Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view

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.

Question/proposal re what exactly is and is not negotiable about the three content-guiding policies

(moved from here)

Checking the three content-guiding policy pages, I realized that some of what I've said above is not in line with the text. Yet I feel that what I'm saying is entirely consistent with Wikipedia practice: we can change these policies using the consensus process, but we cannot change the three "principles" themselves. These three policies have changed a lot over time, demonstrating that the consensus process does "supersede" these policies. Jimbo has declared the NPOV principle non-negotiable, but not the policy text. He summarized the basic points of NOR. Both the Verifiability and NOR policies have been declared non-negotiable by editors, apparently based on consensus. In short, Aquirata has a point when arguing that policies being both subject to the consensus process and non-negotiable constitute a contradictio in terminis. So I think there is some repair work that needs to be done here. Would it be feasible to update the policy language to reflect that Wikipedia has three non-negotiable principles that are explained on their respective policy pages (which are negotiable)?

More concretely, this would mean some indiviidual changes and one that would apply to all three policies, along the following lines: "The three policies are also non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus." would become: "The three content-guiding policies are based on non-negotiable principles that cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. These policies override all other policies and guidelines, which must be kept consistent with them."

Or am I missing something here? AvB ÷ talk 14:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The policy is non-negotiable, it's application and explanation is often subject to debate. Perhaps you can point where consensus has actually superseded the three. Intensitive and explanatory changes have been made, undone, and re-tried but the bedrock has been the same (of course I haven't been here five years). "All other policies must be kept consistent with them" is a fair enough addition, but there's no contradiction in terms that I see. Marskell 15:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I certainly do not see a contradiction myself. I'm arguing Aqui had a point there, the point being that it looks like a contradiction. Consensus superseding the policy text (what you're calling "application and explanation") is evident in spades - simply call up the relevant diffs or compare the oldest and newest versions available in the history. The principles, what you call "the policy", have never been superseded as far as I can see. In other words, I think you're saying the same thing as I am. I'm trying to make it explicit by labeling which aspects are negotiable and which are non-negotiable. What exactly is non-negotiable here? Where are the non-negotiable issues (the bedrock) summarized/stated/explained/discussed? Can a new editor see the difference between policy and policy text? Why do we get all these newbies claiming that there's a contradiction, tying up other editors in endless discussions and explanations, which newbies then don't accept because they haven't been around for long enough to understand how things are done, and others don't accept because they're trying some wikilawyering in order to change what is non-negotiable? AvB ÷ talk 19:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that AvB is pointing out a contradiction, rather that the distinction between the policy text and the policy could be stated explicitly instead of implicitly (as it is now). That they are distinct both conceptually and practically is long established, I believe, so I don't see a problem with spelling it out. It might help avoid a lot of the confusion that has motivated inexperienced editors to try to rewrite the policy pages in the past. — Saxifrage ✎ 15:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Spelling it out would not change practice but at least in theory might prevent some of those rewrite attempts and time lost explaining the distinction again and again.

My solution may or may not be a practical one though. I do like the disctinction between "principle" and "policy" as already implemented, at least halfway, in WP:NPOV. But expanding the use of these terms may not be easy or even possible. There may well be too many (important) instances of "the NPOV policy is non-negotiable" both internally (policies, ArbCom cases, talk pages, etc) and externally (e.g. lawsuits, media info) and pretty much carved in granite by now. It may also depend on whether Jimbo has ever said that the policy is non-negotiable or simply talked about NPOV, or about the NPOV principle. AvB ÷ talk 19:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem is there is so much energy expended around this issue that is not helping move the project forward. It's just a few people that try to interpret everything so literally instead of just going and working on articles. Unless there can be demonstrated a serious problem with the policies and how they are used, I propose we all get back to our regularly scheduled programming of working on articles. - Taxman ^Talk 18:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's certainly a solution regarding editors that end up here on this talk page but won't accept the answers (including a number of editors who do understand but try to use the perceived contradiction to fool people into a consensus that would violate the principles if implemented). But it's possible that for every one of them a hundred others end up disrupting Wikipedia where spelling things out might have been helpful. I'm sure it's a problem, but I have no idea if it's worth the trouble and have to defer to the opinion of more experienced editors here. AvB ÷ talk 19:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I've just found out what some of you already know: my proposal does not change longstanding policy language. Jimbo's quote was inserted in in 2003, but the text I'm more or less disputing is a relatively recent addition to these three policies. In fact it hasn't even been added to one of them. As far as I can see without investing too much of my time, it went through with very little opposition. This probably means that its spirit was in line with consensus and its text expected to work. I think its intention is OK, but we now have some new information indicating that the text is problematic. We have seen that it may lead to confusion between policy (spirit) and policy (text). This confusion has now been used in an attempt to change bedrock policy principles. In the light of this experience, seeing that the text leads to misunderstandings and lots of time going to waste on explanations here (and I assume also to more newbie edit warring in article space), I'll come up with a new proposal.

When working on a replacement text I realized that the current text has the advantage of declaring the three policies completely non-negotiable when it comes to editing in article space, while they are partly ("textually") negotiable in project space. We don't want to lose that distinction. Nothing is as easy as it seems at first sight. I reached consensus with myself on a compromise. AvB ÷ talk 13:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposal to spell out non-negotiable

(See rationale in previous talk page section)

I propose that we change paragraph #2 of the lead section to:

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is one of Wikipedia's three content-guiding policy pages. The other two are Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. Because the three policies are complementary, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one other, and editors should therefore try to familiarize themselves with all three. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main namespace (article space), taking precedence over any other guidelines as well as over editors' consensus.

These policies are non-negotiable and their policy pages may only be edited to better reflect practical explanation and application of each policy's principles.

Thanks. AvB ÷ talk 13:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd support this. We could also add something like "Anyone wishing to make a substantive change to a policy may do so through our formal procedure for proposing new policies, see Category:Wikipedia proposals." or something like this. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Aye, this looks good. — Saxifrage ✎ 16:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Support. --Iantresman 18:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Support, and the same should be done to the other two policies. It should, however, be spelled out that it is the principle which is non-negotiable, not the wording itself. --tjstrf 18:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I would just say, then "The principles expressed by these policies..." I would not add "not the wording itself" because I think that is already conveyed by "may only be edited to better reflect practical explanation and application of each policy's principles" unless you think this can be worded more clearly. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I think a consensus for the proposed change is in the cards. I agree that this does not necessarily have to be the last change towards spelling out what is non-negotiable. I still think the word non-negotiable should ultimately disappear from the definition. However, as you may have seen, there's probably wide support for the notion that the NPOV policy text presents more non-negotiable principles than just the NPOV principle. Explicitly removing the word non-negotiable from the policy text and principles and attaching it to the policy principles alone at this point (i.e. without clarifying which parts of the policy (text) are currently seen as principles, de facto sacrosanct and already canonized in the hearts of true believers) will have the same effect as declaring open season on e.g. the (perceived) special treatment for science vs. pseudoscience. Which, believe me, is not in the cards.

Wikipedia policies develop and become more elaborate over time following practice. They rarely, if ever, are pruned. It certainly looks like there is wide support for the concept that changes (read: explanations and additions) to policies, or at least the principles behind those changes, are set in stone once they have stood the test of time - say a couple of months.

Probably superfluously: I think the word non-negotiable is an excellent choice to emphasize to the world at large that wikipedia describes its subjects from a (the) neutral point of view. However, it seems to me that it's an extremely poor choice of words to emphasize to editors that the concepts or principles detailed on these three policy pages have been sort of canonized. In fact I don't believe they are. I do believe that if a consensus arises (which is, to be sure, extremely unlikely) to change or scrap the (perceived) special position of information gathered using the scientific method, it can and will happen. These things do not need to be protected by the words "non-negotiable" (which, I admit, is a nice soundbite to throw at newbies). All you need is consensus ()to paraphrase some notable Liverpudlians). (Yes, I know, this paragraph rambles quite a bit but it's just reiterating some snapshots of my current thinking on the matter, i.e. rather unimportant.) AvB ÷ talk 08:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I've implemented a (hopefully improved) version of this proposal. AvB ÷ talk 05:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm moving the latest version of this proposal here for further discussion since it's being disputed by Francis and was reverted as not having reached consensus (see diff of my edits):

Francis is also disputing this edit, see below [1]. AvB ÷ talk 12:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Updating proposal to reflect criticism by Francis (I thought I had staged my edits to avoid this):

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is one of Wikipedia's three content-guiding policy pages. The other two are Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in article space, taking precedence over any other guidelines as well as over editors' consensus. Because the three policies are complementary, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should therefore try to familiarize themselves with all three. The three policies are also non-negotiable and their policy pages may only be edited to better reflect their practical explanation and application.

AvB ÷ talk 09:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be support from Jossi[2] and FeloniousMonk[3] for the last sentence of the first proposal amended by a WP:Bold edit [4] I made separate from this discussion:

The principles of the three policies are also non-negotiable and their policy pages may only be edited to better reflect their practical explanation and application.

Francis remained opposed to this sentence and reverted Jossi's addition with the edit summary "Remove declaration about non-negotiability of other policies/principles (not needed here). The non-negotiability of NPOV is defined elsewhere on this page, shouldn't be defined differently in 2nd para"

Recaputilation

I think this calls for some attention to this proposal section. Recap:

Current version:

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is one of Wikipedia's three content-guiding policy pages. The other two are Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in article space, taking precedence over any other guidelines as well as over editors' consensus. Because the three policies are complementary, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should therefore try to familiarize themselves with all three. The three policies are also non-negotiable and their policy pages may only be edited to better reflect their practical explanation and application.

Support/opposition:

• Francis opposes the entire proposal as well as my addition
• Saxifrage, Tjstrf, Iantresman, Slrubinstein and Avb support the original proposal
• Tjstrf, Slrubinstein, Jossi, FM and Avb support the closing sentence "The principles (...) application"[5]

The most important aspects discussed in detail above are (summarizing from memory, please correct any mistakes):

• Policy text has two audiences: editors editing articles (article space), and editors editing policy text (project space)
• In article space, these three policies (text, principles, anything) always have the last word, period. Nothing about them can be "superseded" or overridden by the consensus process or any other policies or guidelines. The proposed edit intends to make this explicit. Addition by Avb: In fact, this applies to all policies as stated in the standard policy header: "a standard that all users should follow". However, explaining this as clearly as possible will prevent a lot of unnecessary discussion and edit warring between newer editors in article space. Perhaps this should be added to the standard policy header?
• In project space, the text "non-negotiable policy" is proving to be a source of confusion (and even disruption) since it is taken by some as saying that the policy text cannot be changed (hence a contradiction and source of much unneeded discussion on policy talk pages). The proposed edit intends to make explicit what can and cannot be changed, improving the new language, which has opened the door to new misunderstandings and a new type of criticism from editors not sufficiently familiar with policy development based on practical use throughout the community. Addition by AvB: this aspect of the proposal does not necessarily belong in the lead section and may be placed (after some rewriting) in the article body.
• This proposal intends to retain the text "non-negotiable policy" and explain it rather than removing or changing it. The latter can be discussed separately if editors so choose (e.g. contending that the policies are always non-negotiable, proposing a change to "non-negotiable principles", with sufficient coverage of the principles in question.)

I would really appreciate some more input from experienced editors here. I have no problem to see my edits reverted, but I think this is a well-reasoned and useful proposal that should be discussed and implemented as is or after improvement. The proposal has received support from five editors but no opposition on the talk page in the six days it has been sitting here. One editor opposes it, reverting all related edits and commenting elsewhere on this talk page. Two additional editors support part of the proposal, re-inserting a reverted sentence.

AvB ÷ talk 09:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

In the unlikely case someone shows up here: I'll be offline for the next five days or so. AvB ÷ talk 20:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposal to clarify POV vs NPOV

There are some who incorrectly consider a "point of view" to be (a) bad (b) the opposite of "Neutral point of view". I wonder whether it worth modifying the first sentence to clarify this:

NPOV (Neutral Point Of View) is a fundamental Wikipedia writing style in which various points of views are written fairly and without bias (ie. in a neutral style, as described below).

--Iantresman 18:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

You are correct that a POV in and of itself is not bad - the point is to frame the POV as such and provide the context, and provide other points of view. BUT this is not just a matter of writing style. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

How about the following which excludes the "writing style", and betters the self-referential definition in the first sentence (NPOV .. must be written from a NPOV..):

NPOV (Neutral Point Of View) is fundamental to Wikipedia, in which various points of views are written fairly and without bias (ie. in a neutral style, as described below).

--Iantresman 21:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I would say that "written" is the wrong word, and it also fails to make the very necessary distinction between the FoxNews meaning of "fair and unbiased" and Wikipedia's meaning. Making it explicit that "fair and unbiased" includes not giving undue weight, maybe "are reported fairly, without bias or undue weight" would be more accurate. — Saxifrage ✎ 21:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

All the suggestion does is remove the word "principle." Why do you want it removed? No object noun means less clarity.

Here's a suggestion: "NPOV (Neutral Point Of View) is a fundamental Wikipedia principle which states that all articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly and without bias." That is, the page as it stands. Why are we wasting time with this? Marskell 22:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

No objection. See, here's an object lesson in why I should compare the before-and-after text before commenting on a proposal... — Saxifrage ✎ 22:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I had wondered why you responded as if it were new ;). It's just the lead section as it stands, but less clear. Marskell 22:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

We're "wasting time on this" because you're a polite and helpful editor, who has to deal with other editors who are less sure than yourself. To answer your question, the original sentence is (a) self-referential: "NPOV .. states that all articles must be written from a NPOV" (b) It doesn't clarify the misunderstanding that NPOV is a type of POV, rather than the opposite. --Iantresman 22:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

(a) "Self-referential". Actually a tautology as you present it (have had me fill of those on this page, which I don't want to pretend is perfect). This is fair criticism if the clause "representing views fairly and without bias" were not there. But it is there, unpacking the self-reference, and there isn't a real problem.

(b) "It doesn't clarify the misunderstanding that NPOV is a type of POV". But the second section after the history (the one actually titled "the neutral point of view") does: "as the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints." Marskell 22:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

(a) The tautology may ultimately unravel, but why have it in the first place? (b) And yes, NPOV and POV is explained further on. Why make it difficult for readers? There is NO disadvantage in improving a poorly-worded first sentence, and everything to gain. --Iantresman 23:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not a tautology because the two terms have different referents. The first NPOV refers to the NPOV policy, while the second NPOV refers to the stand-alone concept of neutral point-of-view. We could rename it the Monkey policy, and it would then read, "Monkey... states that all articles must be written from a NPOV". Yes, that's arguably a bit unclear, but there's no logical problem. — Saxifrage ✎ 04:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Infallibility - a meta-question re non-negotiable

I would like to know whether a consensus between editors can ever carve entire policies (text and/or principles) in stone, in effect forbidding ANY later consensus changes that are more than explanatory or additional. Prohibiting later consensus is not allowed in article space. But by what authority (other than that of Jimbo et al.) can it be done to policies in project space? And if the consensus process has the "authority" to declare elements of policy sacrosanct, shouldn't it at least make explicit which elements are so canonized? (Instead of some wholesale elevation of three entire policies, or at least the principles presented by the language at that point.) And if wholesale canonization is allowed, shouldn't at least the timestamp and the version be mentioned in the canonizing edit? If there is no time-stamp, doesn't the language carve in stone all subsequent changes to these three policies as soon as they have reached consensus (a bizarre consequence of recursion without base case)?

Please note that this is not an attempt to change or delete widely accepted Wikipedia principles. See also this discussion. I think that such principles, if they need more protection than the consensus process has to offer, have to be identified and discusssed and some protection has to be implemented before we revert or rewrite "these policies are (also) non-negotiable". I'm simply trying to determine whether a consensus that inserts this or similar language has the "authority" to do so. It looks too much like Papal infallibility to me. Which is not something to be attempted without divine guidance.

(I'll probably post an adapted version of the question to the mailing list.)

AvB ÷ talk 09:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

You raise a good point. However, the difference between this and Papal infallibility is that provided a rule cannot reflexively protect itself, then the rule about non-negotiability is a negotiable one. So I guess that you would first need a consensus that the rules were no longer non-negotiable, and then a consensus to change the NPOV policy. Alternately, this may fall under the "Jimbo Wales is a super-majority" clause. --tjstrf 09:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, this is more or less one of the views I'd like to test.AvB ÷ talk 10:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Just a note that Jimbo is referring to the neutral point of view principle, not the NPOV policy, when stating that "NPOV is non-negotiable". The 2006 quote at the top of the article is in the context of leeway for different language wikis. FWIW, the German language Wikipedia recognizes four "immutable fundamental principles", referring to them as such at the top of its NPOV policy page (see Wikipedia:Five_pillars). NPOV is one of them. Nowhere does it say that policies are immutable, as far as I know. AvB ÷ talk 10:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

It's my understanding that consensus can't "canonise" anything. In practice, some consensus-derived policy has so much momentum that it seems effectively canonised, but these things are still, theoretically, able to be overturned given a sufficiently large sea-change in the community's position on the policy in question. — Saxifrage ✎ 16:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Are there other experienced Wikipedians around who could give their opinion on consensus declaring policies "non-negotiable"? I guess my main point is that this precludes future consensus and goes against well-established Wikipedia practice. AvB ÷ talk 18:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you actually suggesting that we at some point might decide against writing in NPOV as policy, or are you just trying to start a dispute over the wording? I wasn't here at the beginning so I'm not sure, but I don't think NPOV is a consensus-derived policy in the first place, rather being a fundamental one. --tjstrf 20:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Summary for you: NPOV as a fundamental principle of Wikipedia is absolute and non-negotiable as detailed at the top of the article. The NPOV policy describes the set of practices that developed over the years while Wikipedia was growing. The policy is not entirely community-generated since its core was developed, as far as I've been able to discern, by Larry Sanger based on views he shared with Jimmy Wales. A couple of months ago someone stuck in new language to the effect of "these three policies are also non-negotiable". I am asking experienced editors whether this use of the term non-negotiable goes against practice, setting in stone things that can never be set in stone. If the responses show sufficient support, I will post - for discussion - an adapted version of the proposal I formulated above. For the rest please read the above, it's quite detailed actually. AvB ÷ talk 22:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I did read the above. To me it makes perfect sense that the non-negotiability would apply to the core idea, not the precise wording, but I can see how someone might become confused. So I guess you do have a point. --tjstrf 23:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I've updated the three articles, limiting "non-negotiable" to the "fundamental principles" of each policy. Rationale:

IMHO Wikipedia practices and the related policy language are sufficiently protected by the consensus process and, where necessary, by Jimbo et al. This application of the term "non-negotiable" offers an unnecessary level of protection in project space. It has already led to misunderstandings. It also has the potential of stifling consensus-based changes. (Admittedly, I've seen it used in this context only once, regarding a proposal that was a case of WP:SNOW anyway.) AvB ÷ talk 05:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, no:

• It is not possible to separate the "NPOV principle" from "the way it is formulated on the NPOV policy page";
• "better reflect [...] application of these principles": that's what guidelines are for. No need to rewrite the page about the "principle" for that. --Francis Schonken 07:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it is possible to seperate the principle from the wording. As he has accurately pointed out, application of a law will change with time, and this page can change to reflect that, so this page, the wording, is most definitely semi-negotiable. The principle is not. --tjstrf 08:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Whatever way you turn it, the *policy* is non-negotiable. That's what the page said, and there's no reason to change that. Your addition is redundant & confusing.

Well, a basic problem is that too many people tried to *negotiate* the content of the policy page. Better keep it clear: there's no such procedure as changing wikipedia's NPOV policy by negotiation. As said, there's no separation between the NPOV policy and the way it is formulated on the NPOV policy page, or, if there would be, that separation would be different per person, so that's not a workable distinction. It's the policy that's non-negotiable. If that would be limited to the "principle", you'd give way to attempts to change the content of the policy under the cloak of "I'm not changing the principle". Not workable. --Francis Schonken 09:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm surprised to see that the separation of principle and wording can be argued. They are clearly two different things, just as idea and manifestation are. Aquirata 10:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

What I hear you saying is that this is a semantic disagreement, and a concern about how the semantics will be interpreted by the reader. Since, I believe, clarifying the semantics was exactly the intent of this proposal, do you have anything to contribute that might bring us to a consensus as to how to best convey the distinction between the policy and the raw text that represents it on this page, to the reader? — Saxifrage ✎ 23:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm moving my bold edit here since it's being disputed and has not reached consensus:

"The three policies are also non-negotiable" changed to "The fundamental principles of the three policies are non-negotiable"

Wikipedia has done without an officially non-negotiable policy for five years. All it had was an officially non-negotiable principle. Three months ago a tiny consensus with very little discussion made three policies officially non-negotiable. According to Francis, this was hoped to help reign in reform attempts not supported by the wider community. I don't think we have seen any successes so far. I do think we're just beginning to see the disadvantages of this new language. And it's probably radically new - I've participated here for only six months, so I don't know this for a fact, but somehow I don't see a community here that is conservative to the extent that it wants to curb its own consensus processes and apparently no longer wants its policies to be consensus-based. "Sorry, move on now, this consensus-based policy is non-negotiable" where all we used to have was "this principle is non-negotiable". It looks like painting oneself into a corner to me. I think this really needs input from the wider community.

However, I think I'd better concentrate on another dispute regarding these edits, see above [6]. I'd like to postpone the discussion on this meta-question (perhaps indefinitely). As I've argued before, I do not think it's in the cards to address the principles/wording dichotomy at this point, although I do think testing the waters on this question can be informative and in the end I expect the meaning of what I'm saying to slowly dawn on others. This is towards formulating policies in a way that does not invite unwanted reforms like at least the current WP:NPOV does. I actually believe there are a number of items we must declare non-negotiable. I just happen to think the current text overshoots this aim by a wide margin. AvB ÷ talk 13:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

FYI, I posted this on the WP:V and WP:NOR talk pages. Please add your view there if you don't agree. AvB ÷ talk 14:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

List of Wikipedia's non-negotiable key principles

Regardless of whether these changes are accepted, it would be good, I think, to list our fundamental principles, perhaps along the lines of the German Wikipedia which has adapted its version of Wikipedia:Five pillars to that end. See the German language NPOV policy page and the German language central/fundamental principles. Any thoughts? Thanks. AvB ÷ talk 06:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:List of policies. This copies the content of the "policy in a nutshell" templates on the various policy pages. --Francis Schonken 07:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I mean a list of non-negotiable principles; The German page has four immutable principles. AvB ÷ talk 10:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

There's a list of principles "[...] at some ultimate, fundamental level, [...] how Wikipedia will be run, period." In fact I think you already found them ([7]): User:Jimbo Wales/Statement of principles. --Francis Schonken 12:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think I know them by heart by now. FWIW, I (and quite probably the majority of current Wikipedians) would not be editing here without the NPOV. It's the ideal of together creating a gift for the world that has kept me here far longer than I would have thought possible. And it can't be a gift if it's biased. NPOV (the principle) made sense to me straight away. It's why I believe this project can succeed and is succeeding. Regardless, I am in favor of a slight limitation of the authority of the consensus process. But I think the current "non-negotiable policies" attempt is bound to backfire. I'm thinking more along the lines of declaring (or asking Jimbo to declare) certain principles non-negotiable. But I'm having a terrible déjà vu right now. I've played Cassandra roles before so I'd probably better shut up about it and wait for time to tell... AvB ÷ talk 13:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia, like all wikimedia projects, has 5 principles that are practically non negotiable. These are the m:Foundation issues.

Kim Bruning 14:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't know about this list, but it says what I thought such a list would say. It makes for a pretty strong case for my point that policies should never be deemed "non-negotiable". If certain newer principles need more protection than consensus has to offer, they should be added to this list. Note that (1) "Non-negotiable" is even stronger than "essentially beyond debate" and (2) the "wiki process" is the final authority on content.

But I'm not pursuing this point now. I'm still waiting for additional responses to my other proposal. I have updated it to reflect comments made here by Francis. AvB ÷ talk 03:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Priority NPOV

Concerning topics such as a particular religious group...

I believe that the NPOV policy should clearly state that the primary subject matter of a topics title should first be represented factually and accurately as the main body of the topic. Outside or opposing POV's should not preclude or control a topics theme!

75.8.41.193 22:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

---

The way policy stands now, either editors feel they have to make a muddy mix of various views in a topic or they misuse policy to willfully preculude the proper represenation of the subject.

There is a loophole in NPOV policy.

There needs to be a priority statement included in the NPOV.

1, First of all NPOV should mean that a subject or people that a topic (title) represents are fairly and accurately represented in their beliefs and practices etc. This should be the main focalpoint and body of an article.

2. Outside or opposing POV's should not preclude or replace what or who the topic represents.

Summary: Outside or opposing views should be treated generally as secondary to the actual subjects POV.

75.8.41.193 23:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

See the Undue weight section, which covers Wikipedia's policy on this. — Saxifrage ✎ 23:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you provide a quote from Undue weight which clarifies whether "... opposing POV's should preclude .. what the topic represents".

I am aware of articles where editors have criticised a topic BEFORE the topic has even been defined. --Iantresman 00:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not aware of anything in the section that instructs editors to do so, no. I only said that the section covers Wikipedia's policy on this, not that it matches what the anon suggested. — Saxifrage ✎ 00:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• Unfortunately I can see nothing in the section that helps this specific issue. In which case, case it would seem worthy of further discussion.
• I does seem to me, that any subject, must define the subject before any criticism is offered. Otherwise the reader doesn't know what is being criticized. --Iantresman 08:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

  I'm not inclined to revisit this particular can of worms beyond the necessary action of pointing out to the anon what the governing policy currently is. — Saxifrage ✎ 18:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Facts precede opinions and Wikipedia:Define and describe. Bensaccount

Reminder

Please help improve/implement/demolish this 6-day-old proposal. It could really use some more input. AvB ÷ talk 09:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

three policies are also non-negotiable?

"The three policies are also non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus." This is what it said, but is being removed. 204.56.7.1 16:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Non-negotiable

What is the problem with having statement such as "The fundamental principles of the three policies are non-negotiable and their policy pages may only be edited to better reflect practical explanation and application of these principles."

I believe that statement to be accurate. Rather than editwarring, please discuss. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

It's probably my fault for prematurely inserting as a WP:Bold edit language which turns out to have solid support in the wake of an edit that seemed a run-of-the-mill common-sense improvement that was supported by consensus from the moment it was proposed - but was reverted straight away as not having reached consensus. I really mean it: this was truly bad timing on my part. But IMHO the way out of this is very simple: keep this version and discuss this proposal. AvB ÷ talk 17:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Let's restore that wording and make a proposal on the suggested wording. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can see these are relevant parts of User:Jimbo Wales/Statement of principles (important note: on this talk page of the NPOV policy I'm not discussing WP:V, nor WP:NOR - Jimbo's Statement of principles page has probably less bearing on these other two policies that, as far as I know, only got prominence some time after Jimbo wrote his original Statement of principles):

[...] at some ultimate fundamental level, this is how wikipedia will be run, period.

(But have no fear, as you will see, below.)

1. Wikipedia's success to date is 100% a function of our open community. This community will continue to live and breathe and grow only so long as those of us who participate in it continue to Do The Right Thing. Doing The Right Thing takes many forms, but perhaps most central is the preservation of our shared vision for the NPOV and for a culture of thoughtful diplomatic honesty.

[...]

6. The mailing list will remain open, well-advertised, and will be regarded as the place for meta-discussions about the nature of Wikipedia. Very limited meta-discussion of the nature of the Wikipedia should be placed on the site itself. [...]

([8] - my bolding)

Returning to the proposed text ("The fundamental principles of the three policies are non-negotiable and their policy pages may only be edited to better reflect practical explanation and application of these principles."):

1. Jimbo does not pre-emptively restrict editing of policy pages to merely changes that "better reflect practical explanation and application of these principles" and nothing else. On the contrary, if some change regarding the "nature of Wikipedia" would be decided via the mailing list (there are several mailing lists now, choose the appropriate one at Wikipedia:Mailing lists), then it would be Doing The Right Thing to bring policy pages in line with such decision.
2. Please move meta-discussions regarding the nature of the non-negotiability of NPOV to the appropriate Mailing list. Above (#Infallibility - a meta-question re non-negotiable) I said some things about NPOV. This was spread to some talk pages of other policies. I consider that quite inappropriate: I wasn't talking about these other policies. The only place where this could be taken outside this talk page (if this is more than a "very limited meta-discussion" regarding the NPOV policy) is the appropriate mailing list. But then again, when quoting what I wrote above no confusion should be spread that I would have been talking about anything else than the NPOV policy. tx. --Francis Schonken 08:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Jossi, you may want to review the (currently stalled) discussion here. It's about a revised version of an edit you made a couple of months ago. My summary of the status of that discussion: The proposed text has not been added to these three policies (except for one sentence in WP:V) because one editor believes there is no consensus and argues that the new text would change and confuse a consensus version of the policy. All others who have commented or (re)inserted (parts of) the proposed text at least partially agree that the proposed text simply clarifies existing text as intended, representing years of consensus.

Francis:

1. You're clearly defending the "non-negotiable policy" language but seem to have a much more relaxed interpretation of these words than most other editors (including Jossi and FeloniousMonk). I think the consensus interpretation is much stricter and while this particular consensus is not a good thing in my book, it's a fact of life and we'd better make this aspect of the policy as clear as possible. In the end, you and I seem to agree that a later consensus may well strike these words. Which would make them a pretty funny non sequitur indeed.

2a. Regarding meta-discussion: Yes and no. There are three questions here:

• Can the community make an entire policy non-negotiable?

(This is a meta-question, one I also posted to the WikiEN-L mailing list. It attracted very little attention, which I took as an indication that my point was well taken: the NPOV principle is non-negotiable, policies are negotiable unless declared non-negotiable from up high. The only response came from someone who was not taking part in the discussion here. Also note that no-one argued that Jossi's edit should have been discussed on the mailing list three months ago.)

• Is the community aware of, do all involved editors understand, and is there a real consensus regarding, Jossi's "these policies are also non-negotiable" edit?

(This is not a meta-question. We seem to have a consensus on Jossi's edit but we've also seen indications that at least one editor has a different interpretation of what a "non-negotiable policy" entails.)

• Can we improve the policy text introduced by Jossi?

(This is not a meta-question. It currently is, and should remain, under discussion here on the talk page.)

2b. You're probably referring to my notification alerting others to the discussion here on the NPOV talk page which obviously also affects the other two policies. Regarding the propagating of arguments to other places on the wiki: I can see why you would feel uncomfortable here - please know that this was not my intention and accept my apologies. From my side of the screen, this looked fully relevant and rather innocuous; links to the relevant context were provided, and the quote was part of a clarification to editors on talk pages of the other two policies that have or should have the same or similar language. AvB ÷ talk 21:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

PS Francis, does the above mean you'd like to limit the "non-negotiable policy" language (which currently applies to three policies) to just the WP:NPOV policy? AvB ÷ talk 21:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The "academic" / "journalistic" / "educated" as not truly NPOV

The article states

"the implication that it is possible to characterize disputes fairly ... It is an empirical question, not a philosophical one, whether this is possible; and that such a thing is indeed possible is evident simply by observing that such texts are being written daily by the most capable academics, encyclopedists, textbook writers, and journalists.

There is an implicit assumption in this that the academic/educated/journalistic groups in society are in fact NPOV, or otherwise are able to reach some standard of NPOV or objectivity or what-have-you. This, in and of itself, is a particular bias, a particular point of view. The process of education itself, particularly as understood in the Western sense, works out of and attempts to form worldviews and ways of thinking. The discourses of the educated class (of which I am a part, by the way) are no less laiden with specific POVs than are the discourses of ethnically or religiously specific groupings. Furthermore, unfortunate examples in history are evident where the academic/encyclopedic/journalistic sources of society were in fact "wrong": for instance, eugenics was an academically supported field for much of the early 20th century, and the educated classes in Europe and America were no less racist through the 17th, 18th, and into the 19th century than were slaveholders themselves.

Anyway, I'm not sure there really is a solution to this dilemma. But I wish to close with a poignant quote from Bishop Desmond Tutu: "If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality.” May those with ears, hear...

Emerymat 00:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

You're trying to refute an argument that we don't really make. We're not aiming for abstract neutrality and conflating that with mainstream scholarship. We attempt to pass on to our readers what the majority (and significant minority) positions are. If mainstream scholarship gets something wrong (or the terms of the discourse are prejudicial), we're just going to get it wrong too. You may, nevertheless, be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias which looks at bias in Wikipedia coverage overall. Jkelly 00:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Er, you seem to have us mixed up with some group of people attempting to write/create/evangalize perfect, unchaging, entirely objective Truth with a capital T. We arn't. We don't. We realize that everyone is biased. We realize that everything is biased. We realize that the winners write the history books, and that the winners write Wikipedia, too. We try to compensate for this. We fail, partly. NPOV means nothing more (and nothing less) than our statement that we attempt, in our writing for Wikipedia, to do as well as "most capable academics, encyclopedists, textbook writers, and journalists" do in getting at fair, unbiased truth. We know they arn't perfect, and we know we arn't perfect. You seem to consider this imperfection to be some kind of astonishing news. It's not. But thanks anyway, and please do help us to compensate for the biases we, and you, have. JesseW, the juggling janitor 01:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

"Alternative" vs. "Mainstream" resources question

In an ongoing dispute between myself and User:Iantresman over the subjects of redshift, redshift quantization and other related subjects, Ian has made this rather cogent point distilling the essence of the conflict:

You are applying double standards; You are quite happy to provide citations to Web sites for "alternative theories", but are not happy with critisms to "mainstream theories", even if they are from peer reviewed journals.

I agree with everything except the idea that this represents a "double standard". In my mind, there are two major points to consider when editting articles that relate to "alternative" vs. "mainstream" theories: 1) how is the subject normally portrayed in, say, other encyclopedias, texts, resources, or articles and 2) who are the major proponents of the idea (as per undue weight, for example).

In this particular case, I included a sentence in the article on redshift quantization regarding the major proponents of the idea [9]. The referenced citations were to websites and books written by the proponents regarding their belief that redshift quantizations represent a major stumbling block for the Big Bang. I get the impression that this association with creationists and geocentrists made Ian uncomfortable because he retaliated almost immediately with this edit: [10] which aside from looking like a gaming of the system was meant to I think "expose" the double standard at work.

Indeed, I do think including the sentence in the first instance was justifiable while the inclusion on the part of Ian was unjustifiable. My rationale? Redshift is a mainstream scientific concept that deserves explication as such primarily because the vast majority of resources on the matter discuss it as the mainstream describe it. To acheive NPOV, we have a sentence in the article which mentions that there are those who disagree with using redshift-distance relations as evidence for the Big Bang. That's the extent to which we accomodate "alternative" viewpoints in the article. This is in proportion to the notability of these proponents since the vast majority of people who inquire about cosmology accept the Big Bang model as a matter of course. Redshift quantization on the other hand is a topic which is of dubious mainstream distinction (I think nearly every peer-reviewed article ever written on the subject is referenced in the article here at Wikipedia), but is discussed quite a bit in the context of opponents to the Big Bang. As such, it deserves contextualization as this.

So, I have decided to open this question up to the watchers of this page: is there a double-standard at work here or is this a justifiable practice I have just outlined?

--ScienceApologist 14:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia surely treats all article with the SAME standard of neutrality, verifiability and quality.--Iantresman 14:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• I can not find ANYTHING verifiable which quantifies the significance that Catastrophists, creationists, and geocentrists, have had on the course of redshift quantization. --Iantresman 15:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

While Wikipedia treats all articles with the same standard of neutrality, I think the operative definition of what exactly constitutes neutrality in terms of what's "in" or "out" will be different for different articles. The operative definition of neutrality for a "mainstream broad science" topic such as redshift will be different from a topic such as "redshift quantization" either due to common sense ideas about what would be included in an article about a broad vs. a specific topic in science or common sense ideas about what would be included in an article about a mainstream vs alternative topic in science or both. I don't think things are as simple as ScienceApologist's two points would suggest and I don't know whether you were "gaming the system," Ian. However, I do think your movement of ScienceApologist's edits from the "redshift quantization" article to the "redshift" article with the edit summary "Thanks to ScienceApologist for supplying verifiable statement" was disruptive and disrespectful to the editing process at Wikipedia in light of the history at Redshift over the past year. Millions of verifiable statements could be included in a broad mainstream science article. Editors who treat each other with respect might be able to work together to decide which should be included and which should not. Editors who do not treat each other with respect shouldn't be attempting to build an encyclopedia. Your second point is not relevant to this forum, I've addressed it here. Flying Jazz 18:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

As it is, there isn't any mention of redshift quantization at all in redshift. While Ian's sentence added to redshift was inappropriate in tone (particularly the "however") and probably too detailed, surely proportional representation of the minority view means more than zero mention in the main article. By the way, which section is the critics sentence in? I don't see it.--ragesoss 23:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• My biggest criticism of Undue weight is that editors have used it inappropriately to ensure that minority views are TOTALLY omitted from articles. That is partly why Redshift quantization gets no mention in the redshift article, the argument being that to add ONE sentences to put it into context, would mean Undue weight. It's not even accepted as a "See also" link.
• I have other examples of other articles where peer-reviewed theories, admittedly minority, are completely removed from an article because its mere mention (including a See also link) is supposedly Undue weight.
• In my opinion, Undue weight was never designed to exclude views, only to ensure that such views did not take up too much of an article.

--Iantresman 00:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

This is my view as well; I don't like conflict editing so I usually stay away from these types of disputes altogether, but I'm repeatedly frustrated by attempts to impose a scientific point of view rather than a neutral point of view.--ragesoss 00:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

You're not meant to find the "critics sentence". It's buried in the section Observations in astronomy (first paragraph, last sentence). Any other article would have a "Critical section", but it seems that several hundred critics [11], and several hundred alternative theories,[12] is still not considered a significant minority view. --Iantresman 00:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't quite do what SA described; it in fact says that such views are implausible, not that anyone holds them or that such views are used to attack Big Bang cosmology. The existence of a hypothesis does not entail supporters. Looking past the (rather mild) incivility, Ian has a perfectly good point that is not just a WP:POINT--ragesoss 00:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

surely proportional representation of the minority view means more than zero mention in the main article. --> when we tried to quantify how much this proportion was, we came up with less than one word on the subject compared to the size of the article. There are also issues of how to exactly contextualize the subject. We don't mention redshift quantization because, according to undue weight, certain fringe subjects don't bear mentioning at all in certain mainstream articles. If you have a way to quantify what proportion redshift quantization deserves in the article, let us know, but it is clear to me it doesn't deserve mention. --ScienceApologist 01:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

If it is so insignificant that it can't even be mentioned in the main article once, then surely it's not notably enough to have its own WP article. As Ian notes, the purpose of the "undue weight" rules is not to exclude minority views altogether. You've added verifiable info to redshift quantization, so you seem to think it's an encyclopedic topic. Since there isn't even a see also section, the addition on one item in such a list wouldn't devalue other more important entries there, and one whole sentence is not at all unreasonable.--ragesoss 01:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

that it can't even be mentioned in the main article once, then surely it's not notably enough to have its own WP article. I respectfully disagree. Not every suggestion of the fringe that warrants an article needs to be explicitly mentioned in articles related to it. For example, created kinds are not listed on the species page. --ScienceApologist 01:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't mean it shouldn't be. Created kinds is a significant enough concept to warrant mention in species. Wikipedia presents information from a neutral point of view, not a scientific point of view. Articles on scientific concepts, of course, present primarily the view of scientists, and make clear that significant non-scientific or discredited views are opposed by most or all scientists, but I would say leaving created kinds out of species is badly off the mark for what a WP article should be.--ragesoss 01:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

A comment on Ian's suggestion that "surely proportional representation of the minority view means more than zero mention in the main article" and his opinion that "Undue weight was never designed to exclude views, only to ensure that such views did not take up too much of an article.": Zero is sometimes exactly how much mention a subject warrants by Undue Weight. An extremal example that demonstrates this is that Time Cube gets exactly zero mention in Time, and I don't think anyone except Gene Ray would see this exclusion as an inappropriate application of Undue Weight. Obviously, less extreme examples will warrant inclusion and some will warrant exclusion, but the view that Undue Weight does not and should not ever exclude a subject from a larger article very obviously leads to an absurdity (Time Cube being significant enough to be in Time) and so is clearly wrong. — Saxifrage ✎ 04:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with your assessment. But Time Cube is not excluded because of Undue Weight, it's excluded because it is a crank internet meme promoted by one person with zero authority. Redshift quantization may be a marginal and discredited idea, but it also is supported by at least one notable scientist and a spectrum of other groups. Undue Weight is often pushed too far, and I think this is one of those cases.--ragesoss 04:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Possibly this is one of those cases, but I was not and wont be commenting on it because it has no bearing on policy, which is what this Talk page is for. For discussions of whether Undue Weight is being properly applied to Redshift quantization and Redshift, there are convenient Talk pages available as well as the Wikipedia:Requests for comment process.

As for the Time Cube, Undue Weight is exactly why it is excluded from Time. What else is the Undue Weight portion of NPOV for, but to say that insignificant views (including crank and fringe views, as well as more respectable views) need not be represented in articles? My pointing out that Undue Weight also is the governing portion of policy relevant to redshift quantization's inclusion or exclusion from Redshift doesn't mean I'm saying that redshift quantization ranks on par with the Time Cube in respectibility—I take no position on it, for the reasons above. — Saxifrage ✎ 05:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. But in the abstract, Undue Weight is simply the combination of the basic principle of NPOV with common sense. The principle question is, would a reader of article A want to know about related marginal idea X? In the case of an internet meme that no scientist takes seriously, no. In the case of a marginal or discredited theory adhered to notable scientists and/or social groups, very likely. And conversely, will a brief mention of marginal topic X lead readers to think it is more significant than it actually is? Except in the most extreme cases, it take minimal effort to contextualize a 1 sentence mention of X to ensure that this does not happen. Undue Weight is not about percentages and number of words; it's about the impression readers come away with. --ragesoss 05:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that is very true, and nicely expressed at that. A longer explanation, but with greater context, can easily give less weight than a shorter but context-free mention for a marginal topic. — Saxifrage ✎ 06:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

(1) Including links to minority ideas is also about easy navigation to related subjects (See Wiki guide on "See also"). If I go to the redshift article, a link to redshift quantization and other related minority subjects give me the opportunity to find out for myself how fringe, minority, credible or discredited such a related subject it. (2) That there are papers published in peer reviwed journals on redshift quantization regularly (even this year), shows that peers consider the subject notable enough to publish and the subject is still an active part of the scientific process; this should not be overruled by anonymous, judgemental and inexperienced editors. --Iantresman 08:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

ragesoss's commentary on undue weight has distilled exactly the problem with what should be its appropriate use. ragesoss believes undue weight is exclusionary under the criteria: "Would a reader of article A want to know about related marginal idea X?". Apparently that is all that is required for him to understand why time cube is excluded from time, but it is clear to him that redshift quantization shouldn't be excluded from redshift nor should created kinds be excluded from species. If this is the case, then we must be leaving all of our decisions about how to apply undue weight fairly up to consensus, because I don't see any objective criteria for how he can claim that a reader doesn't want to know about time cube but does want to know about created kinds or redshift quantization. Note the judgemental language ragesoss uses to describe his rationale for excluding time cube. Is it an NPOV-sentiment to declare time cube to be just an "internet meme" (his own POV demarcation of the idea -- not something Gene Ray would agree with) that "no scientist takes seriously" (you have a cite for that? said the devil's advocate). Of course, this is left to his judgement of the matter and I'm pleased that ragesoss isn't so mealy-mouthed as to claim that undue weight cannot ever completely exclude mention of an article. But the issue is that all we have to go on is consensus. My "common sense" tells me for a variety of reasons that redshift quantization does not belong on the redshift page. Are you calling my "common sense" wrong, ragesoss? Or are you just appealing this judgement to the good will of the community? --ScienceApologist 13:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm just explaining why I disagree with you. It's not very meaningful to talk about whether someone's common sense interpretation of a policy is "wrong"; there is no Platonic form for applying Undue Weight. The very existence of the policy statement, in that form, is the product of other editors' common sense, and its further interpretation is what we are hashing out here. So consensus is of course what it come down to.--ragesoss 14:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Ragesoss, I think the common-sense interpretation of NPOV as it applies to the Redshift article is best discussed in the talk page for the Redshift article, but before doing so, you may want to read this just so you know what you are getting yourself into. Flying Jazz 17:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• Time cube is not given the same consideration as Redshift quantization because as far as I can tell, there are no verifiable peer-reviewed citations on Time cube.
• However, there are peer-reviewed papers on Redshift quantization by Cocke and Tifft [13], Laviolette [14], Holmlid [15], Guthrie and Napier [16] (under redshift periodicity), Narlikar [17], Holba et al [18], Biswas [19], Han [20], Halton Arp [21], Faraoni [22], Tang [23], and a number of recent pre-prints at Arxiv.org published this year [24] [25].
• A minority subject? no argument; Significant? Yes, according to NPOV Undue weight [26] and Jimbo Wales: "If a view is a minority view of some scientists, scientists who are respected by the mainstream that differs with them on this particular matter, then we say so. (my emphasis) "[27]
• And or course, Census has to be made within policy. --Iantresman 14:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I think other editors here should examine my recent mediation against ScienceApologist and Iantresman discussing their exasperating talk-page tactics before continuing this discussion in this forum. Flying Jazz 17:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Undue Weight contradiction and ambiguities

Here are the problems I see with Undue weight.

NPOV Statement	NPOV Contradiction/Ambiguity
NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints, in proportion to the prominence of each.	How do we represent all significant viewpoints if undue weight means that we end up excluding significant viewpoints? How do we assess prominence?
Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all	In other words, only tiny-minority views may not be included?
To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute.	Excluding a tiny-minority view completely, might also be misleading. How you represent a view might be misleading, but not its mere mention.
Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties.	Most scientists are not experts in specialist fields. The specialists are the experts, ie. the minority themselves.

How can anonymous, non-specialist editors, with their own biases and conflicts of interest, make objective decisions on such views? --Iantresman 15:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that isolated editors (or in this case, two isolated editors, you and ScienceApologist), whether anonymous or not, whether specialists or not, cannot make objective decisions on such views. It is only when a community of editors is assembled that communal decisions about individual edits may be made with some confidence. The process of deciding what is significant (what is prominent, what is a tiny minority view, and so on) should take a lot of time and effort from people who respect the process of discussing specific subtopics. Discussing policy as if policy can lead to objectivity is a wasted effort. A good policy should be ambiguous and even sometimes contradictory in order to encourage people to focus on the nitty-gritty details of an article instead of discussing policy. That is why talk-page behavior that encourages community-building is absolutely vital for Wikipedia. Flying Jazz 17:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• I agree in principle, there are no other editors and articles in which I have such tedious discussions. But there are no other editors who completely exclude peer-reviewed theories based on their own judgements, and apply different editing criteria to majority and minority subjects. I accept that I may react disproportionately, but extreme (and in my opinion unfair) editing decisions elicit that response.
• Nearly every edit I make is based on a veriable citation, whereas his are based on his personal interpretation. That he has categorised subjects like "Plasma Cosmology" as pseudoscience [28] (I accept it's minority), Halton Arp as a "loonball pathological skeptic" [29] (I wonder if the Max Planck Institute know), and that the Wolf effect is "not a redshift" [30] (despite it being demonstrated in the laboratory)[31], sums it up. --Iantresman 18:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:Requests for comment is your friend. Be friendly with it. — Saxifrage ✎ 22:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Not this nonsense yet once again. Give it a rest. This continual resurrection of this topic by this small contingent of a particular POV is disruptive and needs to stop. Now. FeloniousMonk 18:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• The subject of Undue weight was brought up in the previous subsection by two people, who as far as I can tell, have not brought it up before. In other words, by two new people. I think you need to ask yourself, why are different people bringing up the same discussion.
• That you treat the discussion as "nonsense" and a "disruption", is disrespectful to all editors concerned.
• I would suggest that you stop being dismissive and condescending, and read Wiki Policy and "Respect other contributors."[32], and note that "As with guidelines, amendments should generally be discussed on their talk pages,"[33] (my emphasis). --Iantresman 19:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Flying Jazz response above, is an excellent one. I would suggest that you explore it a little bit and then continue the discussion in the talk page of these articles. There is no policy that can help you if there is no collaboration during the editing process. That process is what makes this project work. Policy is there to assist editors in that process, not to supplant them. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Determining, Governing, Guiding, etc.

JA: I don't know what the issue is here. I was only trying to bring that paragraph into verbatim conformity across all three content, er, -regulating pages. One page had "content-guiding", which is clearly too weak, and leads to confusion with guidelines. It is very essential for all sorts of reasons to draw a firm line between policies and guidelines. Can anybody explain to me what they have in mind here? Jon Awbrey 21:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

"Content policies" is the shorter and more accurate definition. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Maps

I've inlcuded maps in the list of things that need to be NPOVd. Often disputed regions are covered showing only one country's point of view, and to plug this loophole, I've included in policy. =Nichalp «Talk»= 03:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Policy negotiable?

I need further clarifications here: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Han Civilisation Delist. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

A question on parodies and satires.

What is to be done for articles on parodies or satires which fail to label themselves as such in a way that can be linked or sourced? Over at Talk:Flying Spaghetti Monster, some editors argue that the organization, which fails to identify itself anywhere on its website as a "parody" or "satire", should therefore be treated by Wikipedia as if it were intended to be a religion. I know I'm not alone in finding this farcical; there's such a thing as taking things too literally. FSM is widely understood to be a satire intended to poke fun at the reasoning behind so-called Intelligent Design theory. There are plenty of websites that refer to it as such, but those making this assertion claim that the "beliefs" of the "believers" must be given precedence. For Wikipedia to misportray FSM as an actual religion, rather than a satire, would fundamentally cripple the article's ability to accurately describe the goal and effects of this satire.

It would be as if someone went to the article on Jonathan Swift and accused him of actually intending people to follow his satirical advice and eat Irish children. As can be seen at Jonathan Swift and A Modest Proposal, the editors there are fortunately well-equipped with common sense and correctly identify the work as satire. Likewise, the article on Candide does not shy from noting the widely-understood fact that Voltaire's putting glib optimism in the mouth of Dr. Pangloss was a deliberate satire. In fact, "all is for the best in this best of all possible worlds" is almost exactly the opposite of Voltaire's true beliefs, and it would be the greatest possible misrepresentation of Voltaire if an editor were to do to his article what is being proposed for FSM.

I reread WP:NPOV but could find no reference to how to treat works of satire and parody. Is there a policy on the topic, or at least a set of guidelines? Is there a WP:UCS ("Use Common Sense"), even? Because it's hard to get anything done on Flying Spaghetti Monster amid people who are either too policy-bound or too humorless to recognize a parody when they see one. Is this a case for IAR? Kasreyn 16:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't like to be a nuisance, but I remain puzzled as to what provision is made in Wikipedia policy for recognizing a work of satire. Is a strong majority of reliable sources calling something a "satire" or "parody" sufficient to support the article describing the subject as such? Because in the case of FSM, most sources reporting on FSM seem to recognize its clear satirical intent.

However, the FSM website itself - arguably the principal source - makes no mention of any satirical intent. The argument among those who wish to deny that FSM is satire seems to be that, because FSM itself does not disclaim satirical intent, we can assume its absence. I, obviously, feel that the lack of such disclaimer merely indicates a more thorough intent to deceive, or a greater assumption that the subject matter is too ridiculous to ever be mistaken for genuine. Can anyone clear this up? Kasreyn 10:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The reason you didn't get an answer here (yet) is probably partially due to the fact that the problem you present is rather handled by wikipedia:verifiability and wikipedia:reliable sources.

As can be seen from these policies and guidelines, in general self-published primary sources are held in lower esteem as reference source, than secondary sources under editorial control. So, quote the most reliable secondary sources you can find regarding the "parody/satire" POV, note down in the FSM article that the "religion" POV basicly can be reduced to self-declarations of the initiator of the website.

Maybe also have a look at Wikipedia:Notability (web)#Criteria for web content, if you can't find "multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself" nor any proof of the other suggested criteria, maybe the FSM doesn't even qualify as a viable topic for a separate wikipedia article (see also: WP:NOT). --Francis Schonken 11:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, Francis. Sorry if I've wasted space here, as you point out this is a matter rightly for WP:V rather than WP:NPOV. As there are plentiful sources describing FSM as a satire or parody, there should be no problem. Kasreyn 11:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

That it is categorized under (at least at this moment) under "joke religions" and "parodies" is not OK? Or are you saying people are forbidding sources calling it a satire? If "FSM is widely understood to be a satire" you should be able to find sources to that effect. With sentences like "The Flying Spaghetti Monster is the deity of a parody religion founded by Bobby Henderson" (the first sentence) and "Many of the beliefs proposed by Henderson were intentionally chosen to parody arguments commonly set forth by proponents of Intelligent Design" I don't think a reader is actually going to take it seriously. Marskell 11:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I have no problem with how the article currently is, I'm trying to prepare myself for a future argument I see looming on the horizon. An editor claiming to be a true believer in FSMism has been attempting to add the FSM "viewpoint" on dinosaurs to the article Religious perspectives on dinosaurs, based on his assertion that FSM is a real religion. I have a suspicion that he might soon argue that FSM should not be portrayed as a parody, as (or so he claims) he is a true believer, there must be others and it would be "POV" of us to call it anything less. So far his viewpoints have not been represented in these articles because other editors revert him under WP:POINT. Some of his talk page comments suggest that his "belief" in FSM is as cynical as Henderson was in founding it, and his only purpose is, as he admits on the talk pages, to demonstrate what he believes is fallacy by a reductio ad absurdum (which is exactly what FSM itself is). So I don't really think there's any danger of him succeeding in distorting the viewpoint of these articles. Still, it got me thinking, and I asked simply to know, for future reference, what process I should use to determine when it is NPOV to call something satire, especially when the creator does not acknowledge it as such. Cheers, Kasreyn 11:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't know whether you'd think the comparison useful, but see for instance how self-proclaimed and micronation 'emperors' are treated in the Emperor article: Emperor#Self-proclaimed and micronation 'emperors'. Short paragraph, barely more than mentioning that they exist without much of a real influence on history; and linking to the relevant articles. Something similar could be done re. religions with a limited number of serious adherents. Maybe, in such context, Erik Satie's Eglise Métropolitaine d'Art de Jésus Conducteur could be mentioned too ("one" adherent, existed less than a decade in fin-de-siècle Paris). --Francis Schonken 12:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I said:

1. Quote reliable secondary sources regarding the parody POV, these reliable secondary sources take precedence (and indeed also for the categorisation of the article);
2. If no such reliable secondary sources can be found (I'm no FSM specialist, I have no idea whether such "reliable secondary sources" exist), look into the notability aspect of the FSM. If it's no more than an internet meme, a WP:AfD procedure might be the next step, and then see what comes out of that. --Francis Schonken 11:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't replying to you, sorry. My post was to Kas after conflict. Marskell 11:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, sorry. Anyway Kas got the answers he was asking for I suppose. --Francis Schonken 11:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Undue weight improvement

In particular, to elaborate on the last comment above, if you are able to prove something that nobody currently believes, Wikipedia is not the place to premiere such a proof. Once a proof has been presented and discussed elsewhere, however, it may be referenced.

This last sentence in Undue Weight, does not appear to be relevant to Undue Weight, but is part of "verifiability" and "original research"?--Iantresman 20:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Text move policy

Although it we clarly already have a policy regarding text moves, two Wikipedians have teamed up to hide any clarification or amplification of this. I can only assume it's because they want to censore this policy, because they personally oppose it.

1. (cur) (last) 18:09, 19 June 2006 Francis Schonken (remove link to proposal: that proposal should not be presented as a part of "policy" on this page)
2. (cur) (last) 19:05, 19 June 2006 FeloniousMonk m (Reverted edits by Ed Poor (talk) to last version by Francis Schonken)

Francis claimed my link to Wikipedia:Text move is not part of "policy" - on what grounds I don't know, maybe because I placed the {{proposed}} template at the head of the linked page.

But I have seen references to "text moves" on 2 or 3 other pages, and I've noticed that FM and his clique oppose this policy. They feel justified in reverting any changes they disagree with (often with the terse comment that I must discuss all my changes first), while reserving the right to make any changes they want without any discussion at all, before or afterwards. --Uncle Ed 19:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Go take a breather, WP:AGF, and come back when you want to rephrase all that without invoking cabals. — Saxifrage ✎ 03:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ed Poor (2) All anyone needs to know about what Ed is on about is there. He also has a long history of trying to create new policy to support his activities detailed at the RFC. FeloniousMonk 04:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Question & suggestion

I know the NPOV policy is meant to cover situations in which an editor edits sourced facts into an article but, because of selection of which facts to present from said source, the facts presented a slanted view of its subject. I think this is covered under the general "don't be biased" mantra of NPOV, and is mentioned secifically under the "Fairness and sympathetic tone" section of the article: "Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization. . . ." As a more concrete example of what I'm talking about: an editor edits the following, sourced blurb into Ted Kennedy's article, "Kennedy supports a tax on imported rubber and justifies the tax by stating 'rubber imports are not a practical response to current tire prices'[reference]". The editor leavs the blurb at that, failing to note that the source goes on to say that Kennedy's true motivation/justification for supporting the tax is because he believes domestic rubber production is sufficient and expanding. This blurb obviously violates the portions of this policy that I've mentioned above, as it makes Kennedy out to have no concrete justification for his support of the tax through selection of which facts to present. My point for posting here is to ask two questions: (1) is this type of fact-selection NPOV violation mentioned anywhere else in the policy other than one sentence in the Fairness and sympathetic tone section and (2) if not, shouldn't there be a more expansive subsection on fact-selection bias here? I understand that this problem is somewhat related to undue weight (in that both deal with fact-selection bias), but undue weight doesn't cover a situation similar to what I've posited above. - Jersyko·talk 02:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Jersyko, policy is not a replacement for good judgement. Polices are there to assist us in the process of collaboration, so that we can write an encyclopedia. If an editor is selective in his citing of materials form sources, challenge him. An article that is not biased is easy to spot, and one that is not, even easier. There is no replacement for the process of give and take, tweaks, nips and tucks, that an article goes through. It is that process that carries the promise of a good NPOV article. More policy would not help, IMO. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, I don't believe I am requesting new policy, I'm requesting a fuller explanation of something briefly mentioned in this policy. I am not requesting this change merely to bolster my argument in NPOV disputes. Rather, I believe this is an important subset of NPOV that is barely glossed over in the text of this policy. I understand that many Wikipedians resist implementation of new bureaucracy and policy for numerous reasons, but since this issue is already perfunctorily treated in the policy, perhaps an exception can be made. - Jersyko·talk 12:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Jersyko, I have a practical question: when the kind of flaw you describe is found in articles and someone tries to fix it, have you found that they often encounter resistence? If the answer is yes, then perhaps the policy needs to be clearer and stronger. If the answer is no, I'd say that the policy is working fine. Look, policies are here for the most part to (1) help educate newbies and (2) provide guidance in disputes. My belief is we should pretty much leave them alone unless they are really failing to accomplish either of these objectives. I am not arguing with you, I just think the issue here is not resisting implementation or a new bureaucracy, but rather trying to gage just how much of a problem this is. No policy can or should try to cover every possible instance. But my opinion is shaped by an even more basic belief: all wikipedia articles are works in progress. We should never really think of any article as being perfect, flawless. Sometimes an article is flawed not because a policy is not clear enough, but simply because more people need more time to work on it. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm only aware of two, maybe three situations in which I've encountered resistance on point in my year and a half of editing here. Perhaps it's not a widespread problem, I have no idea. Each time that it has come up, however, I recall searching, in vain for the most part, for a section of the NPOV policy (or another policy) that would be entirely on point. The sentence I mention above is all I have been able to find. In any event, I suppose that if other editors consider the one sentence to be sufficient for the problem I have described, and if other editors are not experiencing the same phenomenon, I will gladly concede and withdraw my suggestion. - Jersyko·talk 14:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, would you mind saying a bit more about your experiences? Were the conflicts quickly resolved? Were you satisfied with the way things were resolved? Would it really have made a difference if the policy addressed this more directly or at greater length? I don't want to discourage a good suggestion, but there is no point in making a change unless we know it will make a difference. I have been in lots of conflicts where I needed to explain my interpretation/application of the NPOV policy to the matter at hand, and once I did this the matter was resolved. If your experiences were like mine, then i honestly do not think there is any need to change the policy - talk pages exist because sometimes we just need to hash things out there. But if your experiences were more protracted and bitter than mine, then maybe yes we do need to clarify the policy. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of World of Warcraft

Could someone nautral to WoW please check out that article. I do not want to add a VfD because the article itself has potential. I just feel it's a pile of POV as it stands right now. Any guidance as to what could be done would also be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Havok (T/C/c) 20:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Question about "Undue Weight" & Niche Topics

A handful of editors and I are in conflict with a single admin on a particular subject, and I believe that the problem comes down to different interpretations of what constitutes "undue weight". I've read through the main NPOV page, and digested as much of this page as I can (it's a LOT!), but haven't seen anything which really addresses my issue. If I've overlooked it, I apologize, and would thank somebody for pointing me in the right direction; otherwise, I would like to know what the community thinks of the following situation. In a nutshell -- the rules are clear that, when a vocal minority is in conflict with a substantial majority, the article must be weighted towards the latter -- ie, creationists and flat-earthers are relegated to footnotes on pages about evolution and geomorphology. Rightly so. But how does one weight an article when a subject is relatively obscure and the "majority view" of a subject is, well, ignorance? The admin insists that proper NPOV weighting means that the article should be small and vaguely skeptical; I disagree -- I believe it does not need to be either small or weighted. But I would appreciate some additional opinions.

For those who are interested, please allow me to give some background on the subject,

Just to give some background, the conflict concerns an experimental transit technology called "Personal Rapid Transit" (PRT). PRT has been theorized and experimented with since the 1960s, with several billion dollars having been collectively spent on it over the years, and several full-scale prototypes built, tested, certified by various regulatory agencies, and so forth -- but for a variety of reasons, no PRT system has ever been deployed publicly. Recently, there has been a resurgence of interest in PRT, and a small system has finally been purchased for public installation at London Heathrow Airport in 2008 (see ULTra (PRT)). There are also funds allocated for a small system in Dubai, and in two places in Sweden. Worldwide, there is perhaps $50 - $100 million being spent annually on R&D for this technology.

As far as the vast community of transportation engineers and scientists go, PRT is largely unknown. I'd guess that the percentage who have even heard of it is somewhere in the vicinity of 2%, and most of those could barely define what it is, much less give a cogent support or refutation of its premises. Commercially, when compared to planes, trains, and automobiles, $50 - $100 million annually is utterly insignificant.

However, there is a small number of engineers, probably numbered in the very low thousands worldwide, who are either involved with PRT ventures or are just very enthusiastic about the technology (although there is a considerably larger group of non-credentialed supporters who are intrigued by or supportive of the concept). These people have produced a voluminous body of work documenting the results of various prototype trials, hashing out design strategies, and generally extolling its virtues. As implied above, the rest of the transit world has more or less ignored this -- they've got enough else to think about.

There is another, even smaller number of engineers and activists who are aware of PRT and actively critical of it. My guess is that there would be, at most, about a hundred of these individuals worldwide. They have produced a body of work criticizing the PRT concept. This body of work is considerably smaller and less detailed than the body of work of the supporters, but both represent tiny niches within the field as a whole.

So, this brings us to the heart of the matter. The admin in question asserts that skepticism is the "majority view". I strongly contest this assertion: apathy is, unquestionably, the "majority view" among transit professionals. At any rate, the admin feels that the article (and associated articles) should consequently be short and very basic, if indeed they should exist at all, and that above all else they must emphasize that PRT does not actually exist (he repeatedly refers to it as "fictional") -- and he routinely mass-deletes content, adds redundant "in theory" and "according to proponents" tags to virtually every sentence, and threatens to lock down articles when anybody objects to his behavior.

I, of course, do object (but I'm not an admin, so what does that matter?). I believe that apathy is not a legitimate "majority view", and that it is fully within Wikipedia's purview to do a nice and fairly comprehensive article about highly niche topics such as PRT. [Solar Sail]s and [Space Elevator]s and have far more extensive articles than [Personal Rapid Transit], for example, despite the fact that the majority of aerospace engineers have no interest in those topics, a minority are actively highly skeptical about them, and those things are in any case far more "fictional" than PRT.

My belief is that there is no need for the issue of "undue weight" to even enter into an article like this. I believe it should be possible in this case to summarize the works of PRT designers (being very careful to attribute all non-empirical claims -- basically anything concerning PRT that wasn't physically gleaned from a prototype), and also summarize the works of the PRT critics. I believe that there is no intrinsic POV problem with summarizing both camps in as much detail as their literature provides; the hostile admin, however, believes that going into such detail would be intrinsically POV, given that PRT is "irrelevant" and "fictional". Edit wars thus ensue.

Am I wrong? Is he wrong? Please help! If anyone would like more background on this issue, I urge you to check out the talk pages for Personal Rapid Transit, ULTra (PRT), and UniModal. I look forward to your responses and thank you for your time! Skybum 01:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, for further background on this argument, you can look at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-04-22 SkyTran/UniModal uncooperative admin, (which resulted in no resolution). Skybum 02:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Orania

I want to notify that I placed the Orania page under the npov tag. Reasons being the article erroneously assumes the opposing position and ignores the central issue. Example, 2nd paragraph. There is no issue of Apartheid being continued in Orania in the form of exploitation of black labor. The issue is clearly one of Apartheid used to segregate resources and land. Nothing more. So the article violates the neutral point of view in the political bias and misrepresentation of other viewpoints. --Zaphnathpaaneah 06:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Verifiability / Undue weight improvement

This seems to have been missed. I wish to remove, or move the following sentence from the Undue weight section:

In particular, to elaborate on the last comment above, if you are able to prove something that nobody currently believes, Wikipedia is not the place to premiere such a proof. Once a proof has been presented and discussed elsewhere, however, it may be referenced.

This last sentence in Undue Weight, does not appear to be relevant to Undue Weight, but is part of "verifiability" and "original research"? --Iantresman 12:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

From the second paragraph of the intro of the NPOV policy page:

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is one of Wikipedia's three content policies. The other two are Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main namespace. Because the three policies are complementary, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another [...]

The sentence from the "Undue weight" section you point to clarifies such connection between WP:NPOV and the other two core content policies. Trying to cut such links that clarify the unseparable relation between the core content policies, by eliminating the sentence you quote from the NPOV guideline would be a step towards trying to interpret the three core content policies "in isolation from one another". Not acceptable IMHO. --Francis Schonken 12:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you fully, that policies should not be interpreted in isolation. It's just that I see no connection with Undue weight. When would unverifiable information even be considered for undue weight? --Iantresman 17:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I believe this is purely a semantics issue. Undue weight is about letting a small subject overshadow a larger subject. If people use undue weight to mean verifiability and NPOV - then the term becomes near-usless - as people will get confused as to what you mean when you use the term. Fresheneesz 18:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Fairness and sympathy (2)

I brought this up previously without reply, so here goes again:

• "It is a point of view that is neutral - that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject."

• "If we're going to characterize disputes fairly, we should present competing views with a consistently positive, sympathetic tone."

I don't think this is a total contradiction, but after a recent Talk debate I think the dual use of sympathy should go as it presents a wedge to exploit on the page. "Fairness of tone" sufficient? Marskell 17:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I've seen it written somewhere that "NPOV" is not "sympathetic view", and that even another encyclopedia has been started that is based on sympathetic view... Thus I'd say that the word "sympathetic" doesn't belong there, "positive" is already positive enough!

BTW, I now read that section, and I don't remember having ever read it before! Is it perhaps a recent addition? If so, it should be looked at critically and corrected where needed. Harald88 00:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

You can read it right there above: "neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject." I do understand the second use is slightly different, basically meaning don't denigrate a topic as you're describing it, introduce something only to criticize etc. However, using the word twice in contrary ways doesn't seem sensible. Indeed, even the word "positive" makes me wonder.

Any other comments from people? Marskell 07:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I see no real problem with either of these texts:

• the first indicates that we try to stay as neutral as possible when reporting about facts;
• the second is about representing competing views: each view is presented "positive", that is, without denigrating remarks, aka "sympathetic". If we represent a notable "criticism" sympathetic, without undermining the value of that criticism, the topic that is being criticised by the criticising assertion, will be treated "neutral", without particularily favoring it, so: neutral, "not sympathetic nor in opposition" (that is, if we have treated the main topic also without denigrating remarks, aka "positive, sympathetic"). Treating both sides of a debate "sympathetic" makes the treatment of the discussed topic as neutral as we can.

Compare also wikipedia:criticism (guideline proposal) --Francis Schonken 11:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Your second bullet has me lost honestly. I don't think we're disagreeing, if I understand it properly, that the two uses differ but aren't fundamentally contradictory. My point is essentially one of usage: can we say what we say what we say in two without re-using the term "sympathy"? If we simply drop sympathy the meaning will be the same but it won't be open to exploitation. I have literally been told on talk "NPOV says we should be sympathetic to the topic"; in its entirety it doesn't say that. Marskell 12:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

"Fair and sensitive tone"? Marskell 07:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Undue weight with images?

I can't find a policy about this. Let's say hypothetically in an article about the Japanese tea ceremony an editor wants to add a few pictures of tea ceremonies, that happen to depict details only found in a minority form Mushanokōjisenke. One picture would be fine (it is a legitimate school), but this would seem to me to be a form of visual undue weight. Is there a policy? Even for one picture, if the differences are related to a dispute between schools, should the captions explain or allude to the dispute? Gimmetrow 17:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, this hasn't been the topic of much discussion. It would be difficult, and perhaps counterproductive, to write a policy around this, but it is certainly important enough to invest the time in having thoughtful conversation about the issue at relevant Talk pages. Jkelly 17:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

We are discussing it at the relevant pages, but some policy guidelines might help move the discussion forward. The "Undue Weight" section has a list of ways undue weight can be given. I would suggest perhaps adding to the list "selection of images." Gimmetrow 17:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Added one line to help clarlify this. Undue weight is not only about text, but about all other material such as images, external links, tables and formatting devices, TOC labelling, article sections, etc. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV policy does nothing

While this is a good policy, it's unenforcable. Our only way of dealing with NPOV disputes is dispute resolution, which does nothing. As a result, POV on articles are decided not by neutrality, but by the number of people on one side of the argument. Case in point: any article related to Ayn Rand is biased in her favor, due to the fact that there are more Rand fans editing them than anyone else. Since admins and their unused dispute resolution non-process never do anything about the problem, these articles are run by a de facto pro-Rand POV policy. As a result, Wikipedia can never be NPOV, because Wikipedia's policies exist only on paper. -- LGagnon 23:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Policy is currently decided by consensus, whereas consensus should be made within policy, which is not the same thing. --Iantresman 00:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Not right: Jimbo determined this policy, and it's non-negotiable. Even 100% consensus of Wikipedia editors is not allowed to change it. However, we may propose ways to enhance enforcement of the policy. Harald88 08:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Hence, why doesn't "Jimbo" write the darn policy. What on earth is this whole discussion about, then?? Please pardon me because it's only been a few months of active involvement for me. We have a whole world of content still to work on. Why waste editors' valuable time on some of this nonsense that comes across these pages here?, when "Just ask Jimbo" ought be adequate. Obviously it's not just about enforcement but also about the substantive meaning of the words Neutral Point of View. Or am I wrong about that? If so, where are those original statements of what NPOV means? ... Kenosis 01:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Let me see if I have this straight. Consensus determines policy, within which consensus is used to determine content, except in the case of certain policies also arrived at by consensus which, when determined by another consensus to be in violation of those certain policies, are arbited by a consensus of administrators whose standing is determined by consensus, which then may proceed by consensus to determine what the facts are and implement any of a range of sanctions as prescribed by consensus? ... Kenosis 03:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The policy works, but in some articles it may take more time than in others. Time and patience is needed in some situations. Have you asked other editors to take a look at Ayn Rand? AnyRfC's? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Not complaining, just making light – though I suppose it can tempt one to turn fundamentalist at times. ... Kenosis 03:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I have asked other editors; thus my claim that dispute resolution does nothing. We've had RfC, third opinions, requests for mediations, intervention for personal attacks and vandalism, and yet none of these ever lead towards any improvement in the articles (it's not just Rand's article; it's every article related to her). In fact, the personal attacks were the only things that the admins were willing to deal with. The only ones that were willing to respond gave some lame excuse such as "it's too hostile" or "I'm too lazy". With responses like that, I can't help but think the admins do nothing too (not that they haven't failed in the past already, but that's another bunch of stories).

And time and patience may work if well-cited portions of the article weren't being deleted by biased editors because they don't want any criticisms of their cult to be in the article. Unofrtunately, by the time the admins get around to doing anything none of the info that Rand's fans are destroying will be there anymore. -- LGagnon 03:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't buy it. If you can find reputable sources that describe your POV, these will likely remain in the article. I checked the article and statements such as (my highlights): Rand has been accused by some of being a cult leader. Objectivism and the organizations that spawned from it have been accused of being cults themselves. are the type of things that will get you always in trouble, and frustrated. State who says that, and if the person(s) saying that have been published in a reputable source, it will remain uncontested. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Like I said, the pro-Rand group has deleted all the cited sources. They've all been moved over to an out-of-the-way article where people are unlikely to read them. -- LGagnon 04:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Deletion and moving are different. It can't be both. —Centrx→talk • 05:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

As long as there is an informative link to such a secondary article, it's likely OK: spinning subjects off with a short descriptive link is rather standard as it avoids too long articles, loss of focus and clutter. See for example the article on redshift. Harald88 08:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• In response to harald88 above, although "Jimbo determined this policy, and it's non-negotiable. Even 100% consensus of Wikipedia editors is not allowed to change it.", in practice that's not the case. The policy on Undue weight has been changed from what Jimbo described.
• The policy current says "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints, in proportion to the prominence of each". What Jimbo actually described, is here.
• Not only is consensus determining that Undue weight differs from what Jimbo write, "the consensus" won't even discuss it. --Iantresman 01:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

It is the principle that is not negotiable, not the particular implementation of it. —Centrx→talk • 01:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I did not know that; in fact if the editors had kept to Jimbo's instructions, a lot of dicussion and contention would have been avoided! I propose to correct the article accordingly. Harald88 06:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Not a chance. No one will even discuss it. --Iantresman 11:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Not true Iantresman. Recently when clear problems were brought up in a reasonable way and reasonable proposals were brought forth to fix the undue weight section, it quickly gained consensus and was fixed promptly. The problem is it is rarely the case that correct problems are brought up in a productive manner. - Taxman ^Talk 21:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it has been fixed. Bensaccount 22:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

We seem to agree that it can be improved further (see the question about undue weight immediately hereafter!). The least contention would be raised, IMHO, if we simply add a reference to Jimbo's comment. We could also add (while scrapping some superfluous existing text) a short citation, for example:

"Jimbo put it like this: if a view is held only by a few people without any traditional training or credentials, and if that view is dismissed by virtually all mainstream scientists, then we can say that ; [...] Usually, mainstream and minority views are treated in the main article, with the mainstream view typically getting a bit more ink, but the minority view presented in such a fashion that both sides could agree to it. Singular views can be moved to a separate page and identified (disclaimed) as such, or in some cases omitted altogether."

Alternatively, we may consider to cite that in the NPOV tutorial. Harald88 21:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Non-negotiable also has the meaning that it can't waived on individual article based on the consensus of the people who edit that article. —Centrx→talk • 17:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

question about undue weight

I have been told (and people have implied) that undue weight somehow can be attributed to articles specifically devoted to a minority subject. I find this odd as it specifically adds in the following sentence, directly contradicting such thinking:

• "None of this is to say that tiny-minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can give them on pages specifically devoted to them."

Either if i'm wrong or if i'm right, I think this needs further clarification - since people seem not to be "getting it". Any comments? Fresheneesz 18:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

In an article about a minority view lets say in Mathematics, you can expand as much as you want about that minority view. But you will not give it too much coverage on the main article about Mathematics. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Undue weight, NPOV and categorization of people

Some editors are of the understanding that one or two citations from a reputable source are enough basis to categorize a person. An example:

• Adding Ayn Rand to Category:Cult leaders on the basis there are three books/articles that describe her and Objectivism as a cult

My understanding is that WP:NPOV forces us to describe all POVs, without asserting them, and to not to assert minority viewpoints as if they were majority viewpoints. Labeling a person as a "cult leader" by adding this person to Category:Cult leaders, is in my view a violation of WP:NPOV. As category inclusions do not have the possibility of presenting competing views as per policy, the only way to maintain neutrality in controversial topics, is to include a person in such category only where there is an undisputed and wide consensus by experts in the subject (as in for example Jim Jones). Otherwise, this will result in ridiculous situations such as editors adding people to controversial categories, just to push a critic's POV when that critic's POV will never be allowed in the article in such an unchallenged fashion as in a category. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with this. Use of categories to "label" people should be subjected to much stronger scrutiny than it currently is. Their true effect is to lessen understanding of the topic, not enhance it. Especially the more subjective categories, which often have widely varying individual entries based on how vigilant editors are at any particular article. I agree that there should be wide consensus by experts. For instance, I have seen at least one attempt to add George W. Bush to Category:War criminals. Are there people who believe he is one? Probably. Is this a consensus of experts on war crime? Probably not. Was there any supporting evidence provided? No.

What we really need is a way to note sourcing on such categorizations, such as putting a link or footnote superscripted next to the category link itself. Otherwise subjective categories will continue to be based on edit warring and POV cliquing rather than actual encyclopedic quality. Kasreyn 20:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Jossi - entries should not go into a Black/White category without some sort of general agreement, otherwise it seems to enshrine a (potentially) minority view and violate due weight. On the other hand, should "positive" labels require general consensus for exclusion? Gimmetrow 15:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I would propose to add some wording to the policy to safeguard the use of Categories, from De facto character assassination. Something along the lines of requiring wide consensus of experts for those lists that can be abused by POV pushers. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

This topic has been discussed in much more depth and much less one-sidedness on the Objectivism (Ayn Rand) and Ayn Rand. What keeps coming up is that inclusion in a category does not entail asserting a fact. Rather, categories are intended to allow better navigation by grouping articles with a commonality. We can't put someone in a category arbitrarily, but if we required a majority view, then many useful categories -- including cult leaders -- would be almost entirely empty. On the other hand, a minority view shows that a significant number of people feel that the category applies, and this works well. Al 21:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no commonality between Ayn Rand and the other articles presently in Category:Cult leaders. —Centrx→talk • 22:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

That turns out not to be the case. The commonality is that they've all been verifiably accused of being cult leaders by a notable minority. Al 22:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I actually think that you have made my point for me Kasreyn, probably without even trying. You used the example of category: War Criminals and mentioned attempts to add George W. Bush to that Category. Regardless of what any of us may or may not believe about GWB, he doesn't fit the category of War Criminal NOT because we are lacking a wide consensus of experts, but because he doesn't fit the requirement for the category: namely he has never been convicted of war crimes. Similarly Michael Jackson has never been Convicted of Child Molestation and is thus not included on our list: Category: Child Molesters. Cults and Cult leaders are a far stickier matter however. Being a cult leader, or being in a cult is not a crime for which one may be charged and convicted. There was NO clear consensus among experts and the media that Jim Jones was a cult leader until AFTER the Kool-aid incident. Of course there were SEVERAL well sourced, verifiable claims to that effect from creditable individuals; they were a very vocal minority, but a minority none the less. Using Jossi's proposed standards we would have 3 or 4 people on the whole list, including Jim Jones & Charles Manson. The disclaimer on the category clearly lists that the category consists of people who have been, or are alleged to be cult leaders. Even some of the most well known cults of our day have large numbers of supporters, does this mean they will be excluded? By definition, As AI mentioned above, Lists are NOT definitive statements of Truth, and also by definition everyone on the list, including Jim Jones HAS to be an "Alleged" cult leader. I would encourage all of you to take a look at the discussion that was linked to by Alienus. Our concern is that excluding someone from a list that is, by definition, composed solely of alleged Cult Leaders, on the basis that there is not a consensus of an Overwhelming majority is lending undue weight to the supporters of the accused. Our motivation is not, as Jossi has implied here, character assassination.--Courtland Nerval 21:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

A person can still commit war crimes or molest children without having been legally convicted of it. A thief is still a thief regardless of whether he is caught, and many sources that fit Wikipedia:Reliable sources can label a person as such, yet he may not be convicted in a court of law. —Centrx→talk • 22:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

ah but the requirements that have been EXPLICITLY put on THOSE lists do infact require them to have been convicted. WHy does that matter? because on THOSE LISTS we stated clearly what our criteria for inclusion were. ANd on the List of Cult leaders we disclaimed heavily. These have the same effect: they help to balance out to a NPOV. Again, lists are not claims of fact or truth but navigational tools.--Courtland Nerval 23:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no such a List of cult leaders. There is no Cult leader article. We are talking about a Category. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

If you read Wikipedia:Categorization_of_people#Inappropriate categories, you will find that the disclaimer is placed in categories where persons are there inappropriately, and should be removed. It signifies a problem to be corrected. Also, the disclaimer is not found on the individual articles. Placing an article in a category alongside totally unrelated articles does not help navigation. If a reader is looking for articles that are unequivocally and by all accounts exact instantiations of the meaning of "cult leader" or some other category name, finding tangentially related, tentative articles is not helpful. —Centrx→talk • 23:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The difficulty with "disclaimers" is that in practice a lot of readers miss them or get hung up on negative connotations. How the encyclopedia is actually used should have some influence on how it is constructed. Even with a disclaimer, it would seem to me that a category with significant negative connotations should have proportionally strong criteria for inclusion. Gimmetrow 01:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV is non-negotiable. By adding a person to a category on the basis of a minority POV is a violation of policy. This idea that having one or two reliable sources is enough basis to include a person in a category about which there is considerable dispute and that carry extremely negative connotations, is in my opinion, a not-so-clever subterfuge to bypass WP:NPOV and encourage POV pushing. Let the dispute be described in the article, and the conficting viewpoints presented in the article. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. The fact is that WP:NPOV demands that we not censor significant minority views. For every cult leader (alleged or otherwise) there will always be followers who defend them. Let these people defend all they like, but let's also keep them far away from the categorization process, as their bias violates WP:NPOV. It is not a personal attack to point out that much of the opposition to this category has come from those who owe allegience to alleged cult leaders. Al 00:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

We are not censoring anything. The place to describe conficting viewpoints, is an article. Not a category in wich there is no possibility of presenting conficting views, as you are de facto asserting a minority POV as if it was the only one. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

As per your off-topic comment above, I would kindly request that you present your arguments without making characterizations of your fellow editors, or what you consider are their motivations. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Removing Ayn Rand from the list of cult leaders despite the presence of books and article by notable people is nothing short of censorship. Al 00:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Censorship? What censorship? See Ayn_Rand#Cult_accusations, and Objectivist_movement#Cult_accusations. That POV is fully described in these articles. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

As I've pointed out repeatedly, lists are for navigation. Removing Rand from the list prevents people from finding the article in the first place when they're looking for exactly this sort of thing. Al 00:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

(BTW, we are not talking about lists, but about categories). ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

What you are saying is that "I believe XYZ is a cult leader, and there are some books that describe XYZ as a cult leader, so I will place put XYZ in Category:Cult leaders, so when people come to WP to find out about cult leaders, they can find XYZ in the list". Is that a correct interpretation of your understanding? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

My belief has no bearing on this. What matters is that there are a number of books and articles demonstrating a clear minority view that Rand was a cult leader. This is sufficient basis for inclusion in the category, so as to allow researchers to find her when looking at others who have been called cult leaders. Al 02:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Your answers to my question above, has the potential to clarify this issue once and for all. Pity that you have chosen to ignore it. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I answered your question just fine, but not in terms of the words you wanted to to use. Al 04:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV that states "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties"'. Could you tell us how your statement is compatible with that basic tenet, when in a Category you are presenting a minority POV in a very visible and obvious manner, as if it was the only or the prevalent POV? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a bad idea to try to take rules out of context, and this is a fine example of why.

The text you quote is about statements of fact, requiring us to properly attribute views. A category tag isn't a statement of fact, though. What exactly it means depends on the explanation on that category page, but the fundamental purpose is to group articles that are related in some way. Another difference is that specific attribution to support inclusion is to be found in the respective articles, not in some central location (as it would be with a typical list). So, for example, someone reading Jim Jones might be curious about others who have been considered cult leaders, so they click on the category, see Ayn Rand and, upon arrival, find a neat section explaining the cult accusations. Al 04:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Think of the reader. She comes to a page about person XYZ and sees at the bottom of the article "Categories: Cult leader". Then she clicks on that link and sees a list of people about which there is wide consensus about being "cult leaders", such as Jim Jones alongside a list of people that have been characterized as such by a small group of people, a minority view. What you are telling this unsuspecting reader is that all these people are cult leaders.. A clear example of a fallacy of Guilt by association and a clear example of asserting the viewpoint of a minority as a fact. That, is the key point here which I argue it to be in contradiction with NPOV. Please address this concern. And also address the concern expressed before as this being an inviting open door for POV pushing by critics. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

That's not a realistic use case. If they start with Ayn Rand, any question about cult status will be answered in detail already. Al 05:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

This is not a discussion about Ayn Rand. You can discuss the specifics of that person at Talk:Ayn Rand]. The discussion here is the use/abuse of categories to bypass the non-negotiable policy of NPOV, by asserting a viewpoint about which there is no consensus with the intention of assasinating the character of persons by the use of the fallacy of guilt by association. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

You are once again mistaken. This discussion is about the repeated removal of persons from the Cult leaders category in a POV attempt at whitewashing. And, as we both know, that's not limited to Rand, nor is she your primary interest in this matter. Al 22:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Precedents

See for example, Category:Dictators, deleted first on September 2004, re-created again and deleted again on May 30, 2005, recreated again and deleted on May 2006. Reason for deletion: "Violates POV by endorsing a subjective view, which could never have unbiased criteria as to what a dictator is." At the same time, we have List of dictators, which has very specific criteria/treshold for inclusion needed to maintain NPOV, resulting in a very useful and encyclopedic list.

We need some wording added to NPOV to clarify to contributors, the proper use of categories and lists as it pertains to NPOV. Any proposals on how to address this in policy? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Precedents (2)

• Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial#Categorisation (suggested for comparison by Francis Schonken 16:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC))

FAQ answers moved to /FAQ page

I've taken a big gulp, and moved the entire FAQ answers (unchanged) to a separate page Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ, summarising the questions and linking to it in the main policy.

This is because, when you stand back and look at it, these are really essays and "chat", rather than policy. And no other policy page has nearly 18kbytes of FAQ's as part of the main body of the policy itself.

Part of why WP:NPOV is so long is it's trying to be chat and justification, and all I can think of is that's how it grew up, historically. But it's not really Wikipedia policy style in 2006. A crucial policy like this should be a summary that clearly sets out what is and isn't okay, how certain things are handled - in other words, policy. Explanation is part of that, but not 18k of FAQ's as an essay section at the end. Thats just not sensible.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing this. I think it works better. I will add a more prominent link to the FAQ. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I also think it's a good move, but we probably should put the policy tag on the FAQ page also, as I know a number of pieces of that material is cited as policy, and has had the detailed discussion to justify identifing it as that. Otherwise, great work in dividing it. JesseW, the juggling janitor 05:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Quick followup reorganization. No textual change to any section, just grouping the policy into major and minor sections by topic area.

I've simply reorganized the remaining sections to give the policy a more useful structure. Hopefully people are okay with a more structured NPOV policy layout.

The NPOV policy contains four main kinds of information:

1. Explanation of NPOV
2. Examples of how to write neutrally (characterize both sides, maintain fair tone, let facts speak for themselves, etc)
3. Appropriate handling of common NPOV situations (POV forks, undue weight, etc)
4. Discussion (history, examples, etc)

So I've simply reorganized the policy into main sections, because it's likely to be helpful to see a structure of such information in a major policy, rather than just a random order of information.

Two of the "examples" ("letting facts speak for themselves" and "attributing and substantiating biased statements") were actual explanations to the reader how to be neutral, not just "examples of it in the past". Hence moved to middle section.

No textual changes were made to any section, the wording has been left 100% unchanged, although some cleanup of the individual sections (separate "policy" and "discussion" from "chat") would probably be no bad thing in future if anyone feels its a good idea.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Although the "Discussion" section title is not inappropriate for the content now gathered under that title, I'd avoid to use "Discussion" as a section title on the policy page, while confusing: the "Discussion of the WP:NPOV page" would normally refer to this talk page (and or its archives), and now, somewhat confusingly, it could also refer to a section on the policy page itself. I think I'm going to change the section title to "Rationale, history and example" or something in that vein for the time being. --Francis Schonken 11:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

That'd make sense. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The section in the main article now only lists the objections without explaining why they are wrong. This is a serious one-sided gap, and can be confusing. —Centrx→talk • 17:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Policies aren't essay or debating articles really -- especially not when the essays are discussion-chats 18 KB long. Thats not sensible. A list of questions with a bolded header saying "answers and discussions in /FAQ"... I don't think anyone's going to miss the point. Those who understand NPOV will understand it, those who don't will see where to go for more information on whatever their pet concern is. What's for sure is that 18 KB of chat just doesn't belong in the main policy. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely no regard for WP:NPOV on Islam-related articles

Articles such as Criticism of Islam, Dhimmi CAIR have been flooded with POV-driven polemics. Dhimmi is a prime example. Almost all of the content of the article is founded in sources such as Bat Ye'or (if you don't know about her, see the talk page on Dhimmi. Articles on Islam or on topics related to Islam are flooded with anti-Muslim polemics and crititisms. If NPOV is non-negotiable, there must be actions that can be taken in this regard. Relying on the good faith of the partisan editors there isn't working. Any suggestions? His Excellency... 15:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that page has already been through mediation. Would a request for comment be the next step? Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Defining majority/minority

Current under undue weight: "Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all (by example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority)."

Suggest: "Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as majority views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. By "majority" or "minority" we do not mean we take a poll of everyone in the world. Rather, a majority point of view is a majority of what reliable sources have to say on a given matter. The article on Earth, for example, only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory not simply because very few people believe in it but because virtually no reliable source will support the idea."

I think this is a "no duh" comment for most editors but I'm currently getting badgered by the fellow who was yapping about pseudoscience near the top of this talk a month ago. Rather then repeatedly explaining it in talk posts I think it good to make it explicit on the page. Anyone support this or am I missing the line where it's already state? Marskell 15:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

"Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties" partly addresses this. But the reference to reliable sources will make it all the clearer. Marskell 16:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, of course I would have to agree, since you told me you based it on this. :-) Jayjg ^(talk) 02:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I support Marskell's proposal. Kasreyn 10:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

My counter proposal (addition highlighted), to keep it simple and to the point:

• Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties as reported by reliable sources ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Simpler, but I still think we should explicitly define majority/minority and state clearly that we are not speaking about "the public at large." In fact, I think we should actually do it earlier by ditching (or unpacking) "popular" at the beginning in favour of a "majority of reliable sources". Marskell 14:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

We could just merge the second and third sentence: "Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as majority views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. By "majority" view we mean a majority of what reliable sources have to say on a given matter. The article on Earth, for example, only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory not simply because very few people believe in it but because virtually no reliable source will support the idea." Slightly more to the point--is that OK with you Jossi? Marskell 17:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Any other comment before inserting this? Marskell 12:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I disagree with the wording because I think 'majority of populace' is much more the case than 'majority of reliable sources' when speaking about neutral point of view. NPOV is intended specifically to prevent the expression of viewpoints (or mis-weighting of viewpoints) contrary to the opinions of some sizable fraction of the public. Not some sizable fraction of 'news organizations' or other 'reliable sources'. There aren't alot of "reliable sources" which state the stoning story about Jesus and Mary Magdalene ('let he who is without sin cast the first stone') as fact, since it is a matter of religious belief, and quite a few which challenge that it was made up centuries later, but obviously any statement that 'the majority view (as stated in reliable sources) is that this did not happen', would not be anything remotely like neutral point of view. Reliable sources only cover things which can be verifiably proven... that's why they are 'reliable'. People's beliefs are something else altogether and it is those which our NPOV policy is directed towards. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be in the business of saying 'these beliefs are right' unless they are universally, or near universally, held by people... because otherwise we are not being neutral towards the people who believe otherwise. --CBD 13:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

More people think that a supernatural deity created life than think it evolved by natural processes. Does that mean evolution should be considered the minority view for the origins of life then? Jefffire 14:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a false dichotomy. Evolution is not an origin of life theory. The theory of evolution makes no claims, as far as I am aware, about how the very first living organism on Earth came about, merely how we arose from that organism. Kasreyn 22:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Obviously I expressed that wrongly. What I intended to say is what would be considered the majority view for the formation of modern life based on CBD's reasoning. Jefffire 11:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

But CBD how could we ever presume to present the views of the "majority of populace" without reference to a "majority of reliable sources"? A religious story should be presented as just that--a religious story. If we ever move from describing it to "X number believe it true, Y untrue" we will need to source that statement, right? Marskell 14:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

That really is a problem, as in most cases we have no reliable source that polled the "general" opinion. Regretfully that's not only true for religious beliefs, it's rather similar (although less marked) with scientific beliefs. If a prestiguous journal states something, does that prove that a majority of scientists agrees? Certainly not.

Probably it's better to replace "minority views" with "little known views", and contrast it with "popular views". Harald88 15:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

But that last suggestion assumes minority views are also little known. Per the Flat Earth example this is not necessarily the case.

And just to take a step back, I'm not suggesting "Wikipedia defines what is right and true based on a majority of reliable sources" but rather "the majority opinion" that way. Given "interpret the three content policies together", how could we define "majority" any other way? Marskell 16:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

(repeated edit conflicts) Surely a single reliable source could provide information on percentages of belief. However, even in the many cases where there are no 'polls' on a particular topic it should usually be possible to estimate how widespread it is within large bounds. NPOV is meant to help us present facts in a way that will not be disputed... but obviously if an individual reader believes that they are Napoleon then they might object to the accuracy of a good deal of the Napolean article - we needn't include that viewpoint because it just isn't common enough and if we included every unusual opinion the articles would be thousands of pages long. To take the evolution example above... both evolution and creationism have millions of adherents and thus I'd say both should be presented fully even if polls show one to be believed by 65% and the other 35% (or whatever). Only significantly less common theories, when there is a clear and overwhelming 'majority' view in favor of something else, should be cut down to a brief mention or removed entirely. Perhaps the 'majority' / 'minority' framework should be replaced by 'popularity' in general. I envision something like a 'rule of thumb' along the lines; if dozens of people believe something don't include it, if thousands of people believe something include a brief mention, and if millions of people believe it give the viewpoint equal time. Under this framework it doesn't matter if one view is held by 100 million and the other by 1 million, they are obviously both extremely popular and neither should be presented as a 'minor' view to be cut down or excluded... on the grounds that telling a million people their beliefs are wrong or not notable does not seem particularly neutral. --CBD 17:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

When we start talking about estimates and rules of thumb CBD, we throw V and NOR overboard. Do you think we should allow editors to estimate without references (obvious violation of V) or to infer based on those that exist (subtle violation of NOR)? And you also seem to be putting words in the mouth of the suggested edit: of course we're not telling anyone they're beliefs are wrong!

Anyhow, part of the problem is that we use majority and minority on this page and not once stop to define them. Shifting towards "popularity" instead strikes me as wrong-headed: it's practically impossible to pin down popularity for "the public as such" and when we do we're almost always just talking about Americans, which is another problem altogether. And yes, per the Jimbo quote below, when "virtually all mainstream scientists" dismiss something that should properly be our "majority opinion" because a majority of our reliable sources are going to support it. Marskell 18:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales explains it well: "if a view is held only by a few people without any traditional training or credentials, and if that view is dismissed by virtually all mainstream scientists, then we can say that, too."[34]

He didn't say anthing about sticking to percentages. --Iantresman 17:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

All information in Wikipedia should be based on reliable sources, so surely there is no need to make a special emphasis in the section on Undue Weight. Perhaps someone can provide an example where the reliability of the source impacts on undue weight, rather than general inclusion? --Iantresman 17:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

How about this

Rather than treating "majority of the public at large" and "majority of experts" as exclusive domains we need to chose between, how about acknowledging them together:

"Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as majority views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. By "majority" view we mean a majority of what reliable sources have to say on a given matter, whether presenting popular opinion or the viewpoints of experts. The article on Earth, for example, only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory both because very few people believe in it and because virtually no reliable source will support the idea. Where popular and expert opinion is in opposition, as on certain science articles, viewpoints should be attributed accordingly."

I realize this a little longer but I think confronting the expert vs. popular fact is a good idea. Marskell 18:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The wording around the 'we mean a majority of what reliable sources have to say' part is a little clunky, but overall this seems better to me. My point above was just that even if there are no reliable sources stating that something is true or even that many people believe it to be true that shouldn't be taken as grounds to exclude or minimize the issue if we know it is a commonly held view... the intent of NPOV always comes back to people, not sources. The policy is meant to avoid edit conflicts and offense to readers by presenting things in a way that nearly all people would consider 'neutral'. That generally requires inclusion of any reasonably popular viewpoint. While this isn't always quantifiable / becomes subjective it also isn't too difficult to detect disagreement. If one editor is complaining about improper exclusion of the view that 'Atlantis is where the aliens performed the genetic engineering which made us into humans' then it can be argued that this is just a very minor view that has not gained wide enough adherence to be included in an encyclopedia yet. If a dozen are saying that the 'controlled demolition theory of the WTC collapse should be included' then it is common enough / going to generate enough controversy that it should be given a brief mention despite not being extensively covered in 'reliable sources' (indeed, it is actually a 'majority' view in some regions of the world). If several dozen editors are disagreeing on 'intelligent design' over a period of weeks then there is a need for full presentation of all views. --CBD 18:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Well now, there's a lot I'd like to respond to (particularly that know in italics--what do we know? :) but if this moves closer an acceptable edit I'll save the philosophy. I will only say this: that a dozen, two dozen, or a dozen dozen dozen people believe something should only be included if we can source it. Right? It's not the editor's call as to whether X number believe A, and in this regard I'll actually disagree with you on one thing: it always comes back to sources, not people.

Anyhow, that's sort of meta stuff. I was just thinking the above at least acknowledges a friction on this page (popular vs expert "majority") that needs acknowledging and I think the advice simple enough: "attribute accordingly". Marskell 23:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The content we include needs to be based on reliable sources. The decision on how notable it is, in my opinion, does not. Things mentioned on thousands of independant 'non peer reviewed' web sites are still notable and can represent views held by a large number of people - even if no 'reliable source' has said that it is so. Again, the intent of NPOV is to avoid causing conflict or annoyance in readers by stating things which are disputed by a large number of people... if a Google search shows thousands of unique web pages where an opinion is expressed then that is a widely held opinion even if no 'reliable source' has reported on it. --CBD 00:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

My concern is, I know of a fair number of articles where the precise problem is that few people are experts, but many people have opinions. In such circumstances, the known facts according to reputable sources need stating, and the public or non-expert views need acknowledging, but I'm wary of anything that would tend to equate those (on whatever side) who do in fact have some claim to knowledge, with "popular opinion". So this section seems wrong:

"By 'majority' view we mean a majority of what reliable sources have to say on a given matter, whether presenting popular opinion or the viewpoints of experts...Where popular and expert opinion is in opposition... viewpoints should be attributed accordingly."

The last part is vague enough to mean nothing (or anything) depending which viewpoint your latest POV warrior has, and the former part sounds like "treat them equally no matter where they come from". Here's my hand at a quick style of approach to this issue:

"In any subject, views can be notable or non-notable, and views can also be uninformed or have some claim to specialist knowledge or expertize. NPOV's guidelines for balance are broadly:

1. NPOV seeks to balance abnd represent contrasting views, all of which are treated with understanding and equal respect.
2. NPOV policy says we try representing views in a way that the shape of the debate itself is neutrally and fairly represented, with each side being given its "best shot". If the shape of the debate is itself disputed, then some discussion of the debate will be needed to place the different views in an agreed context, amicably compared.
3. In general, more notable views tend to overshadow views which have a low degree of uniqueness, importance or backing in the field. (Notable views are those which a person who is familiar with the field and does not "take sides", would be expected to be aware of, or which are influential or significant in some way).
4. In general, views by people with specialist knowledge represent the field, popular and less expert views represent popular (or non specialist) reactions to that field.

I think the biggest problem with NPOV in this area is its got two dimensions -- significance, and knowledge, its not just "more or less notable". That's partly why it's been hard to make a good wording work. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, for brevity's sake and combining a few things. "Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. By "majority" view we mean a majority of what reliable sources have to say on a given matter. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, always with reference to reliable sources. Public or non-expert views should be acknowledged and treated with respect though professional viewpoints are the foundation of encylcopedic presentation. The article on Earth, for example, only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory both because very few people believe in it and because virtually no reliable source will support the idea."

This probably isn't quite what CBD wants, but FT2 is right that we shouldn't "treat them equally no matter where they come from." Marskell 10:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I hope this is not a proposal to have Wikipedia reflect popular opinion. —Centrx→talk • 03:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

No, the intent was more or less the opposite but now it's all confused :(. Marskell 08:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

My concern is that you cannot rely on "in proportion to what experts say". 2 quick reasons -- experts and other specialists often differ vehemently to the point that balance itself becomes hotly disputed, and/or, a lesser view may none the less require more space to explain itself.

Quick example -- homeopathy, a stable article. Experts mostly all concur its a waste of space except perhaps some minor effect. Practitioners (specialists in it) say it has value and works. The public view is divided. And beyond all of these, the article has to explain what it is, which may take 5 times as much space as describing the disputes about its validity. That's your typical "Major/minor/POV" scenario.

What I'd say is what I said above. Our job is to represent the subject *and* the debate. But I'd add that even if disputed, an articles 1st priority is to describe the subject it is about, even if its disputed. (if it isnt worth describing it should be AFD'ed). AFTERWARDS then neutrally characterizing the debate about it, and about interpretation and validity, is a different issue. Same for any disputed sub-section - describe it, then characterize the debate.

Any use? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm actually a little confused. "In proportion to" is actually the text as it stands, so are you taking issue with what we have now? Experts disagree? Ok: says so, present the major camps, source it. The unwritten part of the policy will always be common sense.

The central concern above, meanwhile, was defining "majority view" because this policy page shouldn't rely on wording it does not define. What's been teased out of that is friction between lay and expert opinion and IMO a need to fairly explicitly state that we should edit with the latter as a foundation. That's all the last suggestion is attempting. Marskell 14:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Undue weight: NPOV says that...

Quote: NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints, in proportion to the prominence of each.

Since NPOV does not appear to say anything about proportionality, isn't it more accure to write the following:

While NPOV states that an article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints, Undue Weight states each view should be in proportion to the prominence of each.

--Iantresman 17:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Not sure thats whats undue weight should be routinely taken to mean -- see above. Is prominence always a good reflection of balance of space in a debate? Not from what I've seen. Its not about "space usage". Its about overall impression and balance, combined with explaining each side as it "needs explaining". However that may be. There may be less prominent views that need more space, for various reasons. Perhaps although less prominent they are more in line with whats known, perhaps they are instructive. A "space usage proportionate to importance" fails compared to a "space usage proportionate to fair need and balance"..... whatever that is. See above. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you're brought up another good point. Undue weight is NOT about providing viewpoints in proportion to one another. --Iantresman 15:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

????? Undue weight is a very clear statement: Don't give undue weight to minority viewpoints. I am missing somethimg here? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The stumbler here, in my experience, is in interpreting the words "in proportion to the prominence of each". It has in it the potential problem of sacrificing rationality in favor of polls and publicity, and potentially reducing NPOV to the "Google standard" of weighing the various POVs' allotment of space in a given topic... Kenosis 20:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Erk, now I'm going to sound like one of those NPOV hangers-on...but see above. We need to define "majority". It's not a popularity contest but rather what a majority of reliable sources say on a given matter. Marskell 22:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• No, it's not about giving undue weight to minority viewpoints, it's about not giving undue weight to ANY viewpoint. Consequently omitting a viewpoint completely may give undue weight to the remaining viewpoints.
• And "in proportion to the prominence of each" does not satisfiy "undue weight". It doesn't mean we count words, and not write a sentence if only "three word" is exactly proportionate. --Iantresman 22:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

(Do you have any food? I'm hungry after the soccer game).

We should omit extreme views. Indeed, we should have a group that hunts them down so that Wiki isn't (or doesn't continue to be) hijacked by cranks. One principle failing of Wiki is that it gives extreme views too much prominence (even Nature says so [35]). I have no problem giving extra weight to accepted theories by omitting fringe theories. We aren't in the business of OR. Get it published in an accepted journal and cited otherwise and then come back here.

In fact, per above, I think we need to make this point more clear. Marskell 22:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The existing RFC/dispute structure handles that, if it's properly used by editors. We exclude meatpuppetry -- editors obtaining people to push a given POV into an article. Are you sure we want to encourage creation of a group whose job is to "hunt down" extreme views? That sounds dangerously close to a precedent for inadvertantly bringing in "Wikipedia approved" views by the back door in a few years. Its a dangerous line to take. It's probably better overall, if we teach editors to write neutrally, and make the dispute and RFC systems more effective and faster at handling POV-pushing when it comes up. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I was being facetious about starting an actual group... Although, you know, Wikipedia:POV Inquisition could get a lot accomplished given the right power. Marskell 15:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

(1) The Nature articles criticised giving "undue prominence given to controversial scientific theories"[36] which is not the same as omitting them. (2) We should also be aware that Nature is probably arguing a scientific viewpoint; but Wikipedia takes a Neutral Point of View,[37], not a scientific point of view. --Iantresman 12:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Recently added section on "Balance"

I am not sure of the need for this new section "Balance". Do we really need it? I would argue that the description of NPOV is quite clear as is. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems that there is ongoing problems with the topic. It's been a thorn in the NPOV policy issue for a long time. Whiule we might not be able to say what is fair, we can at least set out briefly, some principles to go by. The discussion is vague and not terribly helpful since all it really says is "judge whats a major and minor view and don't give "undue weight"... leading to editorial disputes. A summary somewhere that says "this is what is aimed for and broad principles, even if its hard to say exactly" would help a lot. There isn't one at present. The existing section isn't that.

Hopefully we can do more than just argue the subject endlessly on the talk page and actually state some key principles of what balance means, why articles need it, what issues have to be considered to get it, and then discuss at length later on. If you read it, its short but pretty helpful. The current text is longer and more of a discussion. That's the aim. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

While I agree that this has been a thorny issue, what we ought to consider is why. I would like to hear you opinion on the matter. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Honestly... and considering it directly... It seems that the problem is a deep-rooted inherent conflict. An encyclopedia (or at least this encyclopedia) should be neutral. That means we should be able to neutrally agree things without taking sides. But the shape of balance within an article is inherently a judgement. Someone, somewhere (or several someones), must consider what the shape of debate is in the subject, and deem certain views majority, certain minority, judge which are more widely or less widely held, and many other issues. The examples we give are things like "flat earth" where its easy. Usually it isn't. There is a judgement -- but there's also a fear that if we acknowledge it as a "judgement" rather than some objective representing of things, we would open the door to every minority as validating "their view is no less important".

So theres this conflict between what's obviously true, and the fear of saying it. In the end, theres judgement and as neutral as we want to be I don't think you can get away from it. Even "represent all views fairly" doesn't solve the problem because we have to decide, as editors, what is "fair", to do which we have to decide what is more or less accepted or credible... and yet Wikipedia is founded on the premise that we don;'t have to judge, all we have to do is neutrally present views. As soon as you move away from representing all views, some editors somewhere have to judge between views. Its schizophrenic in a way, because we as a community would like not to admit it. Realistically we often find neutrality and balance anyway. But yet, we "know what we mean" and it works well even despite that.

So my suspicion is that we can't really remove the element of judgement. Rather than avoid the issue, and give wooly wording, instead let's set out the broad principles that should be used to judge, that briefly summarize the key issues we're hope to address when we discuss "balance" or "undue weight". Majority views are in general (but not always) respected or wider spread. Minority views are in general less influential or respected. We aim to represent the balance and shape of a field to give a reader a good overview. These are things we can probably all agree upon, even if individual cases are subject to editor judgement and dispute at times. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and pulled the section on Balance out until it gets more of a discussion back here.

Balance

A cornerstone of writing neutrally is editorial balance between different views and perspectives. Sometimes known as "undue weight" or "majority/minority views", this is covered in more depth below, along with discussion how it is applied, but it is worth being aware of the following broad principles:

• The aim of this policy is to ensure editors strike a good balance that covers and represents all significant individual views fairly (including points for and against) and balances the article overall, so that it forms a good introduction and overview to a subject, fairly representing the various shapes of debate in the field.
• In general, articles should be respectful of all views, since no side is taken. The end-user, not the editor, is the judge.
• Most topics have multiple points of view. Some of these will be more accepted or more disputed (right/wrong). Some will be accepted by one group and not by another (different perspectives). Some will be more significant overall, in the field or topic (importance to field). Occasionally general perception will be in serious error or specialists views will go against accepted wisdom (honest representation over P.R.).
• An article (whatever the disputes in the field) usually starts by describing the views in a way that puts them "best foot forward". This is sometimes called "writing for the enemy", which is an attitude that takes practice. (One reason is that even criticisms only makes sense when set against a fair presentation of proponents' beliefs and reasons)
• In principle, a view which would be considered significant or respected in a field, by some hypothetical "consensus", is one that should come across as significant or respected. Usually (but not always) this will result in such views ending up with more space, more focus, or primacy.
• Because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, there is a selection process. Views which fail to reach a certain level of value, significance, or broad respect in a field, even if possibly true, will usually be represented as minority views, sidelined, or even excluded. This is not a censorship policy. It has two purposes -- to ensure Wikipedia is not indiscriminate in its contents (lack of selectivity undermines its value as a source of knowledge), and to ensure the balance in the subject is not misrepresented by giving undue weight to a tiny-minority view.

-- Donald Albury^(Talk) 00:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment (continued):

The text (above) summarizes a few key things about balance and undue weight, which I think we can all pretty much agree. It summarizes six key features of the whole "majority/minority/notability/undue weight" debate:

• Overall aim (represent views and shape of debate fairly), and the purpose of this.
• Respect all views equally, letting user judge (and why).
• Multiple views often exist, accept it (and common reasons they come about).
• Each view described best foot forward /writing for enemy.
• Majority views (and how they can usually be reccognized) usually get primacy
• Minority views (and how they can be recognized) are often shortened, sidelined or omitted, and why this is done.

As such these six bullets form a short, concise, but valuable summary to editors of what NPOV requires when it comes to undue weight and balancing different views, even if the rest of the fine detail is still under discussion. They seem to be the six key points that are repeatedly agreed upon in Talk:NPOV. They are valuable because even if we can't all agree on the rest, editors who are guided by these six principles, will by and large not go too far wrong. So summarizing them like this in the policy is sensible. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, FT2, I don't follow. First you move out a large part of the content of the policy page to the /FAQ subpage. Good idea. The page had become too heavy over time. But then, I don't know why, you want to re-enter that same content, re-hashed. In that case I'd rather have the full content of the "objections and clarifications" section back. At least that's the way that content was shaped over time, with a lot of collaboration & consensus. If those "objections & clarifications" need shaping up, follow the normal processes please.

Sorry for being a bit negative. What I thought pretty much OK is the short sentence: "In general, articles should be respectful of all views, since no side is taken. The end-user, not the editor, is the judge." It's a rather good summary of what I tried to say above in the #Fairness and sympathy (2) section. As far as I'm concerned that sentence can go in the policy page without reserve. --Francis Schonken 07:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I also don't follow. Having attempted due diligence in gaining consensus for an edit above I find the unilateral insertion rather odd (though it's been reverted for the time being). The addition as I see it is rather repetitive with what we have but still doesn't answer what has been a concern:

What is a majority view?

"In principle, a view which would be considered significant or respected in a field, by some hypothetical "consensus", is one that should come across as significant or respected" is something of a tautology and will probably invite more belly-aching.

Either by "majority view" we mean expert opinion (with reference to reliable sources) or we don't. We should simply say so. I don't see a full section as needed. Marskell 07:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

That partly is why its been such a problematic issue. We know what we want to achieve by our wording on undue weight and majority/minority, but for whatever reason, editors have found it extremely hard to word well. The problem is that a "majority view" is not necessarily "expert" nor "popular" opinion. What we're trying to say is, in general more respected and more expert views should usually be treated one way (more inflence on article and more primacy), and in general less acknowledged or less influential views another way (often minimized, sidelined or ignored), and why we do this.

We all seem to agree about that , and that's the heart of it. We have serious problems when we try and define this as an "expert" or "majority" view, and that's where it falls down. Because subject by subject, we want the "infuential" and "shaping" views and to "balance" the subject. That might be different approaches in different articles. We can agree that in any article, a more influential and more significant view should have more influence on the article, and have more primacy. We can agree a less influential and less respected view may be sidelined, marginalized, or ignored. We can agree that this is because of WP:NOT and for balance. So why not simply say that and be done? That's what we can agree on even if article by article we have to hammer out what views are "more influential" or "less acknowledged". FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 08:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Do we all agree? CBD would like to move more toward popular and away from expert. Others would like more wiggle room to include minority views, pseudoscience etc. I just think we need a decision and I think the above addition makes it less decisive by "talking around" the issue. Of course, we can qualify it with "different approaches in different articles" but the sentence "by 'majority view' we mean expert opinion (with reference to reliable sources)" is decisive in a way policy should be. It also has the benefit of being (IMO) in accord with Jimbo's commentary. Perhaps we need an (evil!) poll. Marskell 09:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

For any criteria that's been named in discussion, there are articles for which that criteria would misrepresent the shape of the debate, or the shape of actual knowledge, or the shape of opinion. A majority view isn't important because it is a majority per se. It's important because of the assumption (usually accurate) that it represents an influential and respected viewpoint, and for that reason is notable. An expert opinion with regard to reliable sources isn't important just because the people are "experts". It's important because of the assumption (usually accurate) that it is therefore a respected view and influential in the field. A tiny minority view is less notable not because it is right or wrong per se or because it lacks reliable sources, but because its small support suggests (usually accurately) that is not as respected or influential in the field. All the criteria proposed seem to come down to that one view -- is it influential and respected in the field. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

"Influential and respected in the field" is just another way of saying "expert". Of course, you can have experts in the minority and we can include those where sourced. But in both cases majority/minority is defined in relation to experts. That's all I think we should add (though I think I'm whistling into the wind at this point). Of course, we can have caveats: for popular culture say (where the "majority" more naturally fits "popular majority") and for articles on religion or values (where the idea of both "expertise" and "popularity" are less applicable). Marskell 12:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

"Experts" and "influential/respected" are often not the same. One persons expert is another persons pseudoscientist or activist. We can look at someone and say objectively whether they are influential in a field by the impact of their life and work. "Expert" is more a judgement of their viewpoint. For example, I can deny someone is an expert in my religion, and yet concede that they seem to be influential in it. If the guideline is "expert" views get more primacy, then we will argue over who is to be considered a "legitimate expert" and whether they are or not. It is far more likely people on very different sides will be able to agree over whether someone is influential in a field, which can be shown pretty conclusively by citable evidence alone, rather than by editorial judgement. It has the value of words like "expert" without their disadvantages. I think it's possibly a better choice of wording. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, agree to disagree I suppose. If I'd suggest a difference at all it is that expert implies a kind of credentialled influence. "Smith is one of the most influtential ufologists of the last thirty years. So what if he's not an 'expert'?". Well, if his influence hasn't shown up in peer-reviewed work (ie., he is not an expert in the professional sense) he doesn't belong (except perhaps in an article about himself). See this for more ;). Marskell 15:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

That works for bodies where there is a clear consensus or basis for judging expertize. But NPOV has to operate in other articles where that's far from sure. There are subjects where those who are widely believed to be experts are in fact not, and subjects where academic credentials are no indication of influence in the field. Try taking "undue weight" to an area where such things are more grey and less defined, and it turns out that you can't say for sure which views are those of an "expert". But you can still easily say which views are "influential" in the field. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

In the grey areas the clarity of credentials becomes all the more important. Per above, I'd hate to find us including "influtential" pseudoscientists and I don't really share your faith that people will easily agree on who is and is not influential without reference to standard "expert" criteria (education, publications etc.). Marskell 16:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Human knowledge is a combination of expert views and popular views. Wikipedia already notes that the "neutral view" is preferable over the scientific view. Jimbo also notes that "if a view is held only by a few people without any traditional training or credentials, and if that view is dismissed by virtually all mainstream scientists, then we can say that, too."[38]. He doesn't say that we exclude such views. The only requirement a view is verifiability (of the view). --Iantresman 11:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not note that the neutral view is preferable over the scientific view. It notes that formally adopting an SPOV is unnecessary because an NPOV allows an SPOV to be adequately explained. As noted extensively at the top of this page, the science view (more accurately, scienctific methodology) largely coincides with our policies. Marskell 12:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Correct Wikipedia does not say that. But the outcome is the same. NPOV is preferred over the scientific point of view. --Iantresman 12:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Most of the time the two are one in the same. Jefffire 14:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. --Iantresman 16:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Human knowledge is a combination of all views (expert/popular is a false dichotomy), and it's the job of editors to be choosy (in other words, to edit both by inclusion and by exclusion). The "balance" section described above says two contradictory things: "In general, articles should be respectful of all views" and "views which fail to reach a certain level...will usually be represented as minority views, sidelined, or even excluded." When Ian quotes Jimbo Wales saying "if a view is held only by a few people...we can say that, too," and Ian reaches the conclusion "The only requirement a view is verifiability (of the view)," Ian seems to be pretending that Wales has said "should" instead of "can." Wales doesn't say we exclude or include. Whether a view is included or excluded is up to the editors based on the specific issue under debate, not on policy. This is because policy is contradictory, as it should be, and may be used to support inclusion or exclusion. Flying Jazz 19:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Indeed. But Jimbo applies the judgement call to views ".. held only by a few people without any traditional training or credentials", ie. extreme minority views. But editors are applying the same discretion to significant minority views. And consequently we have many scientific articles which are pretty much presented as "truth", with little dissenting criticism, let alone significant alternative views. --Iantresman 20:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

We're here to write good encyclopedia articles. That requires flexible application of policies on a case-by-case basis. What one person calls significant may be called extreme by another person. The presentation of a scientific article with little dissenting criticism is not an indication that the article is presented as "truth." In an ideal situation when a lot of good editors are present, a scientific article with little dissent will be an indication that the editors reached a consensus that the reader would be best served by an article presented this way because the alternatives have failed to reach a sufficient "level of value, significance, or broad respect in a field." In the worst situation when only a tiny number of not-so-good editors are present, then a scientific article with little dissent might just reflect the opinion of the person who makes the most edits or is most intimidating or has the most time on his hands to make reverts and engage in long talk page debates. That is why talk-page behavior should encourage community-building. Flying Jazz 03:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

NPOV and naming convention conflicts

Since WP:NC moved from being a guideline to a policy it can potentially come into conflict with WP:NPOV. If this subject is of interest to you please share your opinions at WP talk:NC#NPOV and naming convention conflicts --Philip Baird Shearer 11:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Beating a not quite dead horse

Which of the following is more in keeping with NPOV:

"We can write with the attitude that such-and-such is a good idea."

"We can write without asserting that an idea is good or bad."

The latter I find far more in keeping with the rest of the page. It strikes me as bizarre that we would allow a paragraph advocating a sympathetic point of view in the middle of our description of the neutral point of view. Marskell 08:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 10:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I also agree and would support this, however it appears from article page history that there may be some dissenting views. I would prefer this be fine tuned here rather than edit warred over there. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the issue here is what for lack of a better word I would call "situational sympathy." I do not know if anyone has written on this, but pretty much every academic - lecturer or writer - understands the idea: to present views not our own, even ones we are opposed to, sympathetically. We need to be clear about semantics here. "Sympathy" does not mean "agreement," it means that I understand what the other person (or source of a view) means or is trying to communicate and I understand why. This is very important for two reasons. first, as a habit it helps prevent our (e.g. a university lecturer, or the author of an encyclopedia article) bias from coming through. Second, the more sympathetically we can present a view, the more likely we are to present it accurately and in a form others can understand. It is good practice and does not in any way compromise neutral point of view. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Too often, editors' attempts to present a POV they disagree with are curt and mealy-mouthed, and it shines through that the position is not one they wish to dwell upon. Perhaps a sentence about "situational sympathy" would help to clarify? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I think the underlying issue here is simple: antipathy to a view can actually lead to a misunderstanding of the view. We all want to be able to assess views objectively and decide whether we agree with them or not based on reasonable criteria. But one cannot even do this if they do not understand the view. NPOV does not just mean presenting different views. it is no good to present a view if it is presented inaccurately. NPOV means providing views accurately. Sympathy - which means understanding, not agreement - is a way to present a view accurately and, well, neutrally. We can all agree that "understanding" and "agreement" mean different things. Isn't it clear in the policy that "sympathetically" means "with understanding" and not "with agreement?" Slrubenstein | Talk 15:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, there are two parts to the suggested edit:

• Replacing "good idea" with "asserting neither good nor bad"—I find this one inarguable in keeping the page consistent, but maybe that's just me.

• Replacing "sympathetically" with "sensitively." I understand your point Slr, but our readers are not academics. People are going to interpret that according to common usage (say points 1 and 2 here). This plus the fact that sympathy is used in a contrary sense at the top (neutrality...neither sympathetic nor in opposition to...) and I don't think it belongs in this section.

Per Slim, a sentence on "situational sympathy" could go in the "Writing for the enemy" FAQ and be linked to from this section. Marskell 15:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to know what others think, I have pretty much stated my position. I just want to register, Slim used the word "sympathy," not "empathy." Empathy means feeling what another person feels. Sympathy means understanding how another person feels. Empathy is irrelevant to our project, I believe sympathy however is very useful. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

A slip, sorry. "Sympathy means understanding how another person feels." It can also be deployed to indicate partisanship and agreement (what is a "sympathizer"?)--it is in this sense that I interpret don't be "sympathetic" near the top. Marskell 16:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think that 'sympathetic' will convey the wrong connotations to too many editors. The idea is important, however, and we need to work on the expression. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 18:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I chose "sensitively". We could actually use sympathetically and unpack it: "...let's present ideas sympathetically: not that we agree or disagree, but that we understand the position expressed and attempt to properly express it." Dunno. Something like that. I've obviously got a burr in my saddle, but "the attitude that such-and-such is a good idea" is not what we need. It's a perfect example of a line a troll/POV enthusiast can pick up and run with ("No, haven't you read NPOV? We're supposed to be sympathetic, not critical!") Marskell 21:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

"Sensitively" does the trick for me. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

What about moving from "good idea" to "neither good nor bad"? Does that work for you Jossi? Marskell 17:37, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Undue weight & No Original Research Link

In particular, to elaborate on the last comment above, if you are able to prove something that nobody currently believes, Wikipedia is not the place to premiere such a proof. Once a proof has been presented and discussed elsewhere, however, it may be referenced.

• I removed this last sentence from NPOV because it has ABSOLUTELY NOT RELEVANCE to Undue Weight.

• The argument that "there is no consensus" to remove it demonstrates the STUPIDY of the consensus. Surely we're not claiming that even though the sentence probably does not belong here, we can't remove it until everyone agrees it does not belong.

• The argument that it "breaks the link" between WP:NPOV and Verifiability and No original is GARBAGE. (1) The link between these policies is made in the second paragraph of NPOV. (2) Such a link does NOT BELONG in Undue weight. Any "fact" that fails the "No original Research" policy will NEVER be considered for Undue weight. --Iantresman 10:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

As WP is governed by consensus, you can't just ignore the principal when you don't like the results. You say the sentence probably does not belong here, but Francis Schonken obviously disagrees with you. You can be bold, but any change made to a policy or guideline without prior consensus is fair game for reversion. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 14:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Francis did not appear to disagree. He mentioned consensus and connection with other policies. But consensus by itself is no reason, and I actually agree with his link to other policies, pointing out that the connection is already made, and the placement of the sentence is incorrect. --Iantresman 14:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Having a go at "undue weight" again? Give it a rest. Oh, and BTW, no. FeloniousMonk 16:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

An explanation would be appreciated. "No" shows disagreement, but no reason why. How is this sentence related to Undue Weight? --Iantresman 17:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

It's so odd. I was just hunting for this line to quote to a bullshit artist on a talk page. Leave it in please. Marskell 17:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no problems with the sentence elsewhere. But it does not belong in undue weight. --Iantresman 17:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't, and still am not convinced by your arguments. Certainly not by arguments that contain upper case neologisms like "STUPIDY".

See above #Verifiability / Undue weight improvement for my arguments. For clarity I add: I think it a good idea that the "Undue weight" section points to the concepts of the WP:NOR and WP:V policies. Such link is on its place there: it clarifies which items "should not be represented at all" in Wikipedia, so it explains the last comment in the preceding paragraph on the WP:NPOV page. --Francis Schonken 18:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

And to state the obvious: premiering a proof unpublished elsewhere is probably the most obvious example of giving undue weight imaginable. Marskell 18:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. But premiering one's own material is rejected on grounds of (a) No original research, and (b) Verifiability. Surely it never gets to be considered for undue weight. Arguably, all other kinds of unsuitable material seeen at "What_Wikipedia_is_not" could then be listed on the same grounds. But they're excluding before such consideration. I think this causes confusion between wholly unsuitable material, and tiny minority views that are suitable but may not be included. --Iantresman 18:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

It is very common for people who have just managed to get their New Great Thing on the project to spam it everywhere. Just zis Guy you know? 21:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, and the policy on No Original Research explains why it is not suitable for Wikipedia, and the second paragraph of NPOV points people to No Original Research. Such unwanted text is not considered under Undue Weight, just as everything listed under "What Wikipedia is not" is not considered under Undue Weight.--Iantresman 08:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The line about No original research is out of place in Undue weight. Why not include a line about "No sock puppets", or "No vandalism" also? Bensaccount 00:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Steve Sailer Article Arbitration please

I have had to restore contributions I made three times now. The article is about Steve Sailer. PLease explain why and how I have violated the NPOV policy! --Zaphnathpaaneah 04:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I think this would be more properly dealt with on that article's talk page, or even the Request for Comment page, though that's generally for stuff a bit more serious than that. In response to your question though, are long quotations actually suitable as article sections? Wouldn't they be better placed on, say, Wikiquote, or in the reference section as is done in other locations in the article? And what does this have to do with POV in the first place? --tjstrf 05:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

NPOV undue weight question (Majority equals Scientific?)

Is the majority view, same as the view of the majority of scientific community? For example, in a survey by the NSF [39], 60 percent of surveyed Americans said they believe in extrasensory perception. The majority of the scientific community says that it doesn't work. So in this case what's the majority view? Just to make it abosulutely clear, can include majority(scientific) instead of majority in the NPOV section? Vorpal Blade^{snicker-snack} 15:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

When the topic is science, yes. FeloniousMonk 16:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

What about pseudoscience, like astrology? I find this tricky to understand. For example, some objections I've come across to the majority of the scientific community view point in such topics includes,

* Pseudoscience is offensive a POV label. So it should be removed as per WP:NPOV.

* You must cite a source before labelling as pseudoscience. (Although, it's so obvious in scientific circles that few scientific institutions bother to make such a statement)

* Most scientists don't know anything about how the pseudoscience works, so they are not experts to comment on that subject.

I think we should change the NPOV:undue weight policy to include the words "majority(scientific)" instead of "majority".Vorpal Blade^{snicker-snack} 16:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

To your first question: If the scientific community says a particular notion is pseudoscience, NPOV: Pseudoscience tells us "The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly." This would then mean that NPOV: Giving "equal validity" comes into play, which says "Please be clear on one thing: the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views. It does state that we must not take a stand on them as encyclopedia writers; but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such; from fairly explaining the strong arguments against the pseudoscientific theory..." If proponents of a particular notion viewed as pseudoscience by the scientific community claim it is valid science on par with accepted scientific theory (accepted by the scientific community), since the scientific community rejects this claim that means that the notion a the minority view in the field in which is stakes a claim, science. NPOV: Undue weight says "Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views..." Finally, NPOV: Making necessary assumptions on "What about the case where, in order to write any of a long series of articles on some general subject, we must make some controversial assumptions? That's the case, e.g., in writing about evolution. Surely we won't have to hash out the evolution-vs.-creationism debate on every such page?" tells us "No, surely not. There are virtually no topics that could proceed without making some assumptions that someone would find controversial. This is true not only in evolutionary biology, but also in philosophy, history, physics, etc."

Your claim that "pseudoscience is offensive a POV label, and should be removed" is missing the point. As long as it is verifiable and attributed per WP:V and WP:RS it is fair game for inclusion. That those to whom the label is applied find it offensive is also fair game for inclusion. FeloniousMonk 16:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not his claim, Felonious. It's a comment that's been thrown in his face. He's right. The policy does not adequately define the term "majority" at present and it needs to. Marskell 17:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

"Majority (scientific) is too narrow, however. I think the rule shoud be that in fields that have peer-reviewed journals, we should go with the majority of authors that publish in said peer-reviewed journals, but that still leaves a lots of subjects hanging. I don't know if we should try to be more specific than "majority". I don't think tacking an adjective on the word is really going to help us. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 17:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Marskell's point is the same point raised time and again by pseudoscience proponents here and at the relevant articles. Nevertheless, the policy very specifically spells out how to deal with NPOV and pseudoscience and has stood for a very long time as a key element of the policy, enjoying broad acceptance. Any redefinition of what constitutes the "majority" in pseudoscience articles runs the risk of weakening NPOV not strengthing it, and is exactly what we've seen in all of the proposals from that faction so far. FeloniousMonk 18:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

That's an ad hominem argument. It shouldn't matter whether "pseudoscience proponents" have made the same point as Marskell. The only question is whether Marskell's point makes sense.

Or did you mean that if Marskell's point was conceded, it would raise pseudoscience to the same status as science? --Wing Nut 14:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

When describing pseudoscientific subjects, isn't the issue whether the scientific view is indeed the majority view? I think it is likely that astrology is believed by more people that there are scientists. So to say that "the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view" is misleading. The task is to represent the majority view, irrespective of whether it is the scientific or non-scientific view. Certainly more astrology is published than there are "refutations" of astrology, and so-called "astrologers" (the experts?) out-number scientists (non-experts), significantly. --Iantresman 19:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I suppose that depends on whether you want to write an encyclopedia, or an expanded on-line version of Weekly World News or the National Enquirer. •Jim62sch• 21:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

May I say Felonious that you have an odd habit of assuming motives... I'm certainly not raising it as a pseudoscience proponent but because pseudoscience proponents are difficult to deal with. Now, if you're fond of circular logic, you'll find a way to push your pseudoscience POV regardless of what this page says. But the fact is we introduce "popular" and "majority scientific" on this page but never properly tackle the fact that the two are not synonymous. That's a perfectly fair criticism--perhaps one reason it keeps getting raised. Marskell 20:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, regardless of whether a pseudoscience proponent, Nobel prize winning scientist, or Communist, raises a point concerning policy, the point is still the same. --Iantresman 23:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The reasoning behind "The task is to represent the majority view, irrespective of whether it is the scientific or non-scientific view." is terribly flawed. Pseudosciences claim to be legitimate science, making the viewpoint of the scientific community the only relevant viewpoint. Afterall, the general public does not practice science, nor does it have a role in determining what is and isn't legitimate science.

Iantresman's explanation also directly contradicts this very policy, which states "The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly." FeloniousMonk 23:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

And WP's task is not deciding what's legitimate but reporting what is. So Iantresman is right: if the majority opinion is that the Earth is flat, and that could be supported by reliable sources, then WP should report it so. "The scientists' view of pseudoscience can be clearly, fully, and fairly explained to believers of pseudoscience," so there is no need to censor.

Moreover, scientists generally don't get involved in "pseudoscience," so it follows that they hold no authority over it. In that respect, the majority opinion is almost always coming from proponents of "pseudoscience."

Also, I don't believe that the Pseudoscience section of NPOV policy "has stood for a very long time as a key element of the policy, enjoying broad acceptance". It is true that it has been virtually unchanged since its inception, but it has also been under continuous attack from various sides (see e.g. the persistent attempt to remove the associated category). It's a badly written section, clearly violating WP:NPOV. Aquirata 00:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Er, so you agree with the first option in my comment below? We describe the misconception as the majority POV and leave it at that? Guettarda 00:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, first of all, why do you think it's a misconception? Because scientists tell you so? How many times have been scientists wrong? Even in their own fields? How far reaching is science? Can it embrace all human experience?

Secondly, no, we don't leave it at that. Describe both points of view with due weight, and let the intelligent readers decide for themselves. Aquirata 00:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Scientists have been wrong, very few times about stuff, mainly becuase of the way the scientific method works. The fact that you need experimental evidence for any hypothesis to validate gives you the accuracy about how science describes how the world works. Whenever science has been wrong, it's the scientific body which figures out and corrects the error. The ability of science to judge the validity of any topic, from a scientific viewpoint is not in question here. We should emphatically not represent both views with the same weight, as one view is much much more credible than the other. Presenting both views with the same weight would destroy the accuracy of this encylopedia, and mislead the layman reader.Vorpal Blade^{snicker-snack} 16:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

When you are talking about a scientific topic, the "majority opinion" refers to the majority of scientists. Scientists who work on or have a connection with a specific topic should will always be a tiny minority. In addition, incorrect or misleading information cannot be presented on equal footing with peer-reviewed science. Take photosynthesis, for example. The end product of photosynthesis is glucose, right? Almost everyone who knows what the end-product of photosynthesis is will tell you that. But, it's probably wrong. Free glucose isn't produced, starch is the end product. If most people have a misconception about a scientific topic do we, in the interest of NPOV follow the majority opinion and say that photosynthesis produces glucose, and then mention the "minority POV" that scientists who actually work on photosynthesis believe that starch is the end product (balanced so as to not give the tiny minority undue weight, of course)? Or do we allow scientists to speak for their science, at the danger of embracing so-called "SPOV" and call a misconception a misconception? Guettarda 00:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

By your reasoning then proponents of "pseudoscience" should be left to speak for their own field, which is the point I was making above. Aquirata 00:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

No. The question of "what is science" belongs in the hands of the people who study that (philosophers of science) and people who use it (scientists). One can't come along and say "I am doing science" if you aren't doing science. There is no need to "accept" the label of pseudoscience - you can stop claiming that what you're doing is science, or you could start doing science. Non-astrologers (to pick a group at random) don't have a right to say what astrology is or isn't. But astrologers can't claim that astrology is science if they don't follow the scientific method. At least the ID proponents are trying to re-define science to fit their usage. It doesn't make what they do science, but at least they acknowledge that there's a difference between the way that science is defined and they way they want to define it. If you call what you're doing scientific without adhering to the scientific method, it's fair to call what you are doing pseudoscience. No-one is forcing you to call what you do science if it isn't... Guettarda 03:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

You said: "allow scientists to speak for their science", but you don't want to allow others to speak for their discipline? This is a self-contradiction.

You seem to assume that the world can be divided between science and pseudoscience. There is much more to it than that. Something like astrology doesn't suddenly become "pseudoscience" just because the scientists cannot make sense of it. It is a currently being debated whether the scientific method is applicable to certain topics. There are some good references on the Astrology page if you are interested in pursuing this line of thought. The bottom line is that science has its own limitations and cannot claim absolute knowledge on everything. Therefore, classifying anything "pseudoscience" without studying the discipline in question is simply an attitude problem and has nothing to do with science or whether the topic is scientific. Aquirata 10:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

It may be currently debated whether the scientific method is applicable to certain topics or not, but as in most cases of pseudoscience, the majority of this argument takes place among the pseudoscience proponents. Yes, science has its own limitations and cannot claim absolute knowledge on everything, but, when there is concrete evidence conducted via experiments that certain topics, such as astrology, are most probably wrong according to the majority of the scientific community, we must present that as the majority view. Remember, it's the scientific community, not the proponents, which has the say on the validity of any subject, when looked from a scientific perspective. Vorpal Blade^{snicker-snack} 16:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• FeloniousMonk, I understand your point of view, and I think I agree with what policy is trying to say; but my point is that policy says it in a poor way, to the extent that it actually appears to claim that the majority view is implied to be the scientific view, which it is not always.
• I think it is quite likely there are more non-scientists believing in astrology than scientists. However, it is likely (obvious!) that a majority of scientists have investigated astrology scientifically that non-scientists.
• So although I have a scientific backfound myself, and don't "believe" in astrology, it still doesn't give scientists a right to claim a majority view... even though we "know" that we are right. --Iantresman 00:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are proposing. Are you proposing that we should describe Astrology as "science"? Kasreyn 01:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Um, what part of "The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories" is unclear? It's black letter policy, absolute and non-negotiable. Learn to love it. FeloniousMonk 05:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Using astrology as an example, you can state "Astrology is a system in which the positions of celestial bodies is interpreted as a signifying human personality and human affairs... ... ...Most scientists consider astrology as not a valid predictor of knowledge because the current position of stars is different from its perceived position from earth due to the speed of light (or something)." You can state what astrology is neutrally—and both the astrologist and the astronomer can agree—and then describe the problems with it in terms of who is making the objections and what the objections are, without saying "Astrology is a collection of pseudoscientific beliefs totally discredited by modern science." —Centrx→talk • 04:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

That's a bit of a straw man objection. It's irrelevant whether it's discredit or not. It's possible for the scientific method to lead to the wrong answer and pseudoscience to lead to the right answer. Pseudoscience is a descriptive term for somethings which seeks to pass itself off as science without adhering to the methodology of science. It has nothing to do with it being credit-worthy or discredited. It's like this guy "Buckingham" who was an American claiming to be a Brit. We can't say that "he claims he is a British lord, but the British government alleges that he is not". That would be nonsense. Saying that astrology shouldn't be called pseudoscience is like saying that guy shouldn't be called an imposter, because it might hurt his feelings. Guettarda 04:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

If the guy is only notable because he claims to be a British lord, then it would be reasonable to start the article "Buckingham is a man who claims to be a British lord, and has gone on all sorts of wild adventures about it, including this one where the British government arrested him at the airport because he was lying". If he is notable for something else, then the article would start off that way and put the rest in a section.

Astrology, however, is not fundamentally notable because of being a pseudoscience. If you look it up anywhere, it starts off "Astrology is a type of divination that involves the forecasting of Earthly...", or "Astrology is the art of judging of the reputed occult and non-physical influences of the stars and planets upon human affairs; star-divination, astromancy." Astrology is not by definition a pseudoscience; it existed and was the same thing as it is now hundreds—or thousands—of years before science could make any definitive statements about the stars. Based on what it is and what we know about science, it is, secondarily, a pseudoscience. ::For an analogy of the kind of definition, in something non-contentious, the first line in Fallout shelter used to say "A fallout shelter is a civil defense measure intended to reduce casualties". That is a description that could apply to just about any civil defense measure, and it does not describe what it is, it merely puts it into a large category, as "astrology is a pseudoscience" would put astrology in a category with ESP and the like. What it actually is, is "a shelter specially designed to protect its occupants from the radioactive debris". —Centrx→talk • 05:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

All of which is totally beside the point. The policy is very clear: represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view and to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly. . FeloniousMonk 05:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

My comments are all consistent with the policy. —Centrx→talk • 07:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• The majority view is NOT always the scientific view, which is not to say that we don't know what policy is trying to see. Since this could be corrected/clarified, there is no need to leave in an apparent inaccurate statement... it is unscientific.
• The statement concedes the "the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view", and should also concede "the majority (sometimes/often scientific) view" --Iantresman 08:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

So you say. That's nowhere in the policy: represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view . . . explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. FeloniousMonk 15:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

If you can get user Aquirata to understand that this is what our page actually states you'll have my eternal gratitude. Marskell 16:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

If Aquirata is ignoring the NPOV policy at an article please document it with diffs at his user conduct RFC: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Aquirata. If it amounts to an ongoing pattern of ignoring policy and disruption WP:DR provides for next steps to get him in line. If he's blatantly disruptive, notify an administrator or leave a note on my talk page and I will. FeloniousMonk 19:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

As I've said before, the majority view is what the majority of reliable sources say on a matter. We can't take a poll of every person on earth regarding their opinions on a topic, and the results wouldn't be meaningful even if we did. For example, even if the "majority" of people believe that the Great Wall of China is the only man-made object visible from the moon, we don't put into the article that the "majority view" is that it is visible from the moon; instead, we quote what experts have said on the subject - in this case, people who have actually been in space and looked for it. The opinions of experts really do matter, and it's those opinions we canvas when trying to decide on "majority" and "minority" opinions. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

In addition, if a reliable source describes the fact that the majority of people believe that the Great Wall of China is the only man-made object visible from the moon, we can include that as well. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, but the majority of reliable sources is not necessarily the scientific view, as infered by the statement above. For example, there must be more non-scientific books claiming that there Capricorns are great lovers, than there are scientific studies showing that they're not. --Iantresman 19:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

None of which has anything to do with how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories, which is the only relevent viewpoint as to whether they are presented here as pseudoscientific or not. FeloniousMonk 20:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course scientists receive and judge pseudoscientific ideas. It's just that it is not necessarily the majority point of view. --Iantresman 20:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

As to what constitutes pseudoscience it is. The policy is clear and unambiguous: "The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly." This discussion, like all the others on undue weight raised by pseudoscience advocates filling up the archives of the last 7 months (tripling the number of pages for the previous 3 years archived!), is fruitless. It is bedrock, black letter policy. It's time to move along and free up this page for other topics, again. FeloniousMonk 21:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I do agree that the policy is sound and clear. My only suggestion had been to include Jayjg's actual sentence "the majority view is what the majority of reliable sources say on a matter" in undue weight itself. Marskell 21:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

FeloniousMonk, did you really suggest that (a) anyone who questions Undue Weight is a "pseudoscience advocate"? (b) That policy is "clear and unambiguous" despite 7 months of queries from others --Iantresman 23:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

A quick scan of the archives and it is apparent to any objective observer that the same names are associated with the same issue over and over: Iantresman, Aquirata, -Lumière/Étincelle/Lumiere. These are pro-pseudoscience editors. The majority of the queries are by the same or other pro-pseudoscience editors. There's an obvious pattern, and this crowd has been asked time and again to stop whipping a dead horse and drop the issue by many editors here over the months, and it's time again to say it: Drop the issue, stop whipping this dead horse, move along and free up this page for other topics. FeloniousMonk 23:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Why do I get the impression that in the context of this argument, "psuedoscience" is being used as a codeword for Creationism? Keep those controversies to their own articles, please. --tjstrf 23:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

FeloniousMonk, is that your best argument, to call editors "pro-pseudoscientist", merely because they are trying to clarify areas of policy? Ironic than an editor claiming to uphold policy has to resort to ad hominems (that's a policy by the way), rather than responding in a civil manner (that's another [policy by the way) to editors who are treating you with the respect you would expect yourself. --Iantresman 23:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Can depend on context

Policy page says:

We sometimes give an alternative formulation of the non-bias policy: assert facts, including facts about opinions — but don't assert opinions themselves. There is a difference between facts and opinions. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute".

In the vast topic of the Theory of Evolution, there is a "serious dispute" (in America anyway) over the fossil record. About 45% of Americans are Creationists who believe all forms of life originated around 10,000 years age. This has got to be the biggest rejection of a scientific finding that I've ever seen. But the question is how to describe this dispute according to NPOV.

Among scientists, there is no dispute whatsoever. All biologists, geologists, physicists, etc. accept the premise of carbon dating, which legitimates the fossil record. In other words, fossils show the shape of dead animals and tell us when they died.

Among laymen, there is certainly a serious dispute. We should describe this dispute, and explain why so many laymen disagree with the scientific finding. Do they disagree with the science of this matter, or do they simply exalt religious dogma over science? And should we describe support of the fossil record POV as "scientific" and rejection as "pseudoscientific" or simply as "majority" vs. "minority" views (among laymen, that is)? --Wing Nut 14:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you take this to Creation-evolution controversy, where it has been discussed a thousand times in the past. To summarize here, though: Asserting facts about opinions and taking popular opinion into account makes sense when discussing opinions (as in our article on the Creation-evolution controversy, for instance). Discussing opinions, is, however, only a small portion of what an encyclopedia does; we also have to have accurate articles. This means that, per WP:V, we must always use the most reputable sources we can, and rely on expert opinions whenever they are available. Since Evolution is a scientific concept, the vast majority of the weight on its page must be given to experts on science; and all the relevent scientifically reputable sources, without exception, accept Evolution. Therefore our article on Evolution must reflect this. A paragraph near the end mentioning the social controversy it causes makes sense, of course, but going beyond that and giving unscientific sources any meaningful weight in an article on science would be inapproprate. --Aquillion 16:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Or take it to talk.origins TalkOrigins, either way, this isn't the place. FeloniousMonk 16:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Note that Wikipedia is for the entire world, so when determining the proportionality of viewpoints under Undue weight, one must do so within the context of the world population. Note that there's also a third possible reason for why laymen reject evolution: they have been propagandized and are unaware of evolution's overwhelming acceptance among scientists. Remember, here in America, the public is being told the lie that scientists - not laymen - are divided over evolution. It stands to reason that if these American laymen were aware that the overwhelming scientific majority supports evolution, they would do likewise. This does not require any assumption that these people are deliberately rejecting science or deliberately preferring dogma. Perhaps they prefer science, but have been lied to about what scientists support, and what science is. Kasreyn 23:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Media

Wingnut, it's not clear what the passage you restored is saying: "This can be particularly difficult when describing hot political controversies based on legal, economic, social or scientific public policy disputes. It's particularly hard when the mass media champion one POV while marginalizing or censoring opposing POV. Writers who believe a "consensus" exists on a topic often have difficulty recognizing that their POV is merely a point of view." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like an editorializing comment that really is unnecessary or even silly in the policy page. All it says, when you get rid of the rhetoric, is two claims (1) that the more controversial a topic is, the more work one must do to treat it in an uncontroversial way (which I think goes without saying) and (2) that some people find it harder to comply with NPOV than others (which is true but unconstructive). We have a policy. Anyone who has been around long enough, especially those who have made many edits and who has some experience with controversial pages, understands the policy. We need to make sure that this page expresses the policy clearly, and in as straightforward a way as possibl. So: what is the lack of clarity this comment is supposed to clarify, or, how does it make things more straightforward? I cannot figure out the answer to either of these questions, which is why I see no point in keeping this passage in the policy. User:Slrubenstein

I meant what Slrubenstein said. I would rephrase it and put it back in the way he worded it, but I don't want to violate 3RR. --Wing Nut 18:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Slrubenstein said it's "an editorializing comment that really is unnecessary or even silly in the policy page." FeloniousMonk 18:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the point of it either, Wing Nut. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. This addition would turn policy into a tool for judging and excluding other editors ("well, you're biased and you don't even know it!") rather than determining what an NPOV article is, which is what this policy should be doing. Kasreyn 20:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the point of it either. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The part of what SLrubenstein said, which I think is pertinent, is:

• the more controversial a topic is, the more work one must do to treat it in an uncontroversial way

I don't think this goes without saying. Quite the contrary. On several topics (spread over countless articles), contributors are making far too little work to distance themselves from the controversy. Articles on these topics are heavily biased towards the contributors' point of view.

On one, looking over the archives of the talk pages, it was even given as an excuse that (in effect) might makes right: i.e., if a group having a supermajority declares that there is a "consensus" on the wording of a passage, no one else can change it without getting prior consent of that group. While this is not technically a violation of 3RR if the group enforces its preferred version with reverts, I feel it violates the spirit of wiki collaboration and is itself a form of "gaming the system". (Thanks to Felonious for giving me a linke to WP:POINT where I picked up that delightful phrase.) --Wing Nut 13:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

You might also like this quotation from official policy:

• Every revert (rather than change) of a biased edit is a NPOV defeat, no matter how outrageous the edit was. Consider figuring out why the other person felt the article was biased. Then, if possible, try to integrate their point, but in terms you consider neutral. (source: Wikipedia:Assume good faith)

I quit Wikipedia (for almost a month this time ;-) because FM chose not to assume good faith. He and his gang some others railroaded me (hint: don't let this happen to you!). --Uncle Ed 14:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

That is, of course, a crock of hamster spit, but if it makes you happy to believe in things that have no validation in reality, hey, party on dude. •Jim62sch• 15:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

More insight from Ed, whose userpage once proudly proclaimed "I try to remove "bias" from Wikipedia articles on controversies dear to me, but I recognize that what I call "bias" may merely be ideas I misunderstand. I may in some cases also fail to distinguish between personal belief and documented fact, whether through wishful thinking or sheer sloppiness. Feel free to set me straight at any time. When I feel I've absorbed the lesson, I'll add it to my Learning page." and "I am suspending my participation in Wikipedia indefinitely, due to a conflict of interest. I think I may be abusing the concept of NPOV to cloak my own desire to advocate the points of view I believe to be right." Apparently Ed's not only challenged by NPOV and facts but history as well. FeloniousMonk 16:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of confusion, I confess I am confused on several points here. Ed refers to FM's "gang" (I'm wondering, how does one join? Do they wear black leather jackets, or colors?) as causing him to leave, yet it is clear it was the most recent Rfc[40] which motivated him, which consisted of 15 editors supporting the view that Ed was violating WP:POINT, WP:CON, WP:3RR and no one supporting Ed's version of events; or perhaps it was that coming on the heels of losing sysop status as a result of his repeated habit of misusing any permissions given him[41] - could it be that Ed is referring to Arbcom as FM's "gang"? Here I thought Bishonen held Arbcom in the palm of her hand[42], and it turns out it was FeloniousMonk. I must pay more attention to Wikipolitics. All of which musing has not addressed the main part of my confusion, which is, What does any of Ed's ad hom's against FM and his "gang" have to do with the Neutral Point of View policy page at all? KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Must I remind you that project talk pages are not for this sort of comment? You might want to review Wikipedia:Avoid personal remarks?

I'd like to discuss NPOV, and how users determined to thwart it deter contributions from users trying to uphold it, okay? --Uncle Ed 17:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not a place for this sort of comment either. This is a case of reaping what you sow and not liking it one bit. FeloniousMonk 17:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Wingnut writes:

I don't think this goes without saying. Quite the contrary. On several topics (spread over countless articles), contributors are making far too little work to distance themselves from the controversy. Articles on these topics are heavily biased towards the contributors' point of view.

I disagree prfoundly with Wing nut, indeed, I find his comment a non sequitor. All Wingnut is saying is that there are editors who don´t comply with our NPOV policy. This is always going to happen, and simply does not mean that the policy is unclear. Changing the wording of the policy is not going to help. The reason we have this policy is precisely because people do and will continue to violate it. If no one violated it, then it would not be an issue and we wouldn´t need the policy at all. We need the policy because there will always be editors who try to push their own POV. No change to the content or phrasing of the policy will change that. The problem Wingnut raises is in NO way my pooint of view, despite Wingnuts claim that it is. The problem he raises is a problem that can only be solved through discussion on the talk pages and in extreme cases mediation, not rewriting the policy to turn it into bland and empty statements of the obvious. user:Slrubenstein

I think Slrubenstein's points go without saying. FeloniousMonk 18:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

NPOV paradox?

Hey - anyone seen any discussion of what I'm dubbing the "NPOV paradox" - that is, those who whine most about POV in articles are the very same who came to the article only with the intention of inserting their own POV into it? Graft 15:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. FeloniousMonk 15:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Inserting one's own point of view is prohibited by policy. Such a suggestion is garbage, and seems to be put forward, and supported, by those who do not wish Wikipedia to describe a wide range of points of view. --Iantresman 15:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

That, of course, would be your POV. •Jim62sch• 15:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention contradicted by those claiming having been "railroaded." FeloniousMonk 16:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I've seen innumerable comments (I won't join Graft in belittling it with the w____ word) about POV in articles from contributors who are trying to make those articles conform to their preferred point of view. A typical edit summary is, rv pov even though Wikipedia policy specifically "contemplates" (egad, what a word!) the inclusion of alternate pov. (Wait a minute and I'll quote ya. :-)

I hope nobody is trying to set up an ad hominem argument against me here.

• It is inappropriate to remove blocks of well-referenced information which is germane to the subject from articles on the grounds that the information advances a point of view. Wikipedia's NPOV policy contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view. [[43]]

Let's start cooperating on this NPOV thing. That is, those who genuinely support NPOV policy. Those who want to "POV push" for or against any particular viewpoint are disrupting the work of those who exalt NPOV. --Uncle Ed 17:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Almost everyone genuinely supports the policy. It's not that there are a few saintly people who understand and uphold neutrality against the forces of darkness. We all just disagree on what is neutral. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Re "I hope nobody is trying to set up an ad hominem argument against me here." Certainly not any more than your relentless ad homs regarding "FM and his Hole-in-the-wall gang. Oh, wait, that was Butch Cassidy's gang, wasn't it?

Re "well-referenced information"...note well-referenced, see WP:V and WP:RS. •Jim62sch• 17:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I hope nobody is trying to set up an ad hominem argument against me too! There's nothing here at WP:NPOV on which to collaborate with you Ed; there's only for you and others to follow it. FeloniousMonk 17:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Indefinite article

This may sound like a silly question, but I am serious. Is it "a NPOV article", or "an NPOV article"? On the one hand, "NPOV" begins with a consonant, but on the other, it begins with the sound "enn". What do people think? --David Mestel^(Talk) 19:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

"An" is always used before a vowel sound, not depending on it being a vowel letter. It is also often used in front of "h" whether or not there some pronunciations would have a vowel sound there. —Centrx→talk • 20:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, of course. Thankyou. I think that the reason some people say "an hotel" is from a time when it was common for people to drop their aitches. --David Mestel^(Talk) 06:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

It depends, do you think of the abbreviation as if it were pronounced (En-Pov, En-Pee-Oh-Vee) or do you read it as Neutral Point of View? Personally, I would refer to an article meeting NPOV criteria as an "NPOV'd article", or the policy itself as the NPOV policy. --tjstrf 07:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Question on "Wikipedia:Neutral point of view" --> "Undue weight"

in article "Wikipedia:Neutral point of view" --> "Undue weight" is written:

"Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all (by example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority). We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. This applies not only to article text, but to images, external links, categories, and all other material as well. Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements."

My Question : what do you mean by "popular views" and majority? for example if in one of the wikipedia languages, one view is the most popular and the other views are minority views, but in the whole world other views are majority, which view must be the most detailed one?

in other words, in one of the languages of wikipedia, the viewpoints(majority, minority) of people speaking that language must be presented, or the viewpoints of all the people of the world?