely because I saw no consensus opinion regarding this issue at all. Certainly, there was no consensus to change the term, if that's what you meant.
*If you see articles where you feel a consensus to remove the article from a category is in the cards,: This is a secondary issue to me with regards to the term. The primary question is whether the term is appropriate for categorization. Categories must be appropriate (i.e. NPOV) before the question of assigning articles to them can be answered.
Aquirata 20:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The term 'pseudoscience' 

message: Again, let me paraphrase:
*Wikipedia NPOV policy doesn't have to reflect neutral point of view itself because:
:*The NPOV policy is non-negotiable therefore not subject to any policy or guideline
Is this correct? 
*You tried, you failed: Again, no consensus was showing through apart from the lack of it to change things.
Please bear with me as this is leading to the basis for Wikipedia's existence. Aquirata 20:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Has what has been said at your user-conduct RFC meant nothing to you? This topic was settled long ago your constantly harping on it is becoming disruptive. FeloniousMonk 20:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, FeloniousMonk, those who oppose progress will try any means whatsoever to achieve their objective, including maiming adherents of opposing views. A cursory look at history will give you ample examples. Lack of counter-arguments to the point only underlines the validity of the original argument. Aquirata 12:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "The NPOV policy does not have to reflect the neutral point of view itself" (more simply, NPOV is itself a point of a view). Yes. This has been stated in various ways to you at least eight times in the above discussion. Read here. Marskell 16:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV policy 

message: Ironically, what Aquirata sees as the bottom line is, in fact, a misunderstanding of the top line of this policy page. In Aquirata's defense I will say that the text (but not the use in practice) just conceivably could lead to exactly this type of misunderstanding, so I have slightly copyedited it, bringing a fundamental aspect present in the text markup (visible in the edit window) into plain view on the page as displayed to the reader. I would not have thought of this improvement without Aquirata's input. AvB ÷ talk 13:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for acknowledging this so openly. Although this particular change was not my original intention, I'm glad that all the talk about NPOV policy did bring about some movement. The value new editors can bring to the project by looking at old things in new ways and thus encouraging introspection with respect to policies, guidelines and the consensus process should not be underestimated. Aquirata 10:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The top line 

message: I removed the following two sentences from the section "Characterizing opinions of people's work":
:For instance, that Shakespeare is widely acknowledged as one of the greatest playwrights of the English language is a bit of knowledge that one should learn from an encyclopedia. However, in the interests of neutrality, one should also learn that a number of reputable scholars argue that there is a strong case to make that the author of much of the work still attributed to Shakespeare was his contemporary Christopher Marlowe.
The latter statement is simply false.  No reputable scholars argue that there is such a case to be made; a tiny number of unreputable scholars believe it.  There should be an example like this, but this is not it. NPOV does not mean, as Jimbo has stated many times, including information believed by a tiny and marginal minority, and the policy page should not make it seem like it does.  Chick Bowen 03:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've replaced it with a new example that is closer to what is meant by that section of the policy, I think.  Chick Bowen 04:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I really don't care what the actual example is; but it should not be a statement that, as I said, is false.  I'm disappointed that you reverted it rather than improving it.  Chick Bowen 02:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are the one who thinks it needs changing, the onus is on you to garner support on this here talk page for a specific wording to change it to. Unlike in article pages, significant changes are normally reverted unless they've undergone debate and gotten significant approval on the Talk page first. It's nothing personal, it's just that it's a policy page and stability and consensus is very important, and there's no "needing to expand the encyclopedia" motive to counter those two important factors on a policy page. — Saxifrage ✎ 03:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (after edit conflict) Part of the problem here is that, of course, very little decent Shakespeare scholarship is available online except at subscription sources.  Here are references for what I've included in my example, which could easily be cited using <ref>: good play: "Shakespeare's detached, often ironic perspective upon compelling art in this popular revenge tragedy makes charging him with naively imitating the works of Roman masters extremely difficult" (Maurice Hunt, "Compelling Art in Titus Andronicus" [SEL 28, 2 (1988) 197-218], 214); bad play: the famous line that Titus is "Shakespeare's worst play" is from G.B. Harrison's introduction to his edition (Titus Andronicus [Middlesex: Penguin, 1958]); not by Shakespeare: Samuel Johnson himself said, "All the editors and critics agree with Mr. Theobald in supposing this play spurious. I see no reason for differing from them. . .", and that is online here.  I hope that this is sufficient.  Incidentally, since I am not editing policy but an example illustrating policy I didn't think, and still don't, that it should be such a big deal. Chick Bowen 03:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Though it's substantially longer, in principle I approve of the change. Let's see what others think. — Saxifrage ✎ 04:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since I got no objections to this version, I went ahead and put it in.  Please do edit it and improve, but I would ask that if anyone objects to it altogether, just take it out, and we won't have an example for that section, or replace it with an entirely new one.  The old example was a serious liability, since it put forward a highly controversial (and discredited) opinion as if it were mainstream.  Thanks.  Chick Bowen 23:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

text: But Francis, the example as it stands is not NPOV--it hinges on the assumption that John Baker is a reputable scholar, while he is in fact an enthusiastic amateur.  I have tweaked it.  Once again, I would invite you to just take it out altogether--I don't think an example is needed.  Chick Bowen 15:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Shakespeare stuff

message: Francis removed the Tacitus quote, stating "Augustus/Tiberius seems quite out of place here".
:
inde consilium mihi pauca de Augusto et extrema tradere, mox Tiberii principatum et cetera, sine ira et studio, quorum causas procul habeo.	                                                   	Hence my purpose is to relate a few facts about Augustus – more particularly his last acts, then the reign of Tiberius, and all which follows, without either bitterness or partiality, from any motives to which I am far removed.
Tacitus, Annals I, 1 – Church/Brodribb translation                                                                                   	Tacitus, Annals I, 1 – Church/Brodribb translation	Tacitus, Annals I, 1 – Church/Brodribb translation
I originally added this as a parallel to the quote in WP:V. This is where the famous "sine ira et studio" is found - people are acknowledging the "neutral point of view" since antiquity. See Gaius_Cornelius_Tacitus#Approach_to_history for more context.
OK, if this is removed then this either needs elaboration or shouldn't be here at all. Dr Zak 00:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tacitus quote 

message: Near the top we have this summation: "It is a point of view that is neutral - that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject."
Later: "If we're going to characterize disputes fairly, we should present competing views with a consistently positive, sympathetic tone...Let's present all significant, competing views sympathetically."
I realize there is a difference between having having a sympathetic tone (not deriding something) and being sympathetic to (actually being partisan) and I don't think we have a flat contradiction here. However, the opposed uses of sympathy is a weakness I think. Perhaps drop sympathy in the last. Marskell 18:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fairness and sympathy 

message: There is currently a dipute on Talk:Muhammad as to how Muhammad should be described in the introductory sentence. The academic view is that he is the founder of Islam; the Muslim religious view is that he is the final prophet of God, but not the founder of Islam because Islam is eternal. So, some editors advocate that only the academic view must be presented in the introductory sentence, although the Muslim view must be given full credit elsewhere in the article, including the intro. Other editors argue that both academic and Muslim views must be presented in the first sentence, or alternatively, the first sentence must be formulated in a neutral fashion without giving advantage to either view. The root of the dispute, it seems, lies in the way WP:NPOV is presented now; namely, that the policy deals mainly with the conflicting academic POVs, but not with views stemming from two entirely different discourses. I'll be glad to hear input on that issue. Pecher Talk 09:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Take a look at how Jesus does it - a stable compromise that is the result of LOTS of arguing.  My view is this: Muhammed is important largely becuase so many people consider him their ultimate prophet.  To say this (which is not the same thing as asaying he IS God's ultimate prophet) does not violate NPOV, and I would lead the article with this.  I would then have a new paragraph laying out major cholarly (secular) views of Muhammed, and then paragraphs with any remaining important views (i.e. beyond those of Muslims and scholars of Muhammed or Islam).  Just my opinion. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 10:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Academic vs. religious POV