Wikipedia talk:NPOV tutorial

message: Meh. I thought it was a good example, but it's your project so I wont object. BL 16:58, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: PS - new section moved to bottom of page
I completely disagree with the assertion that "Articles need to be interesting" as it goes on to say "to attract and keep the attention of readers" while it may  possibly be true that if you don't want the content you authored to be heavily edited you may want your content to be interesting, but no, articles do not need to be interesting and the day that they do is the day the sentence should be cut from the NPOV tutorial and pasted into the "Why Wikipedia has a reputation that more closely matches that of a Daily Newspaper and not an Encyclopedia" tutorialDirtclustit (talk) 04:54, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: It is a well known fact that the Christian Church burnt witches during the 17th century. Today most of us do not believe in the existence of witches and we feel that the witch burnings of the past were inexcusable crimes committed against innocent women. It is hard for us to understand how such things could happen. But before condemning the people who perpetrated those acts which we would now consider crimes, we should understand the full implications of our judgement. We should also ask whether we are wholly condemning the Church that stood behind those acts. To be concrete: though witches were burned, that did not make the whole Church an evil organisation, nor every Christian a wicked person. Even less can we say that because of the witch burnings Christianity is wholly a wicked religion and for that reason to be condemned. 
Would this same reasoning argue that we cannot condemnn slavery or genocide as bad, because we cannot pass judgement on they who committed those crimes ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.44.103.90 (talk • contribs) 10:13, 21 December 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you can condemn slavery but you do  not need to condemn it when you say that Romans used(?) slaves. Saying someone killed a baby is stating a fact; saying that someone did the bad thing of killing a baby is over-stating a fact; it would be even more POV saying someone is bad because he killed a baby. Pfortuny 13:29, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yes you can say condemn anyone who harmed any witch when they had not committed any crime, it doesn't matter if the society's written law made explicitly stated once a witch was identified it was legal to burn them, even if one could positively ID one, anybody who executes such a blatantly flawed law is in fact evil. And if not then at the very least it could be said that executor does not deserve their own life in the House Of Human Being, and a strong case could be made that anybody who witnessed it and did not speak out to the act being wrong could get the exact same judgement handed down. The same deal with un-consented to slavery unless they had some questionable law wherein jail time could be substituted for a stint of indentured service. And if that was the case for anyone I was LEGAL COUNSEL to I would inform them that they might want to make sure they are biological parents to offspring somewhere, as combined spiritually with another who was NOT so foolish is the only way they are going to carry on, as those unfit for the THIS HOUSE will find the gates locked after their current lease expiresDirtclustit (talk) 05:11, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don't pass judgement 

message: I've just added a section warning not to avoid saying things that some groups object to having stated if they're not disputing the facts.  I've encountered this a couple of times recently, and it looks like people are misunderstanding NPOV, and so taking political correctness too far.  I see earlier on this talk page there are a couple of mentions of other forms of this problem.  I'm not entirely satisfied by my exposition of the issue; perhaps others here can devise a clearer statement of it.  195.167.169.36 16:49, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Things not to avoid 

message: I have some concerns with the NPOV definition, specifically how it is being used to force small minority views into articles in large ways.  Take, for example, the "sun case" used throughout the early part of the NPOV tutorial.  I have seen a couple of cases where people have quoted this argument, and the explicit statement that 99% of the world seeing something may not make make it true, in a destructive way.  Does anyone really think that there should be a disambugation link at the top of the article about the Sun (as suggested in "word ownership") saying "This article is about a large majority view of the Sun.  For the view of the Sun by Apollo-Worshippers, see..."?  This is clearly what the article implies.  I would like to rewrite that example, and the example of "word ownership" to explain that consensus meanings DO have greater weight than very small minority meanings.  Does anyone have any thoughts? --Goodoldpolonius2 05:43, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Sensible approaches to minority views

message: See my suggestion in Wikipedia talk:Words to avoid#Claim --Irmgard 09:53, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial#Neutral language|Neutral language]] and [[Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial#Bias in attribution: Mind your nuances|Bias in attribution: Mind your nuances]]

message: A common way of introducing bias is by one-sided selection of information. Information can be cited that supports one view while some important information that opposes it is omitted or even deleted. In this manner, the full range of views on a subject can be unfairly presented or concealed whilst still complying with Wikipedia:Verifiability.
Some examples of how editors may unwittingly or even deliberately present a subject in an unfair way:
* Biased or selective representation of sources, eg:
** Explaining why evidence supports one view, but omitting such explanation in support of alternative views.
** Making one opinion look superior by omitting strong and citable points against it, comparing it instead with low quality arguments for other POV's (strawman tactics).
** Not allowing one view to "speak for itself", or refactoring its "world-view" into the words of its detractors.
* Editing as if one given opinion is "right" and therefore other opinions have little substance:
** Entirely omitting significant citable information in support of a minority view, with the argument that it is claimed to be not credible.
** Ignoring or deleting significant views, research or information from notable sources that would usually be considered credible and verifiable in Wikipedia terms (this could be done on spurious grounds).
** Concealing relevant information about sources or sources' credentials that is needed to fairly judge their value.
Thus, verifiability, proper citation and neutral phrasing are necessary but not sufficient to ensure NPOV. It is important that the various views and the subject as a whole are presented in a balanced manner and that each is summarized as if by its proponents to their best ability.
:Restored most of the section on information suppression. These are very good points and helpful info. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 15:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Information suppression

message: (See diff.) I think these changes need to be reverted. Wikipedia is not reporting the opinion of the magazine; the magazine is reporting the opinion of many Australians and responsible for the truth/reliability/etc. of this information. Wikipedia editors who read the magazine can then quote the article as the source where they have garnered the information. See also No original research. I'd like to revert straight away since the current text misinforms new editors but I'll hold back for a while pending input from other editors which would be most welcome. AvB ÷ talk 17:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done  - I added a small clarification about "citation", while the example was a somewhat unusual format for doing citations. But improve as you think fit. --Francis Schonken 18:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me! AvB ÷ talk 19:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent changes to [[NPOV_tutorial#Attribution_and_citation]]

message: wikipedia is worthless. did you seriously believe that you wouldn't have problems with "vandalism" when you decided to let anybody who wants to edit something? not everyone's view matters. it is crazy that you dismiss truth just so as not to offend a 1% minority view. I can't count how many times I've seen (and from Americans) that an article is "biased" in favor of the American view. Guess what - compared to America's view, no other country's view matters. It doesn't matter what some lowbrow nobody in Togo or Ghana has to say about world events. They don't even know what a PC is. Let the leaders lead and toss this subjective truth nonsense in the garbage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.42 (talk • contribs) 
: When individuals have space and opportunity you find civilization growing and propering.  Where you have leaders who use statements like; "we can't let the common person do .. (xyz)", "it doesn't matter what some lowbrow in Ghana says" or similar, there you find a stultified society, a people without future, bigotry and poverty.  <He tosses the subjective truth into the garbage>. <He pulls it out again and looks at it> But hey, thanks for posting your POV, 207.69.137.42. Terryeo 14:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's generally considered bad for Wikipedia to feed the trolls, Terryeo. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  rampant subjectivity 

message: What is the status of this page?  I would like to see a tag at the top saying what its status is.  Is it an essay?  A guideline?  A policy?  A proposed policy or proposed guideline or work-in-progress intended to be a proposed policy or guideline?  A page whose status is disputed? Thanks!  --Coppertwig 13:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a tutorial that is has a priority link from WP:NPOV. Its purpose is to help editors writing NPOV articles without cluttering the policy page (a tutorial can't be policy of course, just as an English course can't be a law). Perhaps it's useful to call it a guideline, but a tutorial is also not exactly a guideline either. What difference does it make? Probably it's useful to tag it as an approved tutorial. Harald88 13:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It can make a difference, in that some editors use "policy" as some sort of weapon. I would imagine Coppertwig has had this experience, with an editor trying to cite this page as "policy", b/c it's linked from a policy page. I'm just guessing, however. Eaglizard 06:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status of this page 

message: I have a comment regarding the suggestions about "noted", "explained" and "pointed out": often, these are the precise words needed, but I have seen some editors citing this page as a reason to change otherwise neutral statements. I don't know exactly how to formulate what I mean, but I have a great example in continuation of the main page's. If, for example, Duane Gish had referenced the bible to support his statement, the proper formulation could be
:Duane Gish pointed out that the Bible states God created the Earth.
This is objective and pretty easily verifiable fact he's noting: I'm quite confident (without doublechecking) that the Bible does, indeed, state that God created the Earth. The fact that Gish is noting it is his argument; he isn't simply making the argument directly (ie, "Gish noted that God created the Earth"). However, I have seen this transformed into things like
:Duane Gish claimed that the Bible states God created the Earth.
This is obviously POV, since a reader unfamiliar with the Bible might assume it doesn't (or at least might not) say that. Besides, "said" gets very old about the umpteenth time you use it... wait... "umpteenth" is in the spell-checker?? Wow. Anyways...
I think this section could be clarified some, demonstrating that some (specifically limited) uses of those three versions of "said" are quite allowable, and sometimes very useful. It's a very subtle point, but there's a difference between directly claiming that something is true and pointing out that another source claims it (even if you only point it out to support your argument). Does anyone agree with me? Eaglizard 06:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  re: Bias in attribution: Mind your nuances 

message: Traditionally, encyclopedias describe the world by dividing it into currently existing nation-states, and featuring the history of the currently dominant ethnic group which rules the nation state. Of course this is a nationalist and sometimes ethno-racist POV. However, WP has uncritically adopted this POV way of describing the world. There are alternate objective, non-POV ways the world could be described, such as economic or cultural regions which transcend nation-state boundaries, but it seems WP gets its marching orders from the CIA. Fourtildas (talk) 07:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CIA "Fact"book POV 

message: We have an interesting dispute here about which  agreed upon facts should be included: Talk:9/11#(subsection to make editing easier) ; fact picking.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 03:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  fact selection dispute 

message: I work for Microsoft. I like it there and I like the work I do. I have also contributed to Wikipedia from time to time but I have always avoided topics that have anything to do with Microsoft. I figured that I ran the risk of tainting an articles NPOV merely by contributing even if my contribution was nuetral. I fear the IP scanners. I have been thinking about again. I have been reading some of the NPOV articles and I haven't seen this discussed yet. Is it possible for someone, from Microsoft, or Apple, or Starbucks, or Canon, or Oracle, or whatever, to contribute on a subject that touches their company. If so, what is the best way to do that? If not, ok.....writing about rivers is fun too. I would like to hear peoples' thoughts about this. Thanks.
Crackerbelly talk 03:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:COI --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

text: COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. If your edits are not of that kind. i.e. promoting Microsoft or its interests, you can edit related articles with great caution, or better, provide your material in talk for other editor's evaluation. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Thank you for the pointer to the COI article. That was helpful. I like the suggestion of contributing to the talk section and then letting someone else decide if the content is worthy of adding to the article. I would rather avoid all appearances of COI. Crackerbelly talk  —Preceding comment was added at 04:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contributing as an employee of a corporation 

message: The introduction to this tutorial makes it sound like it will go through the steps focusing on liberalism, but it only covers the topic a few times. I could reword the introduction to not make it sound like this, but it seems to me that this might be a good idea, that is, making the entire tutorial focus on one (hypothetical) article.  It doesn't have to be liberalism.  In fact, I'm not sure that that particular topic would fit all the subjects here.  Anyone have any ideas on this, and does anyone with more experience with want to do this/willing to change the article?  Asmeurer (talk  ♬ contribs) 04:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  One topic 

message: I think there are several significant verifiable facts that dispute the tenor of the subsection "Sexism at King's College" in the article on Rosalind Franklin. I have stated some of these in the most recent posts to the Discussion at this time. How do I start a respectful NPOV discussion? Can I just add a paragraph stating facts I think at variance? Michael P. Barnett (talk) 20:25, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at some examples at WP:NPOVN (the NPOV noticeboard). You just post a section there. However, I suggest you wait a while because you need to get fully organized before raising a matter at a noticeboard (if you start before you are ready, you may get bad reactions, and subsequent clarifications may be ignored because people only have limited time). I need to explain that I have this page on my watchlist and am replying because of that. It is entirely coincidental that I am also the person who replied to you at Talk:Rosalind Franklin#Some details. You should focus on my comment there: should be resolved by investigating what sources actually say. That is what's needed before going further. If no source verifies the sexism claim, the claim can simply be removed. If there are multiple reliable sources, the claim should probably stay. If there is just one source, it's a bit more tricky. It's very unlikely that other sources would bother saying "there was no sexism", but if there are scholarly works on the subject and they do not mention sexism, that may be an argument that the claim is WP:UNDUE. Also, you should think about how the final wording in the section might appear (you might put a draft on the article talk page). If you want to discuss this any further, we should do that at the article talk page. Johnuniq (talk) 03:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  How do I start an NPOV discussion? 

message: Let's not say "POV" writing when we mean "biased writing". It's not a good synonym, and it obscures the fact that a huge number of Wikipedia articles are about the clash between various opinions of points of view. See Wikipedia:OPINION for more information. --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Biased writing, the opposite of NPOV

message: See current discussion at WP:VPP#How to write on moral/ethical acts/behaviors that are treated negatively today but not during the time of the original topic? --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:00, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:PRESENTISM]] 

message: This may be nitpicking or just due to my less-than-native mastery of the English language, but doesn't "P states sth." imply that P claims the denoted state to be real, as opposed to "P says sth." or "P writes sth." which merely describe the communicative act of saying or writing the cited words? Isn't the way "to state sth." relates to reality closer to "to explain sth." (but without necessarily elaborating the details or reasons) than it is to "to say/write sth."?
If so, the latter wordings would be "safer choices" where neutral language is desired, whilst the former might be problematic, as it is not as clearly detached from the content of the statement made by P.
Any input about this from knowledgable speakers? Zooloo (talk) 21:06, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mind your Nuances: "stated" vs "said" or "wrote"? 

message: The section on Neutral language doesn't seem to make any mention of Evaluative language. Such an example would be "Tomas Edison introduced his brilliant invention of..." - while I would say that it is indeed a bright invention, using the term brilliant actually carries a non neutral presupposition that the invention is indeed a positive invention. Micsthepick (talk) 09:19, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion of Evaluative/Neutral Language