Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Archive 013

message: Couldn't we just block Bensaccount and let everyone else keep working? Stevage 07:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure really whether Bensaccount should have been blocked in the first instance. But we certainly should try unprotecting the page and see what happens, jguk 07:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bensaccount's block will have expired. I've unprotected - David Gerard 13:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Request unprotect

message: There is enough dispute in this talk page with regard to the clarity of the project page that a  tag is justified. The essential problem was well described by Anon84.x and Iantresman.  Anon84.x also wrote a useful small draft as a starting point for a clearer policy. A useful discussion about this issue is necessary. The main proponents of the current version should contribute to this discussion. Please do not dismiss the issue with general POV argments of the kind "this policy is the core of wikipedia and we must commit to it to achieve the liberation of mankind" -- the last quote is a caricature of one paragraph in the current version (see above). --Lumiere 15:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been thinking. An alternative "course of action" would be to avoid a needless struggle over a complete rewrite of the policy. Instead, to create a new, unofficial policy by the name of WP:Significance that deals only with the objective criteria for inclusion of views we've been working on. Then, when consensus is reached, "slim down" the NPOV policy (maybe change its name to "Neutral viewpoint" like jguk suggests) to deal only with the presentation of views (not selection) and link back to the WP:Significance policy from it. What do you say? --Anon84.x 16:15, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Maybe it will help us to write our own piece of policy in peace. However, it may also be an evasion from the real challenge.  There are already 3 policies that are not so well connected. Even the relationship between NOR and V is not that clear. What is really needed is one global policy that connects all the policies and provide some wholeness, but it is OK to start with a clear NPOV policy.  What I say is that we should invite people to discuss. We should see if there is progress. If there is no progress, we put the  tag. This is what I say. --Lumiere 16:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hmmm..Yes I know, we should avoid "policy bloat". By the way I agree that "NOR" "V" and "citing sources" are mostly the same and should be somehow merged.. -Anon84.x 16:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Maybe even my longtime dream will come true and wikipedia will finally have an official WP:Editorial policy! --Anon84.x 16:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

text:  Did you look at WP:RS? This is also a WP guideline that is or should be closely related to the WP policy WP:V, but the connection is not clear.  --Lumiere 16:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wow, more redundancy, now we have V, NOR, Citing sources, Reliable sources, and The undue weight section from NPOV, all about filtering and evaluating content for inclusion --Anon84.x 17:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for a clear, non ambiguous policy 

message: To help simplify and clarify NPOV I think this section should be entirely removed, or deflated. Please consider this and tell me why you agree or disagree. Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Why should Wikipedia be unbiased? Bensaccount 18:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The "selecting views" section could be a useful addition to this page, but the rest seems redundant, and more redundancy is the last thing this page needs. Bensaccount 19:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's a great motivating section, what's your problem with it? If I didn't remember how you reacted last time, I'd say that it's a little too elaborated. Harald88 19:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:   I am pretty sure that Bensaccount was refering to Anon84.x small draft. Right? I am not sure that you (Harald88) were referring to this small draft. Can you clarify and, in all cases, I would like to have your opinion or find out more about your olpinion on this small draft.   I am very happy to hear the above comments about the small draft.  Yes, it could become a lead section for the policy. If we agree on that, it is a good step forward. Of course, the remainder of the formulation would have to be consistent with this lead section.  --Lumiere 20:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why should Wikipedia be unbiased?

message: To make this critical distinction clear for newcomers, here's a simple analogy:
Let's say I'm an author and I'm writing a novel. I choose a style of storytelling in which the narrator is "objective", ie. the narrator does not make judgements about or criticise the characters or scenarios in the story. For example, the book will not feature statements like:
:And then eve, with her usual unbearable manner, replied "I think you're just being ridiculous".
Instead:
:And then eve replied: "I think you're just being ridiculous".
In my book, the narrator is neutral, as the narrator is not involved in interpreting the story. Therefore it may be said that the book is written from a neutral point of view. However, me, the author, is far from neutral, as I choose to show different aspects of the characters and places, but not others, that might have shown them in a different light if I chose otherwise. Thus, me, the author, is selectively biased.
--Anon84.x 09:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Narrative vs. Selective bias - the analogy 

message: I mean, anything else added to the page (e.g. selecting views, balancing views, other wikipedia specific policies, making research, saving the world,  etc..)
# will encourage misunderstanding of it.
# will make the subject look more complicated than it really is. (it is pretty simple, after all)
# will overload the term "neutral point of view". (which is already heavily overloaded)
# make other principles (like "significance") to be easily overlooked as uninportant, because they don't have their own title. (cannot be easily cited as a policy in themselves)
--Anon84.x 08:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then it should link to WP:Significance policy, we cannot afford to make this policy more bloated than it is right now. --Anon84.x 10:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I hope you mean that it should be well connected with the other aspects and link to WP:Significance policy for more details. --Lumiere 11:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, we need to clarify what would contain WP:Significance that is not already in WP:Verifiability etc.  When I think about it, the main challenge remains a clarification of the NPOV policy, which,  even if we shrink it, must be well connected with the other policies.  --Lumiere 11:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just meant not to inline other policies inside the NPOV policy, of course we should mention them! --Anon84.x 11:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shouldn't the article about the "neutral point of view" discuss the "neutral point of view", and nothing else? 

message: * It incorrectly jumbles the two completely different notions of Narrative bias and Selective bias (distinction explained above in the section Narrative vs. Selective bias - the analogy), thus misleads one to believe that eliminating narrative bias has the magical consequence of making the article unbiased - which is far from treating the central aspect of bias.
* It is ambiguous, vague, overly verbose, self contradictory, and tries to deal with many issues that has no relation to it (but can and in some cases should be linked to for treatment elsewhere). For example:
:* Selection of views
:* Significance of views (undue weight)
:* Balancing views (avoiding selective bias)
:* Making research (avoiding selective bias)
:* Replying to criticisms about selective bias.
:* Having a criticism section in the first place. Which makes the subject look much more controversial and unreasonable than it actually is.
:* Trying to justify itself over political and ideological grounds.
--Anon84.x 13:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, so that's two in support, which means there's no consensus to change. But if you'd like to go start your own encyclopedia online somewhere and use your own policies instead of ours, go ahead. We like this policy the way it is, thanks. DreamGuy 14:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. This is a core policy and would need a wide acceptance by a very broad representation from the community to effect a significant change in it. Just because a few people pop in here and think it needs a complete rewrite does not mean the community does. Because this is such a core, long standing policy the onus is on the proposer of the rewrite to demonstrate one is supported by the broad community, not the few editors that happen to comment here. That also applies to claiming there is a dispute. Just because one person wants the policy to read differently, it does not justify a "dispute" if few other editors agree. - Taxman Talk 14:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why the NPOV policy needs a complete rewrite 

message: There shouldn't be edit warring over this page.  Obviously, if there is, that means you haven't done your job in ensuring there is a broad and significant consensus for what you are trying to change.  If you won't create a sandbox page to work in, then I'll do it for you.  Work here, please. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 15:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great, now we have a dispute tag. Thanks, Katefan0.--Anon84.x 15:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem. If you'd worked in a sandbox page to begin with, of course, this wouldn't be happening right now. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 15:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't understand. There is no edit war on this page. Earlier I added the  and  templates and they were removed. I did not intend to make a big deal out of this. Now you came and added a dispute template for me, thanks. --Anon84.x 16:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What dispute tag are you talking about? There's no dispute tag. And you added those two tags you mentioned without sufficient support to place them there, which is why they were removed. You need to get a BROAD and SIGNIFICANT consensus before doing anything like that. Do you understand that point yet? DreamGuy 16:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All I wanted to show is that the policy is disputed. A protection template also does the job --Anon84.x 16:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

text: DreamGuy, please read what the protected tag says. It is a dispute tag.  We do not mind this specific tag since there was no intention to even start edit the page -- we just wanted to put a dispute tag!  Also, to the contrary of what you may think, it is not a support for the present page! Just read it. --Lumiere 21:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected again.