Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Archive 014

message: I was just wondering (don't make fun of me: I'm a newcomer), can you write non-neutral articles (for example, articles that state our opinion on something, like th meaning of life)?
Merci beaucoup!
Sonny jim 01:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Welcome! I don't know the answer to your question in general. In the context of the policy, it is just a style of writing. (Though there is still some debate amongst us about whether or not it should include more than just a style of writing.) There are some paragraphs in the policy that explain this style of writing reasonably well.  Just a very small detail. You meant to ask "Can you write an article with a neutral point of view on the meaning of life?", but you wrote the equivalent of "Can you write an article with a non neutral point of view on the meaning of life?".   The question was clear and simple. I don't know why I did not get it! --Lumiere 01:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The answer is no. You are not allowed to write non-neutral articles. All articles must aim to be neutral and represent views fairly and without bias. Bensaccount 04:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

text:  However, you can cite and even quote any article that is available through a reputable publisher and is relevant to the topic.  You still need to have a neutral style when you cite or quote this article. The article that you quote can be yours and it does not have to be neutral. For example, "Sonny Jim wrote that the meaning of life is <whatever Sonny Jim wrote>  [ref]".  In principle, a Wikipedia article can include a complete presentation of an article that is not neutral, as long as the presentation itself is neutral and relevant to the topic and this other article is already published by a reputable publisher. The key ingredients are (1) presented in a neutral style (2) already published by a reputable publisher and (3) relevance to the topic. Also, the neutral presentation cannot go beyond what is said in the published article.  --Lumiere 05:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But you cannot use selective presentation of facts and have an article that meets the NPOV policy either. Citing all sources from one view of a topic is just as POV as if no sources had been cited and the article was all author opinion. - Taxman Talk 14:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

text:  I agree. However, it is implicit that we cannot reject a viewpoint that is acceptable in accordance with the policies. The policies cannot do more than that. We cannot have a policy to allow the deletion of an article on the basis that it is not complete. We have to hope that editors will come and include all relevant viewpoints and represent them fairly in proportion to their significance. --Lumiere 15:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Is it that you don't understand our discussion or that you do understand it and just want to make a joke. Please note that there is no disagreement in the above discussion, but only a sequence of useful clarifications.  --Lumiere 16:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Curious : Can you write non-NPOV articles? 

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: The introduction was combined with the "What is the neutral point of view" section.Bensaccount 16:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone else created the bias section, I made it more comprehensive. Bensaccount 16:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See above. Bensaccount 16:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I disagree with this sentence. Bensaccount 16:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

text: It was too-long winded. This version gives the same information and addresses the objection quickly and finitely. Bensaccount 16:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

text: See above. Bensaccount 16:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

text: See above. Bensaccount 16:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Changes since March 2005 

message: * A support does nor mean an unconditional agreement with any edit that attempts to better reflect such a distinction.  --Lumiere 16:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: General comments 

message: * A support does nor mean an unconditional agreement with any approach that attempts to achieve the goal.  --Lumiere 16:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: General comments