Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Archive 024

message: Does the following constitute NPOV language:
:"In response to a 1999 controversy covered by the press concerning a group of Wiccans in the United States military who were holding religious rituals and services on the grounds of the bases they were assigned to, Weyrich sought to exempt Wiccans from the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and bar them from serving the military altogether. Weyrich, as president of the Free Congress Foundation, led a coalition of ten religious right organizations that attempted a Christian boycott on joining the military until all Wiccans were removed from the services, saying:
"The official approval of satanism and witchcraft by the Army is a direct assault on the Christian faith that generations of American soldiers have fought and died for," Paul Weyrich added. "If the Army wants witches and satanists in its ranks, then it can do it without Christians in those ranks. It's time for the Christians in this country to put a stop to this kind of nonsense. A Christian recruiting strike will compel the Army to think seriously about what it is doing."[3]
According to TheocracyWatch and the Anti-Defamation League both Weyrich and his Free Congress Foundation are both closely associated with Dominionism.[4][5] TheocracyWatch lists both as leading examples of "dominionism in action," citing "a manifesto from Paul Weyrich's Free Congress Foundation," The Integration of Theory and Practice: A Program for the New Traditionalist Movement[6], "illuminates the tactics of the dominionist movement."[4] TheocracyWatch, which calls it "Paul Weyrich's Training Manual," and others consider this manifesto a virtual playbook for how the theocratic right in American politics can get and keep power.[7] The Anti-Defamation League identifies Weyrich and the Free Congress Foundation as part of an alliance of more than 50 of the most prominent conservative Christian leaders and organizations which threaten the separation of church and state. [5] Weyrich has rejected allegations that he advocates theocracy saying, "This statement is breathtaking in its bigotry"[8] and dismisses the claim that the Christian right wishes to transform America into a theocracy.[9] Katherine Yurica has written that Weyrich guided Eric Heubeck in writing The Integration of Theory and Practice, the Free Congress Foundation’s strategic plan published in 2001 by the foundation,[10] which she says calls for the use of deception, misinformation and divisiveness to allow conservative evangelical Christian Republicans to gain and keep control of seats of power in the government of the United States."
I am looking for input as to whether this passage amounts to POV pushing because I already looked at the site and found that the supporting articles are poorly cited and biased. Dominionism is never adequately defined, and all I want to know is if revisions need to be made to give it a more neutral tone of voice. 
For one, Weyrich's a Melkite Catholic and a self-described Christian Democrat.
Does the underlying article qualify as a primary source of credibility?--146.145.70.200 00:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Before anyone spends too much time arguing over this, they'd be wise to read this user's RFC first Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Pravknight. FeloniousMonk 05:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems just a bit dishonest, Pravknight, to post as an anon to try to skirt any connection to the RFC.  Were you trying to get supporting evidence for your RFC? •Jim62sch• 09:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Is this NPOV language?

message: This might have been brought up before and if it has, please provide a link so I can read up on it.
NPOV does not apply when talking abouts facts, such as the moon orbits the earth.  However, a scientfic theory is not a fact (it is simply supported by facts via reasonable deductions and inductions).  And the nature of science dictates that all theories will have some opposition, regardless of how well established.  Now in the case of the theory of gravity, does NPOV apply.  How does somebody reply to a challange that says that "The moon orbits the earth due to the force of gravity" is a scientific theory and should therefore not contain POV (rewrite the sentance to "Most scientists believe that the moon orbits the earth due to the force of gravity").
I frequent a lot of scientfic topics (especially biology) and this challange is brought up often.  It would be great if the resolution to this problem could be posted on the main page to allow for easy referencing.--Roland Deschain 13:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think you are asking:  If there is a commonly held idea which has been questioned by modern science, how can the modern questions (theories) be juxtaposed against the established view.  One method would be something like this: "The moon orbits the earth due to the force of gravity, however, some modern theories consider the attraction of dark matter [link] to be important.  In addition, John Doe has presented his theory [link] which has the U.S.S. Enterprise responsible for our moon's orbit."  Terryeo 10:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Does Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Theory help? -- Donald Albury(Talk) 13:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, why do you think so? If I understand it well, to avoid weasel style, for those statements to which no notable opposition exists we can simply write it as a matter-of-fact. Thus, "The moon orbits the earth due to the force of gravity" is a perfectly acceptable sentence in Wikipedia except if notable disagreement can be cited (and in that case that alternative POV should be referenced). Harald88 11:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Similar disputes are discussed very, very often...too often (I'm guessing) to provide a single link that does justice to the debate. My view is that every issue like this must be argued individually by editors based on the merits of that particular article.  A global policy to decide a lot of scientific topics won't do any good, doesn't exist, and shouldn't exist. What that means is that a huge number of scientific articles will continue to have sentences or entire sections that are always being challenged based on notability, verifiability, fact/theory NPOV disputes or similar things.  The only way to reply to these challenges is to debate them out in the specific talk page for that article and encourage a community of editors to contribute to the dispute so a consensus opinion is reached. In the long run, that will probably mean that Wikipedia will continue to include more alternative theories and to be more wishy-washy about scientific facts than academic textbooks or other encyclopedias.  Maybe the stable-version-Wikipedia idea will correct this, but for now, focus on each challenge individually and focus on finding and maintaining a good community in the talk page to discuss each challenge. Flying Jazz 14:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Flying Jazz's assessment is well grounded. There is ony so much that policy can provide. Good judgement and collaboration by editors, will always be needed. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 15:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, and there's a clause already in this policy about making necessary assumptions. FeloniousMonk 16:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV and Scientfic Theories? 

message: JA: If you don't really care what it says, you could have just said so in the first place.  The part about "not a rigid rule" refers to the sentence about double and single quote marks.
Though not a rigid rule, we use the "double quotes" for most quotations — they are easier to read on the screen — and use 'single quotes' for nesting quotations, that is, "quotations 'within' quotations".
JA: The discussion about punctuation marks in and out of quotes reflects what has become the newer standard since about the late 60's, partly on account of computer searching requirements.  Jon Awbrey 07:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quote Unquote 

message: I have not delt with images much.  An image has recently appeared whose summary grants Wikipedia the use of it.  However, the summary has a condition attached to it.  The condition is stated, "critics of the Church of Scientology are free to use this image".  On the face of it, NPOV clearly states that Wikipedia is not a critic of any institution, nor any individual.  Quite the opposite, we try in every way to present dry, encyclopedic information from a neutral point of view.  For Wikipedia to use an image with the condition attached that Wikipedia can use the image so long as Wikipedia appear (in the grantor's eyes) as a critic, seems to me contrary to Wikipedia's stated purpose.  Is there a policy, guideline, or page which addresses this sort of issue? Terryeo 19:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Terryeo is misrepresenting this situation.  Please take a look at the discussion at  before responding to his request.  BTfromLA 19:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why do editors run around and say that what I say is not the actual situation.  I stated the situation as I know it to be.  I believe any literate editor will find the situation to be as I state it to be.  I don't need another editor interpreting my every statement.  I grow irritated with with after months of it.  You are misrepresenting the situation, BTfromLA.  This is the first time I've really reacted to one of these "chase after terry and tell everyone he is wrong" games.  It grows irritating after a while. Terryeo 22:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Editors write that you are misrepresenting something when they believe that to be the case. I think the evidence is clear that the reason Wikipedia was singled out for permission to use that photo is because the owner of the photo recognized that Wikipedia is NOT a critic of Scientology but a site that presents information about Scientology from a neutral point of view--he says that in so many words on his web site.  It seems to me that anybody interested in adjudicating this matter will be better informed by looking at the language of the licence and reading the exchange about this at , where possibly relevant facts, such as the origin of the line about Wikipedia and the fact that the web owner is not a native English speaker and thus prone to awkward sentence construction, are introduced.  One person has done so, and he ultimately agreed with you.  But when you state that Wikipedia is, "in the grantor's eyes" a critic of Scientology, I think you are leaping to a conclusion that is contradicted by the evidence. That is not a fair way to introduce the problem.  As to your concern about "games" designed to contradict you at every turn, scroll up a bit and you'll see where my previous post on this page was an endorsement of something you'd said.  BTfromLA 23:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A question regards NPOV 

message: Systematic conflicts of intesest as in autobiographies and paid editing can threaten NPOV. Please see Wikipedia:Conflicts of interest created by User:Eloquence 10 August 2006 in this regard. WAS 4.250 21:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One wonders.  The author of the photo's site is cited in nearly every article of the Scientology series. Terryeo 14:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Conflict of interest

message: I feel that WP is limmeted by the NPOV policy. If there were more controversial things on WP more people would be drawn here to help the page(s) grow. Ouijalover 22:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see Everything2 and Wikinfo, both of which have what you are looking for.  Jkelly 22:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Having a Multiple point of view policy and removing the NPOV policy 

message: How do I handle a situation with an editor who tags articles as POV without giving any reasoning for the tag, or anything that they suggest needs to be done or changed in the article to make it NPOV?  Is there a burden on the editor placing the tag to explain the reasoning, and what needs to be done to correct it?  If the editor doesn't explain after a certain period of time, can the tag be removed ?  Sandy 00:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What article are you referring to? If  is added without discussion or at least a reason given in the edit summary, it is often removed in a short time. If there is an ongoing content dispute, it might be assumed the tag relates to that dispute. Gimmetrow 00:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's come up a number of times, and I can't recall all the places, but I can give the two most recent examples (not necessarily the best examples).  On Criticism of Hugo Chávez, the editor who placed the tag said it was "so the article wouldn't become POV" LOL !  It's a preventative POV tag, according to him.  I've been asking him for days to justify the tag and say exactly what he wants addressed (I can't concoct data to present an argument he imagines isn't there).  If the article is a POV fork (which can be argued), then the content should be merged into the main Hugo Chávez article.  The same group of editors who sometimes make the argument that the Criticism article is a POV fork refuse to allow the content to be merged back to the main article (I removed the content when we were trying to shorten the main article, then they changed their minds about using Summary Style, but won't let the content come back).  On Súmate, the editor who placed a tag gave an explanation, which is vague.  My question there is does the editor have the responsibility to spell out what s/he considers needs to be changed in or added to the article?  Just saying an article reads like it's POV doesn't give one a lot to go on.  When I've tagged an article POV, I've given a specific list of problems that needed to be addressed, information that was left out, examples of biased terminology, etc.  Is that not how it should be done ?  It seems that the person doing the tagging should have some burden of explanation, akin to actionable objections on FAC, so that other editors can fix it.  Thanks for the help, Sandy 01:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Articles tagged without explanation 

message: Just what do you think you are doing? 
Writing an essay, making a userpage, or, maybe, emulating IRC chat?
CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 22:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Asking "Just what the phoucque are you doing?" (as you wrote in your edit summary) is a breach of civility, a violation of Wikipedia policy. I suggestion you calm down and don't get yourself in trouble. -- LGagnon 23:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, I didn't use the f-word! ;-). And the superbritish version is parodic, so if one doesn't have enough SoH to get that, one has a major problem. BTW, really only a f-word would be appropriate to describe what people are doing when they editwar about a main policy - so keep low until it gets to US! --CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 00:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit warring 

message: We have an abondance of pov forks such as Turkish Kurdistan or Kurdish celebration of Newroz. We also have plenty of articles which are not remotely neutral Kurdistan, Kurdistan Workers Party, etc...
Since I cant get Kurd related articles in anyway remotely neutral (as its either "Kurds are the best thing since sliced bread who are also oppressed like no tommorow" or "Kurds are evil") we might as well make this something official. 
--Cat out 23:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These articles should be reviewed and corrected collaborately. I'll bring this topic to the attention of the Wikipedia Neutrality Project, and, since it requires a broad review, I encourage everyone to attend and fix bias possibly present in these articles. Present state isn't a base for policy exceptions, it's policy what determines the proper state of all articles. I'd appreciate if you and other editors come to the WNP talk page and explain bias you've spotted in detail, and, again, to everyone - please don't overlook these issues. --CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 23:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll be happy to do that. (sorry for my barraging in btw) --Cat out 23:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks in advance. I also hope other editors will join the effort to fix any ethnocentric bias, as it requires most attention.  --CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 23:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have posted something on Wikipedia talk:Neutrality Project (its probably not at the right place). I havent presented any detail as I want people to look into it on their own first. --Cat out 23:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Cool Cat, didn't you try unsuccessfully to get Turkish Kurdistan deleted because you thought that discussing the (widely documented) political concept was unencyclopedic, or something like that? (added: yes, you did). There is no exemption from WP:NPOV for any article. The subject of an article may be uncongenial to a particular POV (Srebrenica massacre, Allegations of Israeli apartheid, Islamophobia etc), but that doesn't mean to say that the article is itself POV. -- ChrisO 19:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to give Kurd related topics an exemption from this policy 

message: Did the author of the NPOV really mean to include a statement to the effect that theft is now a value or opinion (reference to stealing under "A Simple Formulation")? I suspect he may wish to revise that particular section. JimScott 21:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He's technically right. The morality of theft is actually a highly debated subject, or at least what does and doesn't qualify as theft does. For instance, see wealth redistribution. --tjstrf 21:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See also capitalism. GeorgeLouis 06:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV: That stealing is wrong is a value or opinion. 

message: Technically advanced nations have more media power, which affects points of view of the wikipedia editors. Even quite smart people are getting brainwashed sometimes (especially in political and philisophical matters). First of all, when someone postulates a false statement one thousand times, it doesn't looks false anymore. Second, the biggest bias is omitting of information, not presenting all of information. Even if the information is presented, it wouldn't be giving a media attention. Taking example from the page, they cry about Saddam Hussein, but doesn't give any major attention to other dictators, which aren't confronting USA interests (Pakistani and many more). Or, they talk about serbian atrocities on every street, yet doesn't mention anything about albanian atricities, their nationalism.
Thie bias is impossible to fight. because the west, especially USA has too much of political, technological and finansical power. Yet, having power and money doesn't make you NPOV! Think about that, americans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by QuestPc (talk • contribs) 
:We appreciate your input, but we have long been aware of this fact. Obviously, a perfectly objective writer does not exist. We used to have a User:God, but I think we banned him, so there went our only hope there. ;) Basically, NPOV is impossible, but that's because it's the ideal standard. If everyone just does their best, we can reach a close approximation of NPOV, and that's all we're held to. --tjstrf 19:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV is impossible 

message: I removed the following link:
----
* The Yellowikis' Neutral point of view policy, derived from this policy and employed at Yellowikis
----
Edit summary: rv, seems irrelevant: Wikipedia is run by a non-for-profit organisation. Don't link to a page that has "business" written about five times per paragraph. This is unrelated to Wikipedia's NPOV.
I think there's more than one person needed to form a "consensus" to keep this on the policy page.
Yes we could link to everything that somewhere half-way through is derived from Wikipedia. But WP:NOT a repository of links. Certainly not the core content policy pages, for commercial links. If YelloWiki derived this from the WP:NPOV page, it is their task to mention that on that page (otherwise it'be a copyright infringement). Returning the not fulfilled favour, not knowing whether the YelloWiki NPOV page has any success at all, clutters the WP:NPOV page more than it clarifies. If we need more content on WP:NPOV, I'd rather bring back the FAQ content. Why am I putting so much time in something that IMHO should be clear to anyone, on first sight? --Francis Schonken 15:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed link to commercial website 

message: Let's see if this works:
:Proposal 1: on the basis of the discussion above, I propose that the present example under "fairness" be removed as misleadingly endorsing a specific format.Septentrionalis 20:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal

message: For example, at a basic level the phrase "race and intelligence" seems to be a dichotomy that unscientifically confuses description with conclusivity. A test taker's supposed "race" is just one among many bits of information, there are many different yet equal ways of correlating data given multiple data points. The word "race" hasn't even been defined anywhere close to the point of scientific consensus so how can advocates of this research even propose a conclusion based on a fundamentally disputed definition? There also isn't much if any general scientific community support for the concept of an absolute "quotient" and/or definition of "intelligence". Given multiple data points and multiple correlation possibilities a subject should be presented more generically and abstractly and should not be allowed to focus, to the exclusion of all else, on just one data correlation pair. Please Think Perpendicularly 23:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Escaping a dichotomy 

message: In science generally an investigation begins from the starting point that the cause is unknown and certainly not known conclusively, e.g. a "working hypothesis". First, you have to present and describe what you or someone else is _investigating_ before possible conclusions are even proposed. "Race and intelligence research" does not do that, they've put the cart before the horse by errantly confusing description and cause. The phrase "race and intelligence" fails to note that this disparity is in fact more abstract and generic given multiple data points and possible correlation pairs. Correlating by Wealth and Nutrition is just as valid as correlating by "race" and "intelligence". Please Think Perpendicularly 23:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conclusions can't be known ahead of time 

message: How should Wikipedia handle the situation where some sources criticize how a subject is being presented in other sources? In that case, I think Wikipedia should present that issue more generically and explicitly indicate where the scientific dispute begins? If other sources criticize certain researchers methods Wikipedia should not present that subject using those researchers' method, right? Please Think Perpendicularly 23:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Handling presentation criticism 

message: The current version of the race and intelligence article is a minefield of psychologically suggestive and conclusive words and phrases, some examples:
*The phrase "practical consequences" errantly presupposes that "race and intelligence research" has concluded something.
*The word "score" in "IQ test score" presupposes that IQ tests have validity which is disputed, a more neutral and accurate phrase is IQ test result.
*Causes other than "race" for the abstract disparity are errantly downplayed using words and phrases that discourage mental consideration of them as causes, for example, instead of accurately describing possible "environmental causes" such as nutrition and lack of health care as causes these "researchers" refer to them as "environmental factors" which is ridiculous. These "factors" actually could be the cause or main cause for the abstract disparity. Why are all possible non-"race" causes described using terms from within the dichotomy and paradigm of "race and intelligence"? Each and every possible environment cause is an equally relevant bit of information that can also be used to correlate data, but for some reason "race and intelligence researchers" only correlate and focus on just one correlation pair among the many possible.
*Just because someone named their test an "intelligence" or "intelligence quotient" or "cognitive ability" test doesn't mean it accurately measures the abstract concept of "intelligence". Please Think Perpendicularly 00:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said above, that article is written in a voice that is asserting a POV rather than describing it. I would slap the NPOV tag on it and get to work with other editors to make the article compliant by attributing POVs to those that hold them rather than making assertions of fact. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to be unaware of the history of that article. I was banned from Wikipedia for directly challenging its racism inducing method of presentation. It seems to me there is a systematic effort by a small highly coordinated group of users and admins within wikipedia to maintain that article's racism inducing method of presentation. Do you get the scale of the issue now? Wait a Second 07:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see what you are talking about.  I'm not sure how to blow the needed cool wind of sanity into that emotionally hot area but I would agree there is a great deal of emotionally weighted talk throughout the article.  Frankly, it sounds like erudite psychologists have used their familiarity with psychological doublespeek, combined it with the only discipline recognized to be able to measure IQ (psychology) and produced an article independant of any real germ of data. Terryeo 21:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Frankly, it sounds like someone who is barred from promoting his anti-psychology-and-psychiatry hate speech in the articles has taken up the habit of editing the policy talk pages in order to spread his prejudices. -- Antaeus Feldspar 13:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

text: While we are on the subject, I wonder if psychological doublespeak is better or worse than Office of Special Affairs doublespeak? I suggest that a way to blow sanity through a discussion is apply a Guideline AS a Guideline, which can never be enforced as a policy can be.--Fahrenheit451 21:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What, User:Fahrenheit451 ? Terryeo 17:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What "what", User:Terryeo? Bi 11:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestive words 

message: The use of unreliable sources as secondary sources is enforced via edit war. It's been argued that this doesn't warrant a POV tag, as it is not dealt with explicitly on WP:NPOV. What can I do, as admins refuse to deal with the article? Can my stance be inferred from existing rules or should ruling be added? --tickle me 01:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which article? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:25, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You didn't want to hear that: it's a German WP article on something Arab/Israel related. I won't mention the name to not arouse suspicion of inciting interwiki warring. There's a slight chance that opponents will give some weight to en:WP:NPOV rulings, ours are less detailed. For now, some insist to use e.g. anonymous uruknet.info reports as secondary source, and sources considered left-wing extremist by German authorities too. I feel that these are primary sources on themselves at best. A German admin concurred with my stance - and left it with just that. I'm a bit desperate, besides it struck me that the issue is, it seems, not dealt with explicitly here indeed. So clarifying that could possibly be of general interest over here too. --tickle me 06:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Tickle, don't just take my word for it, but consider being specific.  Nothing gets resolved except that it gets communicated about.  It helps no one to hold a secret in one place while nurturing aspects of discussion until your point is supported or denied.  Just brashly lay it out, toss the target into the ring, let editors fire away at it until a concensus is reached.  Have a little confidence in Wikipedia's robustness,  you'll be pleasently surprised!  Terryeo 21:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Terryeo, that is so refreshing to read your enlightened words of counsel.  I would really like you to take your own advice, "let editors fire away at it until a concensus is reached." On the Guideline of Reliable Source I have found you not to respect such a consensus.--Fahrenheit451 21:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What, User:Fahrenheit451 ? Terryeo 17:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What "what", User:Terryeo? Bi 12:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  unreliable sources/POV 

message: I hope I don't get attacked for this post. Lately, I ran across Anti-Semitism, the article. It states that the usage of this term for arabs (which is the opinion of arabs) is not generally accepted. And the rest of the article describes the subject as prejudice against jews. I know it's a delicate problem, but if a definition of term differs between two groups of people, shouldn't the two definition be fairly represented? And the article description (or even title) take account of these two definitions and not consider one false and one true and rely on it in the whole article since we're searching for verifiability not truth. I know it's difficult but how could this be solved in a reasonable manner. You're answer is appreciated (and if I didn't make myself clear, plz tell me, my english sucks ;) Thank you. CG 05:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your answer. This could be applicable for articles like Macedonia (terminology) which deals with only the definition of the term. Splitting the article into "Definition by A" and "Definition by B" is simple. However, some article (like Anti-Semitism doesn't deal with the term as a word but with the concept and the actions taken that could be described as this term thourough history. How could we concile two definitions of the term while describing its application thourough history? CG 10:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Representing two definitions in the whole article 

message: Greetings, I am developing some guidelines that would be sensible to include in NPOV and I'm not quite sure how to integrate them. These guidelines have to do with images and captions on those images. Here is what I'd like to include. Might there be any suggestions from the regulars who edit on this policy on how best to integrate this potential new section? Thanks. (→Netscott) 14:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: NOPV and all other content policies apply not only to main article text, but to captions as well. I do not see the need to expand the policy beyond to include specifics about captions. NPOV, V and NOR always apply. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately while what you're saying would seem to be common sense Jossi in practice it hasn't been the case. I'm aware of the possibility of instruction creep but as NPOV makes very little mention of image/photos relative to the policy as it stands now it is sensible to clarify this. (→Netscott) 15:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: COmmon sense should prevail. If there is a content dispute about a specific caption, discuss in talk. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean like this? (→Netscott) 15:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. A vigorous debate amongst editors is always a good thing if done with civility.≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly I saw nothing to debate. This edit was what folks got riled up about. (→Netscott) 16:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Talk on the article's discussion page (even a photograph's discussion page) is a first step of achieving editor concensus. In situations where the discussion involves elements of guideline or policy, the discussion often moves to the appropriate discussion page. Terryeo 20:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Nothing that cannot be resolved by involved editors by common sense and applying the current content policies. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The recent nutshell change made by David Gerard including the word "illustrations" will be helpful towards these ends. (→Netscott) 23:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV and images

message: There are several views of the Jay Treaty: in straight diplomatic terms it was, at best, a minimal success for the Americans, in that they did not have actually to accept anything intolerable. More recently, there have been more positive views. A lone editor insists on quoting only the positive views, and including the positive parts of mixed assessments. Septentrionalis 17:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Another instance

message: What's the correct thing to do when the sources on all sides of a topic are all self-published? This is regarding the page Neo-Tech (philosophy). Bi 11:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If there are no published reliable sources, the topic does not belong in Wikipedia. I suggest prodding it. -- Donald Albury 12:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's been tried. I was in favour of deleting it actually, but other people didn't agree. Now what? Bi 13:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have a stake in the outcome of this beyond simply improving Wikipedia, it might be best to just walk away from it. If you want to proceed, you can apply Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:No original research to statements in the article. If a statement in an article cannot be sourced to a reliable published source, it can be removed. As I suspect you will meet resistance, be sure that the statement in question is not verifiable from a reliable source before trying to remove it. If others insist on keeping unsourced statements, follow the procedures in Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. Don't edit war. If I get a chance, I'll look in on the article, but I'm making no promises. -- Donald Albury 14:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tried, tried, all tried... which is why I'm here. Bi 14:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And this one: WP:NEO#Articles on neologisms? --Francis Schonken 16:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm... does that mean I should start yet another AfD... and hope it doesn't get shot down again? I can try that... Bi 16:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I did exactly that: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neo-Tech (philosophy) (3rd nomination). Weird, people here are saying the article should be deleted, but when I start an AfD people suddenly say it shouldn't be deleted. It's a mad mad mad mad world. Bi 17:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See my comment at the AfD. You most certainly did not follow my advice, and there is nothing I can do to help you. -- Donald Albury 22:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, you certainly did help a lot. Bi 03:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Self-published sources on all sides?

message: Are there scenarios in which POV could ever possibly be a valid addition to any article on any scholarly website anywhere? Smith Jones 05:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Everything anyone ever writes is a from a POV. Some keys to making them a part of an overall NPOV presentation are sourcing, attribution, and common sense. WAS 4.250 06:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of POV

message: As a minor commentary, I note that this edit reverts to long-standing phrasing under which murky statement of policy the pack of editors violate actual WP:NPOV by ripping from Wikipedia the cited expressions of those reputable scholars that the pack does not like.  It is not a big deal in the overall scheme of things, but it is the dysfunctional current state of affairs in Wikipedia policy on WP:NPOV.  --Rednblu 23:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would kindly ask you to refrain from calling editors as being part of a "pack". We are human beings, not dogs.  ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Ditto, and in addition your edit did nothing to clarify, so far as I could tell. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

text: My friends, I apologize for any demeaning of the incredible work that any editor does.  But in discussing very real problems, one must sometimes be blunt, even if apologetic at the same time for the bluntness.  Accordingly, I would kindly ask you to refrain from interpreting the blunt and accurate technical description of the problem in a way that demeans in any way what we can do if we face the problem and address it appropriately.  Let us keep in mind that the natural patterns in 1) The Call of the Wild are noble, any 2) Cub Scout pack is loveable, and furthermore the 3) greatest American football team is called "The Pack"  Our jobs here are building an encyclopedia, and there are problems to be solved in WP:NPOV.  What are your ideas?  --Rednblu 00:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What problem do you claim exists thats addressal was removed by that revert? The only change in that revert was the removal of an ambiguous "example" which didn't even have enough context to be helpful within that paragraph, and the removal of 2 returns. That is not a significant reversion, and the change was unsignificant in the first place. --tjstrf 01:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

text: It is not I that has the data that we need to work this problem.  It is my guess that User:Ed Poor has the primary clue, since the pack is out to take down Ed Poor.  The pack cannot stand the NPOV that User:Ed Poor contributes, and minions of the pack saw this edit as another of User:Ed Poor's attempts to correct the flaws in WP:NPOV policy.  We need to hear User:Ed Poor's statement of what the flaws are in WP:NPOV policy.  For example, what flaw in WP:NPOV policy did User:Ed Poor think he was fixing with this edit?  --Rednblu 01:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  How would you put into the English language the pattern of group coordination in behavior that I have described, my friend? Could you suggest alternative choices of English words?  --Rednblu 02:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Let's for the sake of discussion, assume the situation is exactly as you spell out.  That there are one or two clear thinking individuals (you and your friend) and all the rest of the people who edit Wikipedia have a "pack" mind, that is, they are unable to think for themselves but can only mouth each other's words.  okay?  Just for the sake of discussion, okay?  Now you want to present new information that the "pack" has not considered, ok?  You want to introduce a brand new thought to the "pack" which they have never thought of, okay?  Well, there is a way to do it.  But here is the wrong way to do that. "HEY, PACK !!!!  You, you PACK you !!"  That's the wrong way.  Instead, you should politely state your new information, okay?  Honest, you really are talking with individual people. Terryeo 20:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well said.  That's fair.  I think you clearly voiced the problem.  In my opinion, I should not be forced by the political dynamics of Wikipedia to organize my own . . . . to wear down the opposition to let cited NPOV statements stay on the page undeleted.  There should be some clear standard of what Undue weight actually is so that I do not have to organize my own . . . . to establish what Due weight is.  Would you agree?  --Rednblu 21:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Consensus. --tjstrf 03:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

text: In other words, another content dispute being dragged to the policy talk pages. Who was it that decided unrelated content disputes made valid topics of discussion here? Oh right, they aren't. Well, considering that his edit made no significant difference to the policy in the first place, I fail to see how this is relevant. --tjstrf 01:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  In the absence of clear statements of [[WP:NPOV]] standards, there is no [[WP:NPOV]] 

message: Wanted to add language to the effect that care should be taken that parenthetical statements, in a brief clause following a subject, are particularly susceptible to insinuating non-NPOV perspectives because the structure permits only one POV. Parenthetical statemsnts should be strictly factual and parnethetical statements which appear to present an opinion should ordinarily be removed. (Example Tom, who is generally regarded as the less successful of the Tom, Dick and Harry brothers, was...) --Shirahadasha 03:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why can't the same standards which apply to the rest of Wikipedia articles be applied in a similar way to parenthetical claims?  That is, a  template could be added if there was doubt, they would need a citation or could be removed by any editors, etc. ? What need for any special treatment, isn't the simplicity, must be previously published by a reliable source enough ? Terryeo 04:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just work them into the prose of the paragraph, and treat them like a normal statement. --tjstrf 04:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parenthetical claims 

message: There is a section in the NPOV policy which says something like "majority views should be given majority repersentantion, signigirant minority views should given adequate representation....." On this basis of this sort of nonsense with ragerad to scientific matters, many cranks and supporters of various thelogical/pseudoscentific views have argued that, e.g., astrology may well be the majority view in the world and therefore should be terated respectfully, etc, . Now, this is the fallacy of argumentam ad populam obviously. Science does not work by the looking to the consensus of all the vast majorityof non-scientifically trained human beings. Science works by forumating various hypthoses and then subhectin them to rigious testing to either provide statistcal confrimation or eventual falsification. If the theory is falsified, it may be eother revised or abandoned in afvor of another, more well-cofrimed and unfalsified theory, etc... I'm being a bit simplictic, but I don't have time to goi into a full explanation of philosophy of science. In any case,the ultimate point is that science does not deal in "views" or "opinions" (doxa) at all. It deals in episteme, striving comnstantly to come closer and closer to revealing the facts and fundemantal truthts of the universe. When there is a dispute within the cisntific community, then the majority view should be repersented in a predominant matnerrm the minority view, etc... When there is a dispute  between a scientific fact (e.g. evolution of species) and unfalsiable pseduoscintific beleiefs (e,g, Intellgient design), then the FACT must be asserted. The movement of religious fanatics who reject the facts should be mentioned as a political and histrocal curiosity only. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 09:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV and argumentam ad populam

message: by example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority)
This is taken from the article on the other side explaianing NPOV. I change it to this:
the flat earth error, which is demonstrably false
This was revereted by someone who commented: NPOV is not about true-false. Indeed!!! You've nailed it. It seems clear from this example that NPOV EXCLUDES the very notions of true and false. This is the heart of the failure of Wikipedia and projects like it. The NPOV favors a particualr point of view with regard to epistemology: epistemological skepticism or relativism (they come to the same thing in the end). The earth is NOT flat. There is no scientific theory that the earth is flat. The earth is spherical. Obviously. LOL! What nonsense. NPOV is fundemntally logically impossible becasue not holding a point of view is to hold a second-order poijt of view with respect to points of view: anmely, that they are all equally valid!!--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 10:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Re. "[...] failure of Wikipedia and projects like it [...]" — [sic]? --Francis Schonken 10:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Failure to be taken seriously as a reliable source of information among scientists and other academic ,I mean. Not failure to be popular. "The Encylopedia that anyone can edit!!" How can that not fail to be popular. It's like blogs. Everyone and his grammother's dog has one, but what are they good for, intellectually speaking? --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 14:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Re. "Failure to be taken seriously as a reliable source of information among scientists and other academic " – "Internet encyclopaedias go head to head" (comparing Wikipedia to Britannica) published in Nature, December 2005. Compared to that your "opinions" on Wikipedia's failure to be taken serious by the scientific community appear extreme POV to me, and certainly not worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. --Francis Schonken 07:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What was meant was that they do not regard us as a proper source, and infact we ourselves recommend against citing us. LinaMishima 12:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Here's a simple example of the problem

message: I notice that most of my edits today were reverted. I'm not too bothered: this is your project, and you have all worked hard on it (I read this discussion page a lot). I have to tell you, though, that the page reads very badly in places. This is to be expected from a page constructed by a group, but my edits were aimed to improve it in accordance with the manual of style, hopefully without altering its content (with one exception, which I made clear on the edit summary and which I isolated in one edit, where I feel you have a mistake).
A word about reverting. I think reverting should be reserved for mistakes, vandalism, or whatever, and not used for good-faith edits that contain a variety of separate changes. This applies particularly to style editing because if you revert the whole of such an edit when you dislike parts of it, you may incidentally lose some valuable improvements that resulted from close reading. In my opinion, it is better to alter back any particular changes you disagree with rather than reverting wholescale: as you can imagine, these types of edits take a long time and much consulting of the style manual.qp10qp 17:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you insist on communicating your concerns in metaphor, we can't understand exactly what you're asking. --tjstrf 18:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, since no one seems to object to the edits I mentioned above, I shall begin doing them again. I will start today with the contractions, in accordance with the MOS, and take my time with the rest over the next few weeks, so as not to alarm anyone. qp10qp 15:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reversions of my edits

message: I notice today that the rest of my edits were reverted; one of the comments in the edit summary says that I should have gained consent for them here first. But I don't lack in trying to discuss things here, I would say. If it is meant that I should gain consent for individual style edits (I don't consider them "so-called style edits" since they're based on the manual of style), then I'm surprised, because I assumed the Talk page was for discussing less trivial proposed changes. I won't go through all the changes here; but just as examples, here are a few changes that were reverted:
Three instances of "we're" changed to "we are", plus a "there's" to "there is", a "we'd" to "we could", and an "it's" to "it is". (MOS: avoid the use of contractions — such as don't, can't, won't, would've, they'd, and so on — unless they occur in a quotation.)
"the neutral point of view policy" to my "the neutral-point-of-view policy".
"that page contains also comments" to my "that page also contains comments".
"a good way to help build a neutral point of view", or Bluetie's later edit "to establish a neutral point of view" has been reverted to "a good way to help building a neutral point of view". 
This last one was turning into a good example of progressive editing. First I changed it to "build", and when Bluetie looked at it, which he might not have done otherwise, he changed it to "establish" because he thought that was a better word. By "progressive editing" I mean editing that inches towards a better document; that consists, for me, in looking at individual changes made, judging whether the editor had a point, and then either reverting that particular change or providing a better solution.
To give an example: my recasting of the following may not have been ideal, but it should have alerted editors to the poverty of expression of:
"So we're committed to the goal of representing human knowledge in that sense. Something like this is surely a well-established sense of the word "knowledge"; in this sense, what is "known" changes constantly with the passage of time..."
The same principle could have been applied to some of my other attempts to tidy up passages or make them more precise: if you didn't like my version, you could have at least considered whether it identified a weakness in expression.
I'm not raising this matter here again to say how important my changes were (quite the contrary, which is why I didn't present them here in advance), but to show that they were not all of the same type. I would ask reverters of such multiple edits to consider a slower and more piecemeal response—to become editors again, for a moment—or at least, in keeping with reverting policy, to explain reversions on the discussion page.
Meanwhile, there is an elephant in the room here: in my opinion this page is badly written in larger ways than the ones I nibbled at and so is therefore unlikely to be read by many people.
I'm not sure anyone will respond to the above; but I have done this the right way by talking again on this page rather than trying to sneak my edits back in.qp10qp 15:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you insist on communicating your concerns in metaphor, we can't understand exactly what you're asking. --tjstrf 18:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, since no one seems to object to the edits I mentioned above, I shall begin doing them again. I will start today with the contractions, in accordance with the MOS, and take my time with the rest over the next few weeks, so as not to alarm anyone. qp10qp 15:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: On the reversion of the rest of my edits

message: On a lighter note, isn't the following a bit woolly, speculative and POV?
"Totalitarian governments and dogmatic institutions everywhere might find reason to oppose Wikipedia, if we succeed in adhering to our non-bias policy."qp10qp 21:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe, so what? Policy pages are not articles, and of course they contain POV: the POV of the Wikipedia community. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't buy that. I think it's poor. In my opinion Wikipedia POV should be to make a better encyclopedia and leave it there.qp10qp 01:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia, a better encyclopedia when censored to some totalitarian state's whim? Hardly. Acknowledging that our NPOV policy may piss them off is merely being honest with ourselves. --tjstrf 02:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe I am missing something, but I do not see any air between QP's position and everyone else's.  He/she made some edits that were, in my view, mostly grammar and style.  Some people objected. Ok.  I do not think though that QP is arguing with either intent or implentation as it currently exists.  I happen to agree that the POV should be about the encyclopedia.  I do not think we should have an agenda to piss people off, even if they are totalitarians. Our agenda should be to just edit a good encyclopedia. --Blue Tie 02:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Naturally, I agree with the sentiment. But it is covered well enough with "...when it is clear to readers that we do not expect them to adopt any particular opinion, this leaves them free to make up their minds for themselves, thus encouraging intellectual independence." The added note of airy wishful thinking strikes me as redundant on all counts.qp10qp 12:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the line should be removed because it has very little to do with the policy, is speculative, and does not clarify anything. --Fastfission 00:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Speculation

message: More generally: my experience of trying to improve the policy's readability yesterday made me feel that the text is somewhat locked in. I tried to be cautious and respectful of content. But in fact, after several hours with it, I came to the conclusion that the policy contains a surprising amount of repetition. For example, parts like the following (there are others) say what was already said ("But again" is a clue):
:"But again, consider that Wikipedia is an international collaborative project, and that nearly every view on every subject will be found among our authors and readers. To avoid endless edit wars, we can agree to present each of the significant views fairly and not assert any one of them as correct. That is what makes an article "unbiased" or "neutral" in the sense presented here. To write from a neutral point of view, one presents controversial views without asserting them; to do that, it generally suffices to present competing views in a way that is more or less acceptable to their adherents, and also to attribute the views to their adherents. Disputes are characterized in Wikipedia; they are not re-enacted."
Does it matter? Well, I think a policy, even more than an article, should say what it has to say in as few words as possible.qp10qp 12:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Repetitions