Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Archive 17: Difference between revisions

Since this talk page has grown too long for some users' browers to edit, the discussions are being archived oldest first:

• Archive_001 Discussions before October 2004
• Archive_002 Closing out 2004
• Archive_003 Discussions begun Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr 2005

When starting a new topic, please add it to the bottom of this page, and please sign your comments with four tildes: ~~~~. This will automatically place a date stamp, which will allow us to maintain this page better.

Present NPOV policy ambiguous, flawed, too general

I believe that the present NPOV policy fallaciously attempts to cover too many different aspects of journalistic integrity. First and foremost, understanding POV is pretty simple. POV means that an article's potential meaning to a variety of audiences is compromised because of the author's assumptions about the audience. The most common POV error is the assumption that the reader holds the same set of assumptions about the world as the author. Elsewhere on this page there is a classic example of the Northern vs Southern hemispheric POV on seasons and climate... referring to December as "the winter months" is definitely POV. There's no insidious intent or ulterior motives there... just a ripe opportunity for misunderstanding arising from the limitations of one's habitual experience. It's simple enough, yet Wikipedia seems to insist that POV also covers all types of bias as well. Bias and POV are related problems, but they are not (or shouldn't be) interchangeable terms.

Also, an article that is completely NPOV by Wikipedia standards can still end up being ridiculously biased because it contains information that is factual and NPOV but overwhelmingly in support of a particular agenda or skewed toward a particular interest due to lack of participation from alternative viewpoints. I call this PPOV, or "partial point of view", which is a form of bias arising from the abuse of Wikipedia NPOV policy as it stands today.

I believe this sort of ambiguity fuels a lot of edit wars and causes people unintentionally to provoke one another. It also prevents people from easily getting to the heart of what really causes disputes. The NPOV policy should be reduced to what truly is POV, and editorial bias should be controlled by a separate policy. We should not be afraid to call bias what it is. The Hokkaido Crow 19:55, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Some Concrete guidlines Would Be Use

It would be nice to have more detailed guidlines about the mechanics of writing NPOV.

For example 1. Any statement advocating that the reader take an action or make a particular choice couldn't be NPOV 2. Statement which attribute a motivation to a person without supporting evidence are suspect. 3. Blanket statements extoling the superiority of a particular style of anything (cars, sports, etc) over another style is very suspect - regardless of the support which might be mustered for the statement.

Several of these concrete suggestions would be nice at the start. The large controversy could be described later.

Hans Solbrig 31 July 2005

quotation marks etc.

Where would it be appropriate to add a blurb about quotation marks being used as a form of bias? As quotation marks aren't words, we can't put it into "words to avoid". A good example of (somewhat hilarious) quoatation-bias is this: America "invaded" Iraq. We can see how the quotes give a certain bias. It would be better, of course, to simply say: America invaded Iraq. Other examples are: Abortion is the "killing" of a fetus; (or the creationist favorite) the "theory" of evolution; Michael Moore claimed* that America itself was in possession of "Weapons of Mass Destruction". Where could a note about this be added?

• see also the entry into "words to avoid" about "claim".

ChadThomson 1 July 2005 07:57 (UTC)

Scan the main article for "scare quotes" for why quotation marks can be "abused" in certain circumstances. 72.15.90.142 20:30, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Anti-American point of view

I have noticed that articles that are critical of the US are almost always kept. Articles critical of anti-American attitudes are as a rule deleted as "POV".

Examples: Arab dictatorships - deleted Ameriphobia - deleted Islamophilia - deleted Islamophobia - kept 911 conspiracy theories - kept

So it seems that anything too critical of anti-American terorrism or bigotry is immediately deleted, because it is "POV", while POV articles whose very titles imply a position (Islamophobia, History of US Imperialism, etc) are rigorously defended. Even editing such articles brings a swarm of RVs.

The funny part is that arguments made for deleting one article are the dismissed out of hand in the case of keeping another. The most important matter seems to be whether the admin agrees with the article or not politically, ie. fringe Leftwing.

17 June 2005 Dragonlance

Current Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)

There has been a great deal of discussion and disagreement regarding the use of prefixed-styles originating with the new Pope Benedict XVI article which currently begins with the formal style of address, "His Holiness." The question was broadened because it was claimed by Jguk to be an established style policy to begin biographical entries with formal styles, and discussion was moved/continued on the Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies) page. Prolonged discussion resulted in no apparent consensus, and a survey was proposed and discussed for another week before being submitted. The current survey is posted at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)/Survey on Style-Prefixed Honorary Titles with discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)/Survey on Style-Prefixed Honorary Titles.

The survey is still ongoing, and not scheduled to be closed until after May 14. However, there does not seem as yet to be any consensus forming, rather, there seem to be divided camps which will probably block ultimate consensus for any outcome. By no means is this absolutely certain, and I would not foreclose the survey and discussion prematurely, but I thought you might want to take a look and in particular to provide any suggestions or guidance on what sort of policy would conform with Wikipedia's NPOV requirement. Whig 07:04, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

NPOV as dogma

"According to Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable". "

How is this different from religious dogma? It seems to me NPOV is taken to absurd extremes by some self-important administrators too enamored of their little barnstar award trinkets. Not to mention it is overly sanitizing the pedia to where even a sense of humor becomes verboten, hence the need for the new admin award category: the award of the NPOV Nazi

Well, you do have to give some creedence to this argument. Whenever anything is taken to be an absolute, it opens the door for a person to manipulate that to their own ends. Let me give you an example: the Salem Witch Trials. All someone had to do was describe someone as a witch, and then they could freely assualt that person with no consequences. Well, isn't it possible (indeed, likely) that someone might take this sacred cow, NPOV, and accuse someone else of being not NOPV simply for the ability to attack them or their ideas free of consequences? Surely, there must be safeguards to protect those who are the unortunate victims of this sort of manipulation. May I ask what provisions you have thought of to prvent NPOV from becoming a tool for witch-hunters?Dave

Proposal to amend policy (BC/AD as POV)

I want Wikipedia to accept a general policy that BC and AD represent a Christian Point of View and should be used only when they are appropriate, that is, in the context of expressing or providing an account of a Christian point of view. In other contexts, I argue that they violate our NPOV policy and we should use BCE and CE instead. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate for the detailed proposal. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:34, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Put me down as "don't care". (Although isn't it very possible that BCE/CE are less widely understood than BC/AD?) Nickptar 22:36, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Hey, if you don't care, you don't care. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:43, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I guess you could say I don't care much, especially as I doubt that BCE/CE will confuse many people. But it's a possibility to be considered. Nickptar 23:54, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

...which is a "problem" easily remedied by [[BCE]] and [[CE]]. 08:29, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Note that what Slrubenstein is proposing is a new policy totally unrelated to anything in the neutral point of view policy of this article. Gene Nygaard 12:22, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

"B.C." and "A.D." should always be written, for they have been used for many centuries, represent the world's most popular religion, and are more familiar to most people than ridiculous phrases like "Before Common Era" and "Common Era," which were invented only recently by atheists. Anglius

I'm not sure how to put this more bluntly, so I'll use the wise words of Wikiacc: "Slavery should always be used, for it has been in existence for many centuries, represents the interests of much of the world until only 200 years ago, and is cheaper and better than rediculous things like 'paid labor', which was invented only recently by stupid people." (In case you didn't notice, he was being sarcastic.) AngryParsley 22:06, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I'm a Buddhist, and I use CE and BCE regularly. And even if I were an atheist, would my beliefs/nonbeliefs be any less valid just because? And why is something considered good just because it's old, anyway? Feudalism's pretty old. Maybe you'd like to restore feudalistic governments in place of their democratic successors. Better yet, the concepts of the Dark Ages, now those are much older than the modern, non-christian ideas. Let's start burning people at the stake again. Or, better still, Roman ideas predate the Middle Ages. Should I feed you to a lion? Oh, wait, wait..... Sumerian ideas, now we're cooking! Time to sacrafice you to the gods. Come on, hop up on the altar. What? You don't like that old time religion? Well, maybe CE and BCE aren't so bad then. Even if they were thought of recently by those awful atheists. By the by, isn't degrading someone on the basis of their atheism awfully not NPOV of you? Dave 02:43, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

The use of "BCE" removes the word "Christ" from the acronym, but reinforces the root POV even more than the original. Think about it... instead of just saying that a year began before Christ, BCE implies that the current era began at Christ's birth. And when will it presumably end, when Christ returns? Talk about your POV problems... Don't get me wrong, "AD" (anno domini, or "year of our lord") is also problematic, but I think BCE/CE just makes it worse and then draws attention to it. 72.15.90.142 19:25, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

NPOV and misleading, but standard terms

I was looking through the wikipedia and came across a NPOV issue in the Digital Rights Management article. The title itself expresses a certain POV, which is that the technology is used to protect a copyright owner's rights, when in fact it may have consequences far beyond that. Many people feel the same way and have coined the term "Digital Restrictions Management", which is less POV, but still advoctates a certain view. However, digital rights management is the commonly accepted term for this technology. Should the title be changed to simply DRM, with a seperate disambiguation page? There is a slight precedent here that may apply, with Democratic People's Republic of Korea redirecting to North Korea, even though the former is an offical term (and is misleading and POV). The latter is more accepted in common usage though. What does everyone think?

"Official names" are not Wikipedia policy for titles of articles. Most common English name is, or something along those lines. Gene Nygaard 02:47, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RFC

An important policy discussion has started concerning ways in which our content-related polices, such as NPOV, No original research and Verifiability could be better enforced. I've made a proposal to give the Arbitration Committee the ability to consult Wikipedia users who are knowledgeable in subject-areas that apply to cases before them. Such consultation is needed due to the fact that the ArbCom does not by itself have the requisite knowledge to easily tell what is NPOV, original research, or a fringe idea in every field. Please read my proposal at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RFC#Alternate solution #9 by mav. Content subcommittee and comment. Thank you! --mav 02:55, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

POV built into terminology

Some articles use terms like "God", "white people", "luck", "Jewishness", "fairies", "nobility" that people have invented to support various religious/superstitious or political programs. If I don't believe any of this stuff do I have a POV? Should I insert "so-called" or "alleged" in front of these terms?24.64.166.191 06:03, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It would depend on the context. We certainly shouldn't have an article asserting that God did something or other. It would be OK, though, to say, "According to Cardinal Finkelstein's theory, God did this...." Some of the other terms may have been invented for a particular purpose but as of 2005 they have objective meanings. It's NPOV to say that dukes and earls and such are part of the nobility even if you don't think any of them are actually noble. JamesMLane 06:49, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We could say that "some people believe" that humans can have a quality called "nobility" which is inherited by patrilineal descent and that people who have this hypothetical quality are called "nobles". But I don't see that "nobility" has an "objective meaning" - it is just a religious/political belief. There is no scientific basis for classifying people into "nobles" and "commoners".

Some articles say that named individuals or specific groups of people are "white", "non-white", "noble", "commoner", "Jewish" or "non-Jewish".

These terms have "objective meaning" only as general descriptive terms, which do not enable us to say that an individual is X or non-X. Labeling an individual by one of these terms requires a precise definition of "white", "noble" or "Jewish" which is a matter of belief and has no "objective meaning".

My problem is that the writers of these articles can justify their use of these terms as having "objective meaning" as general descriptive terms but then use them with their own non-objective religious/political meanings to assert that every person is either X or non-X. Once we have accepted this POV use of words, it is difficult to argue against statements like "someplace is the historic/ancestral homeland of X" or "Y mistreated X".

There is no such thing as X or Y. There are only individual people who may or may not believe they belong to X or Y, depending on what indoctrination, social pressures or propaganda they are subject to. Propaganda is transmitted through the media, schools and reference works such as encyclopedias.24.64.166.191 08:02, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

NPOV: "Not My Point-of-View"

This is not sarcasm on my part, but a constant theme in "NPOV" usage. A recent edit at Folkloristics is an example of this commonplace usage: under the Edit summary "(NPOV famous scholars - I've never heard of them!)" the editor removed "famous" from the list of linguistics scholars. Few of Wikipedia's genuinely neutral editors currently use the expression "NPOV" --Wetman 19:41, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I can generally second that perception. Tom Haws 00:35, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

agreed. alternatively: Nerd Point of View

Some people believe

" It's important to note this formulation is substantially different from the "some people believe ..." formulation popular in political debates. The reference requires an identifiable and subjectively quantifiable population or, better still, a name."

Some weasels have squirmed around this by saying "it is often claimed" as in :

"Although the Arabs were not under any legal obligation to accept the plan (as General Assembly resolutions are not binding), it is often claimed that their main motivation in doing so was the total rejection of the idea of a Jewish state." History of Israel. 24.64.166.191 06:39, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think that is another way of saying the same thing, and suffers from the same problem: lack of verifiability and specificity. Who claims? You, your friend, or someone important? - Taxman ^Talk 22:22, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. This is a weasel phrase, should be avoided, and deleted or replaced with a specific and verifiable truth. Adraeus 04:02, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

The "passive of non-attribution" is a good concept to keep in mind when vetting these "are said to have..." statements. --Wetman 06:19, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I've met a few people who suffered from psychological disorders that caused them to believe that they were a historical personage. One told me that she was Princess Diana. Should we re-write the entry for Princess Diana to reflect that one person believes that Lady Di is not only not dead, but alive and well and living at a homeless shelter in Tacoma, Washington? Dave

Objective = NPOV; Subjective = POV?

It seems to me the concept of POV and NPOV on Wikipedia is very similar to subjectivity and objectivity respectively. Is there a significant difference? If not, why create acronyms for a concept that is already described? Spaully 18:48, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's possible to be objective and POV, by only reporting one side of the story. It's also probably possible to be subjective and NPOV (although that would still be inappropriate for an encyclopedia). Nickptar 20:43, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

NPOV is for when its hard to tell what is objective and what is not. When it something is obviously objective, NPOV is irrelevant. Bensaccount 22:39, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Objectivity and subjectivity simply provide basis for reasoning. Objectivity, being casual and neutral concerning definitional and terminological usage, is more likely rational whereas subjectivity, being deeply affected by emotion, is more likely irrational. Telling one side of a story is biased (a.k.a. "POV"). Telling two sides of a story remains biased; however, simply telling the story an objective manner without regard for "sides" is NPOV. A story told in a subjective manner can never be unbiased. Adraeus 04:01, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Objectivity and NPOV are distinct. Objectivity is an unattainable ideal, while NPOV is the state of being in agreement. See m:NPOV is an ideal Banno 21:50, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Objectivity is a hopelessly naive concept. Ayn Rand herself, this past century's most ardent adorer of objectivity, was so subjective in her attempts to destroy her lover/fellow teacher of objectivity that she discredited herself and her entire platform. And so it is with everyone because objectivity assumes you must completely divorce yourself from your own interpretation of the data you recieve via your senses and the only way to do that is not to interpret the data at all. In which case the only part of Wikipedia that wouldn't be deleted would be the lists of things. And even then, there would be disputes..... it is objective to say that the Strait of Juan de Fuca is entirely in Canada or the United States? Would it be objective to describe Snake Island as being Romanian or Ukranian? Even more controversial, how are you to be able to describe objectively, with no lenses or interpretations based on personal predjudices whatever, in what country does the city of Jerusalem reside? You can't dodge controversy. Even if you wrote an article about something as mundane as say, a teacup, someone would find a way to make a storm in that teacup and declare your perspective to be subjective in nature. We can try our best, but you'll always fall short of that goal, just as all objects fall short of Plato's ideal forms. NPOV must not be defined as objectivity if it is to remain an absolute.... simply because there is no absolute obejctivity. Dave 02:57, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

NPOV and Guidelines

There are places in the Wikipedia namespace where advice and guidelines are offered (as distinct from policy), and while a majority of Wikipedians may support this advice, there may be examples where a significant minority disagree (I have in mind inclusionist/deletionist type dichotomies). In such cases, should the NPOV policy be read as to force the inclusion of strong minority positions (e.g. ~20% support) into pages that discuss Wikipedian behavior (e.g. offer voting guides). Dragons flight 20:47, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with discussing minority viewpoints on non policy pages, as long as they are so noted. I also don't see the NPOV policy as forcing that to happen I guess. The NPOV policy is for articles. - Taxman ^Talk 22:20, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

what's the proper protocol?

i found some questionable pov elements from an article on John Milius and added a check pov template and removed the questionable elements. there has not been any response on the talk page nor any further revisions. do i take down the check pov template? how long do i have to wait? -Seasee 22:10, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you see no other parts of the article whose POV bothers you, then take it off. You added it and fixed it, so no problem. If someone else see's a POV problem they can add it if needed. Sometimes don't worry so much about protocol, just improve articles and be on your merry way. Leave a description of what you did on the talk page, including any text you removed so perhpahs it could be improved by someone else and added as useful material. Just speeking in general. - Taxman ^Talk 22:18, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Irony?

On the Neutral Point of View page itself, you use an I Drew This strip to illustrate a point. The strip in question as much as states that the American media is a mouthpiece for the GOP, and implies that the GOP criminally slanders John Kerry. If a reader were to go back or forward, the other strips would be anything but neutral on the subject of American politics; indeed, the artist would probably be insulted if anyone said he made an attempt to be neutral. Because it is a policy article, I hesitate to remove the link, but I don't think it belongs there.

This has been gone over before. I think the cartoon should stay because it's a good illustration of what's wrong with "equal validity", and you can ignore the politics if they bother you. Nowhere is it implied that Wikipedia endorses liberalism. Nickptar 22:50, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Growing racism

I'm finding some growing racism in wikipedia. Mostly about Demographics of certain countries

Can you cite specific examples? Guettarda 6 July 2005 17:16 (UTC)

Current Events

Am I the only reader who has observed an accelerating abandonment of the principle of neutral point of view in Wikipedia, especially in articles dealing with pop stars, current or recent movies, etc? A lot of stuff comes across as fan pages, written with laudable enthusiasm for the celebrities in question, but "neutral" ? hardly.

Can you cite specific examples? -- Essjay · Talk 14:34, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

OK, I retract the phrase "a lot of stuff" -heck, I retract the whole thing -- because try as hard as I might, I can't (with quick searches anyway) come up with any new, cogent examples of what I'm complaining about. The article that inspired my rant was the one on Rob Zombie. I still contend that, in regard to celebrities and pop culture figures, there's a fannish tone more than the "just the facts, ma'am" style that historical subjects, for example, seem to maintain. But obviously, like every other article, these fan initiated pages just need judicious editing.

It's probably just a case of nobody being interested in the articles other than the fans. Remember, Wikipedia only insures NPOV if there is a diverse pool of editors. If you see articles that are NPOV, edit them to make them more NPOV, or list them at one of the various cleaning projects. Perhaps you could start a WikiProject (of course, it would be good to register first!) -- Essjay · Talk

Every article seems to find its appropriate tone and vocabulary. Celine Dion's biography doesn't share much vocabulary with Hildegard of Bingen's, just to take two gals in the tune biz. --Wetman 06:30, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Proposed addition to policy

This is a minor addition which I don't think needs to be discussed first. People should be careful about using terms such as "might" versus "may". May expresses what is possible, is factual, or could be factual. 'I may have turned off the stove, but I can't recall doing it.' 'Might' suggests something that is uncertain, hypothetical, or contrary to fact. 'I might have won the marathon if I had entered.' So, taking the most cynical view, "may" is about what's possible and "might" about what's uncertain. From American Heritage dictionary:

might: "Used to indicate a possibility or probability that is weaker than may"

People can slip in POV by using "might" where "may" is more correct (such as saying that something 'might' be possible when in actuality it 'may' be possible), and this can occur with other terms as well. If there are any linguistically-inclined folks out there who want to add this into the policy, I would suggest doing so now, at least on this page, and probably also in the proper Manual of Style section. --brian0918™ 22:53, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

POV through wikilinking?

Here is another possible source for POV: wikilinks being added to titles that have the same name (or a similar name) as the article to which they link, but which aren't necessarily related. Let's say the article is about a school that teaches fringe views, but the courses all have the usual names, such as "Biology", "Chemistry", "Physics", etc. At face value, the names look fine, but when you investigate what they're actually teaching, what textbooks they're reading, it turns out these courses either teach contrary to Biology/Chemistry/Physics, or teach their own fringe brand of the subject. By wikilinking the course titles to the articles on Biology, Chemistry, Physics, we are effectively converting these courses into the legitimate titles. I'm sure there are other examples on all sides and in all aspects, but this was the easiest example for me to cite. --brian0918™ 15:35, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Bias towards consensus theory of truth

I just tried to edit out the following bit of bias that suffers from the fallacy of argument from popularity of a point of view argumentum ad populum, aka the consensus theory of truth, and the obscurantists here immediately started a revert battle! Go figure. What's active here seems to be a big bias towards the consensus theory of truth, an absurd notion, as explained in the article on it.

quote:

I've removed this quote - it's on the main page, go look at it there. - brenneman^(t)(c) 03:08, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Now that clearly suffers from the fallacy of argumentum ad populum, and bias towards the consensus theory of truth. Whaever happened to the idea of writing without bias here in Wikipedia? This admin page is certainly not setting a good example. -- 67.182.157.6 01:39, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

• Hi there Mx. 67.182.157.6,
  

The pretty bloody obvious subtle point that you are missing here is that the quote you've placed above makes no mention of objective truth. It is about the number of people who hold a viewpoint. I suggest that you re-read the WP:NPOV article, while remembering that the purpose of an encyclopedia is not to refine truth. As it explicitly states, "regardless of whether it's true or not" has no relevence to unclusion. A 16th century wikipedia would not have contained the wild "theories" by Nicolaus Copernicus. And this is as it should be.
brenneman^(t)(c) 01:59, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Your comment seems to have nothing to do with the issue raised, that the section quoted is biased towards ONE POINT OF VIEW, the consensus theory of truth, an absurd notion that suffers from the logical fallacy of argumentum ad populum. If you don't understand the issue raised, then why don't you ask questions about what is baffling you?(unsigned comment by User:67.182.157.6. - brenneman^(t)(c) 03:57, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

• Dear Mx. 67.182.157.6,
  

With regards to you application of a POV tag, how do you propose to resolve this issue? If I understand your arguments, a consensus decision will only be more "argumentum ad populum". Please state, as clearly as possible and without hystronics like "obscurantists", how you'd like to proceed. Suggested word limit: 500.
brenneman^(t)(c) 03:22, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

• Mx. 67.182.157.6,
  

You may first note I've corrected your edit which left two versions of this discussion. Thank you for providing the reference to "last at the top". I've left you (later) comments next to the paragraph they referred to.
It is really not necessary to repeat the phrases "consensus theory of truth" or "argumentum ad populum" anymore. Let me be clear: I understand the argument you are proposing. I am suggesting that it does not apply, as the section quoted makes no claims regard truth/untruth.
brenneman^(t)(c) 03:57, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Removed text that was duplicated from above: Please state how you'd like to proceed. brenneman^(t)(c) 04:40, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

How about in accord with policy, a little principled negotiation? -- DotSix 67.182.157.6 03:47, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

What purpose would such negotiation serve? Jimbo Wales established the NPOV policy, and as the head of the Wikimedia project, none of us have the authority to change the intent of the policies he has established. We can alter how they are presented and discussed, but you seem to want to do more than just change the language. You seem to want a different mechanism for how article space is allocated to different points of view. No one save Jimbo can alter that. Do I misunderstand your intentions? Dragons flight 04:12, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

From my point of view it doesn't make sense for a community like this, allegedly open, to have a policy that entails either a dictatorship by Wales, or entails logical fallacy argumentum ad numerum, like the concensus theory of truth, if that is what you insist the policy is here. You can't be serious. -- DotSix 67.182.157.6 04:34, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

"without hystronics like obscurantists"??? Some of my best friends are obscuantists. It's just another POINT OF VIEW, deserving equal treatement here, like all the others, right? (I just wouldn't want my sister to mary one, would you?) -- DotSix 67.182.157.6 04:02, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Your attacks based upon presumed philosophical bent now have have racial undertones. Please see Bigot watch as to how your comment is likely to be interpreted. brenneman^(t)(c) 04:40, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I am leaving now for an early start on the week end. One of he joys of being a person of means. 8^) Shall we continue this (hopefully) principled negotiation next week maybe?

Rational vs Reasonable

The two are not the fully the same (whether in psychology, and especially colloquially). It is irrational to attempt to dialogue with someone who wants to kill you, though it may very well be reasonable.

Predicated on this, I was going to modify the following sentence "We can only seek a type of writing that is agreeable to essentially rational people who may differ on particular points.", until I noticed it was a direct quote. If the creator would so modify it, I would appreciate it. Being a non-reasonable person who is otherwise profoundly rational, I found it somewhat offensive (as well as psychologically a flawed interpretation of rationality). --24.22.227.53 21:28, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but unfortunatly these two terms suffer from synonymity (having the same, or nearly the same, meaning). See [1] -- 172.195.187.33 12:33, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Dictionary editors tend to be blind to differences between rationality and reasonability, given they tend to be both. The two are not synonymous in colloquial or psychological usage. Self-serving egosim can and is considered to be rational (survival of the fittest justification). It is however not reasonable. I'm sicing the term. --24.22.227.53 02:52, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

NPOV tag

I notice that someone had added an NPOV tag to one section and it had been deleted. Is there realy a problem with tagging a section of this article as an NPOV dipute if it genuinely is disputed?--Heathcliff 03:02, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

No problem. I just restored it.

The dispute is over that part of the section, "What is the neutral point of view?" that begins, "Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views. We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by only a small minority of people deserved as much attention as a majority view."

That statement, apart from bordering on the logical fallacy of appeal to the popularity of a point of view, is not in accord with the wikipedia policy that tyrany of the majority is to be outlawed, and principled negotiation with liberty and justice for all is to be practiced throughout Wikipedia:

"Principled Negotiation is a cooperative process whereby participants try to find a solution which meets the legitimate interests of both parties, which in the context of Wikipedia usually involves appropriate mention of all points of view in an article thus improving the quality of the article. Compromising or "splitting the difference" is generally inappropriate if it means departure from generally recognized points of view, both of which need to be included to achieve Wikipedia:Neutral point of view." -- wikipedia:negotiation

"The policy of having a neutral point of view is not to hide different points of view, but to show the diversity of viewpoints. In case of controversy, the strong points and weak points will be shown according to each point of view, without taking a side. The neutral point of view is not a "separate but equal" policy. The facts, in themselves, are neutral, but the simple accumulation of them cannot be the neutral point of view. If only the favorable (or the unfavorable) facts of a point of view are shown in an article, the article will still be non-neutral." -- wikipedia:NPOV

-- 172.195.187.33 12:13, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Well you disagree with the section, but you are in the minority. Also given that it is a long standing and well supported part of the policy, you bear the burden of proof that it is improper, should be removed, and what should replace it. So therefore deleting the section on your personal opinion is improper, and I have restored it, with a section dispute tag. I think that is a reasonable alternative, even though it still gives too much weight to your dispute, since you are the only one that disagrees with the section so far. Now to the dispute, the section is important precisely because there is no obvjective truthfull point of view. The best we can do is present known facts and the viewpoints that experts in a field hold. The above policy does not say that one is correct, but does hold that the viewpoint held by the mot experts is the one that should have the most coverage. Without that section crackpot theories would dominate the Wiki and grossly misrepresent human knowledge. That is what we are after, presenting what is known, and the current understanding of subjects, not some objective truth. - Taxman ^Talk 14:08, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

I have removed the NPOV tag because it has no meaning when applied to a policy statement. POV, which wiki defines as "bias," only makes sense when applied to articles that are trying to describe the facts about something or other. But a statement of policy does not attempt to say what is true or false, it only says "this is how we are going to proceed, right or wrong." A statement of policy is, in effect if not literally, a set of imperative mood statements ("Shut the door.") not declarative statements ("The door is closed"). Imperative mood statements are not true or false. Hence, there is no sense in which they can be biased. I realize that literally speaking the article has declarative sentences in it, but this is for reasons of style and readability and because it seeks to explain the policies as well as state them. Nevertheless, the fact that it has a policy tag at the top means that it is really just a disguised set of directives. E.g., the sentence "We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by only a small minority of people deserved as much attention as a majority view." is really saying "Do not give minority views as much attention as majority views."

"Do not give minority views as much attention as majority views" is indication of a bias (even if it is an unconscious bias) towards tyranny of the majority, rather than the actual Wikipedia policy, consensus decision making incorporating principled negotiation:

"Principled Negotiation is a cooperative process whereby participants try to find a solution which meets the legitimate interests of both parties, which in the context of Wikipedia usually involves appropriate mention of all points of view in an article thus improving the quality of the article. Compromising or "splitting the difference" is generally inappropriate if it means departure from generally recognized points of view, both of which need to be included to achieve Wikipedia:Neutral point of view." -- wikipedia:negotiation

Passing through critical, controversial, or even derogatory stories published in biographies, published articles, etc.

The George W. Bush article contains this controversial statment:

He has denied the allegation (Hatfield 1999) that family influence was used to expunge the record of an arrest for cocaine possession in 1972, but has declined to discuss whether he used drugs before 1974.

On the other hand the Hillary Clinton article contains only Hillary's version of her relationship with Bill Clinton, and nothing critical (much less derogatory) of her statements despite the publication of several critical biographies of her.

In her book Living History, Clinton explains that love is the reason she stays with President Clinton. "[N]o one understands me better and no one can make me laugh the way Bill does. Even after all these years, he is still the most interesting, energizing and fully alive person I have ever met. Bill and I started a conversation in the spring of 1971, and more than thirty years later we're still talking." To supporters, her loyalty and perseverance in a sometimes difficult marriage has been viewed as a sign of her personal commitment, strength, and resolve.

I'm only using these only as examples to help define the question rather than posing it as merely abstract. What are the consistently applied principles when it comes to including in an article an item written in a critical biography? patsw 20:08, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Let me break it down a little more:

Ann Coulter said Bill Clinton was a very good rapist

It's not my POV, but Ann Coulter's. Why shouldn't/couldn't this edited into the Bill Clinton page? patsw 16:42, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Redirect from main namespace

Neutral point of view is redirected here. Is it really good to have this kind of redirects from the main namespace to a Wikipedia policy page? I suppose it should be possible to write an article about Neutral point to view from a non-Wikipedia perspective, and anyway I strongly believe a reader should not accidently be transferred from the articla name space to the Wikipedia namespace. / Habj 22:24, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Definition Point of View

NPOV says "represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view". There is a reall interesting edit war going on in teh [Creation Science] that revolves around whether the dictionary definition of "science" can be used as "fact". If it can, then "Creation Science" can be factually presented as "pseudoscience". This is basically a "definition point of view" because some editors wish to present the topic from the point of view of the standard dictionary definition.

The alternative is that the definition for science depends on the point of view, and therefore Creation Science views itself to meet the definition of "science", and mainstream science views Creation Science as pseudoscientific nonsense.

Could someone who knows NPOV please explain whether a dictionary definition can be used as fact or must be presented as a POV? Perhaps the NPOV article could contain a new subsection titled "Defintion Point of View" and explain the correct answer.

For reference

I fully appreciate what you're doing with this, FeulWagon, but somehow I suspect that even Definition Point of View wouldn't settle the issue with some of our erstwhile editors. Besides, philosophers have a bugger of a time settling on definitions. That's why I think the NPOV policy is as good as it gets.

Main Entry: sci·ence   
Function: noun
3 a : accumulated and accepted knowledge that has been systematized and formulated with reference to the discovery of general truths or the operation of general laws : knowledge classified and made available in work, life, or the search for truth : comprehensive, profound, or philosophical knowledge; especially : knowledge obtained and tested through use of the scientific method b : such knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : NATURAL SCIENCE
synonym see KNOWLEDGE

"science." Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged. Merriam-Webster, 2002. http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com (9 Aug. 2005).

--Parker Whittle 07:11, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

A comment

"Subjective language" is a myth. There is no more such a thing as a "subjective word" than there is an "objective word," an "auspicious word," a "cynical word," or a "dangerous word." You need guidelines, but the editors here should try to remember, especially when it comes to questions that ask for this sort of policy, that to weaken a pronouncement is not necessarily to make it neutral; and, of course, to strengthen a pronouncement is not to make it biased. Someone objected to my "unequivocal" in Shamil Basayev (about the Russians' opinion of him). Are we really so wooden-minded that we have to read "uneqivocal" literally?

I don't like this tendency to weaken that dominates political topics on Wikipedia. I understand that it's a natural trend, that it's equillibrium given the current rules; but it shouldn't be. --VKokielov 05:18, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

NPOV policy doesn't cover language use

Please have a look at Wikipedia_talk:Eras#What.27s_the_real_problem_here on the long-running AD/BC vs. CE/BCE debate.

It's important because the NPOV policy doesn't seem to cover the issue of language use. I don't mean content but rather form. For example, this policy does not mention or cover Gender-neutral language, which is an issue that should not only be covered as content (what is the issue, what are the positions) but also as form (how does Wikipedia apply gender neutrality).

Because of this gap we now have a new and controversial debate about Anno Domini vs. Common Era. It's easy enough to cover this as content. The articles handle the POV issues of each one in a NPOV way. The problem is that wikipedia seems to lack a policy on language pattern usage in POV situations. This is form, not content. Does wikipedia use AD or CE? And why? This should be covered in the NPOV policy.

Some relevant questions:

• How well adopted/known does a new language pattern have to be before it can be adopted
• Does wikipedia take an active role in promoting NPOV language patterns?
• Can we list / categorize the language patterns that we currently use (like gender neutrality)

Sbwoodside 05:37, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

... --VKokielov 19:37, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like a hornet's nest that we don't need to stir up, although it would be useful to state as a general principle that we should, wherever possible, choose to use terms that have widespread general usage throughout the world. Choosing to use a term solely because it is by a long way the internationally accepted standard amongst the general public is an objective test and a sensible criterion to have. Where there is more than one term in widespread usage, I suppose we'll find some articles using it and some not - but I'd hope the emphasis is always on what usage will be understood/welcomed by a wide international audience, rather than by a narrow group (eg a particular field of academics, or by only one national audience), jguk 20:36, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

God's existence is essentially undiscoverable?

"Whether God exists or not is a question of fact, not a question of value. But as the fact is essentially undiscoverable, so far as anyone knows, whether God exists will usually be couched in terms of opinion or value."

This is a perfect example of agnosticism, not a neutral point of view. There are a great many people who think that they have proved the issue one way or another. How about just say that whether God exists is greatly debated and a point of great contention, etc.?

~ Nauraran 02:06, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Um, if this concerns an article somewhere on Wikipedia, then you should start this conversation on the article's talk page. This page is for general policy concerning NPOV. Thanks, Func( t, c, @, ) 02:12, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Ctrl-F? It is indeed in this article.

~ Nauraran 03:55, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Blah!!! :) My humble apoligies, I'm very sorry. (And I thought I had read this whole thing....) Func( t, c, @, ) 04:12, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Not a problem. If anything, it gave me a chance to learn some more format functions. :)

Anyway, I find this blatant POV rather amusing in the NPOV article. Any objections to changing it?

~ Nauraran 04:15, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I personally disagree with you, on a number of well established philosophical grounds, to wit: those who believe that they have proven God's existence don't have a very good conception of proof. (Note: and this need not be an agnosticist view point, ie: I believe that my mother and father love me, but I know that I don't have what constitutes rigourous proof to prove it.) Nevertheless, I would be willing to consider a change to the text, if only to remove a controversial example on a policy page that may be more trouble than its worth. Func( t, c, @, ) 17:26, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

"Undiscoverable" seems some sort of a logical error.

but looking closer to the quoted section: it reads "[...] essentially undiscoverable, so far as anyone knows, [...]" the additional qualification "so far as anyone knows" makes it acceptable in my view. In that case I'd have to ask: "Is there anyone who knows the existence of God is not essentially undiscoverable? Let him come forward!" And if nobody comes forward, the sentence can stay. I didn't see Nauranan make that statement, nor Func, etc..., so technically there's no "neutrality dispute" (note that generally religions, depending on "faith about", and not on "scientifically proven assertion about" the existence of God, would see no harm in the sentence either).

The sentence could be changed in something like "[...] as far as known surrounded with mystery, [...]", so that also the less theologically experienced wouldn't stumble over it. Essentially the whole sentence does not want to say anything about the existence or non-existence of God, it wants to point the attention to how difficult topics are handled in wikipedia (with some degree of success!)

Whether the tag was added in "good faith" was not clear to me. The edit summary read "This allowed? It's funny, anyway..." which I'd accept only as "good faith" for a newbie (i.e. less than a few days or weeks at max). Nauranan is around for at least 3,5 months. So, in my eyes enough reason to delete, like I did. --Francis Schonken 18:40, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Still another proposal to formulate it:

"Whether God exists or not is a question of fact, not a question of value. But as the fact is generally considered to be out of reach, whether God exists will usually be couched in terms of opinion or value."

Would that be a workable solution? --Francis Schonken 18:51, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Not to get too far off topic, but with regard to good faith, he started a polite conversation on the talk page, then added a tag, and then continued a polite conversation on the talk page. Of course, if the tag was simply added with no follow up disscussion, that's a different matter. Func( t, c, @, ) 19:15, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

As I explained, I had my questions regarding Nauranan's edit summary. So I hope this gets back on topic soon, otherwise the NPOV-dispute template can be removed as far as I'm concerned. --Francis Schonken 19:36, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure how this devolved into a discussion of my "good faith" in putting that tag on the article; I was simply ignorant of a more specific tag. I have been a member for a few months, but I've edited wikipedia so little I'm still something of a noob. :) Anyway, back to the subject at hand.

It is true that the statement is attempting to avoid claiming either the existence or the nonexistence of God, but that does not stop it from advocating agnosticism. We're not talking agnostic theism or atheism here. Agnosticism at its simplest is the belief that (to quote wikipedia) the truth concerning God's existence is "unknown, inherently unknowable, or incoherent and therefore irrelevant...."

We could get into a philosophical discussion concerning epistemology, proof, and universal negatives, but I think this can be settled much more simply. The history of philosophy is full of people and movements which claim to prove the question of God's existence one way or another, from Parmenides to Descartes to Plantinga. Simply to ignore them for not having "a very good conception of 'proof'" is, I think, to pick a side in a millenia-old debate with significant numbers of followers on the various sides.

I'm not sure how the "out of reach" substitution helps greatly. I'm thinking something more along the lines of the following: "Whether God exists or not is a question of fact, not a question of value. But as this subject for millienia has been and today continues to be vigorously debated, whether God exists will usually be couched in terms of opinion or value."

~ Nauraran 01:57, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I very much agree that one cannot say that God is "undiscoverable". That is not neutral. Read Alvin Plantinga or William James on religious experience and religious epistemology. Who are you (and by "you" I mean anyone--I am not taking a tone) to say that I haven't discovered God (via my own personal experience) just because you haven't? Further, I don't think anyone can say that it comes down to "opinion or value" and remain neutral. You are essentially affirming the agnostic principle that God is unknowable or undetectable--which is incompatible with some theistic views that God is knowable personally. (Again, how do you know that I, the subjective individual, am not certain of my own personal experience?) I propose just changing it to say "Whether God exists or not is a question of fact, not a question of value. But this subject for millienia has been and today continues to be vigorously debated." Either that, or just remove the entire part about God.

User:gilbertggoose 22:38, 18 August 2005 (CST)

Other possibility:

"Whether God exists or not is a question of fact, not a question of value. But as the fact is essentially ungraspable, at least in a conventional monotheistic approach, whether God exists will usually be couched in terms of opinion or value."

Or this one:

"Whether God exists or not is a question of fact, not a question of value. But as the knowledge of that fact is either eluding, either rejected by many others, whether God exists will usually be couched in terms of opinion or value."

I like this last one best, not seeing any problem with it - unless it is bad English, but then a native English speaker could rephrase it, I suppose? --Francis Schonken 12:59, 19 August 2005 (UTC)