Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Archive 001

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Supporters of the NPOV policy include: Larry Sanger, Koyaanis Qatsi, sjc, tbc, AxelBoldt, JHK, -- April

Opponents include:

The Cunctator (see comments)

user:mirwin I agree substantially with The Cunctator. It also needs serious editing for concision and clarity, since it serves as our defacto introduction to objective writing for newcomers. It is currently too long to edit in Navigator 4.7, perhaps it could be broken up into sections as per the table of contents after the original formulation and the new executive summary.

It's worth adding that this is one of the rules that Jimmy Wales and many others on Wikipedia have said--contrary to what Cunctator and mirwin imply above--is non-negotiable, and really is a rule. So I'm not sure why there's a list of proponents and opponents here. --Larry Sanger

My take on Larry's question. There is a voting list because we have no formal way, justly derived from the community, to make and enforce decisions or policies . This list represents a current consensus of sorts. Some say (frequently and repeatedly) that Jimmy Wales is our God King (see meatball wiki for details) because he owns the bandwidth and servers. I will note that most people have contributed and "bought in" before they learn the Wikipedia community is dependent upon an owner's assets and goodwill. Since Jimmy is wise enough to use his raw power sparingly and with widespread backing there has been no call for constitutional conventation to define how our community will interact with the nonprofit now being formed to own, manage and control the servers. mirwin 01:03, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Are links to 'Verified Scientific Sources' a problem? This is relative to some work I'm doing with the Dyson_sphere article. In other non-wiki articles I see numbers bandied about with no verification. Would it be proper to refer to a Nasa site as the source for average earth orbit, or mean earth diameter? I suppose those are numbers everyone is just supposed to 'know', but as I do NOT know those numbers, I find it useful to refer to a source that isn't likely disputed. NASA, agree or disagree with their policies, should be a fairly reliable source that particular data.

I also recently added to an 'Immigration Week' post for January 1. I had zero idea what 'Immigration Week' is, but it turns out I could find a source that stated explicitly their origin from the 'Net. Without realising it might be a 'Neutral point of view' issue, I added the link as a reference.

If such links are inappropriate, I can understand the removal, or modification. I'm simply of the 'doubtful skeptic' crowd, and I'm anxious to see external verification references where possible and fitting. --Romaq

Romaq, check out the new NPOV draft article on meta.wikipedia.com. Sourcing things is always good, but there are issues with regards to having Wikipedia self-contained (ie, if the data is important, make a wikipedia article out of it, put the reference there, and reference the article), and disrupting the flow of the article. --Robert Merkel

First, let me give my belated congratulations to the authors of this page. I also want to withdraw a suggestion I made earlier: while I like "perspectivist point of view" better than 'neutral', I grant that use of the former term would probably hurt the project more than it would help. That said, I have questions about one part of the policy as it appears on this page. I would like to see an explanation of both the meaning of the policy against original research and the reasons for it. If I keep pestering mathematicians, some of them will attempt to correct some of what they call the false math on wikipedia. Do people want them to attribute every correction to a known mathematician? This doesn't fit wikipedia practice as I've observed it, and I think it would strongly discourage participation by mathematicians. On the other hand, if someone wants to correct or add a non-mathematical argument, I would want that person to at least say something like "One might think" first and also mention any rebuttals he or she knows. (Although I might have problems defining 'non-mathematical' precisely.) What exactly does Larry say about adding arguments? I recall a mention of "significant, published" arguments in the entry. How do I recognize a significant argument? For that matter, how do I recognize a published argument? Do webpages count? What if I contributed to the webpage? --Dan

Good questions, but better to discuss them on Meta-Wikipedia. --LMS

The stricture to avoid bias increases the effort of writing an article and therefore (presumably) results in less writing getting done. Filling an article with bias seems to have the opposite effect - it results in more writing getting done, because someone else is bound to jump to add a conflicting bias. Then someone else can come along and refactor all this into a more neutral article.

So to encourage the creation of more articles, perhaps the rule should be, be as biased as you like.

Tim Shell

A nice theory, but I am sure it would be a disaster in practice. There would be just too much bias for people to correct, and people wouldn't correct it in the long run, I think. I just think it's a lot more important that Wikipedia articles be unbiased. I can't stress how crucial I think this is. If you want me to explain why I think it's so crucial, I can do that in an essay--I don't think I've really explained it yet. (I've only explained why I think they should be unbiased, not why I think it's so goll-dang important that they should be.) --User:LMS

I agree with Larry. I think such a policy would turn Wikipedia into a big mess. -- Stephen Gilbert

Thirds. Remember, it is important to have people reading Wikipedia as well as writing to it, and I think that if a large amount of biased material built up it would not encourage people to change it so much as find someplace more tolerant of their viewpoints. --JG

I love the implicit meta-debate going on here, which is whether or not it's possible to avoid bias. That it isn't is the cornerstone of postmodern philosophy. LMS's position is based on the presumption that it's possible to be unbiased. However, I understand what he means. He's really talking about the avoidance of certain forms of bias. The "neutral point of view" is something of a better approach. That said, I too encourage "unbiased" articles. But one thing that does is encourage overuse of words like "usually" and "most", etc. etc. If entries have such vague qualifiers, then they should either be rewritten in a way to eliminate the ambiguity, or the ambiguity shouldn't have been added in the first place. Wiki, like other encyclopedias, does have an inherent bias: that of authoritativity. Which I think is good. People should be unable to argue with the content of entries, but because they're authoritative, not because they're wishy-washy.

That said, I largely agree with LMS, though I think biased material has a place in Wikipedia, sometimes under Wikipedia commentary. For an example of another approach, see the OS Advocacy page.

--User:The Cunctator

What I've observed in practice is that biased articles and comments get pounced upon very quickly. This rule was proposed after observing this. The fact of the matter is, the wikipedia process makes being highly biased unrewarding because a biased article is amended very quickly. As such, there is no need to have strictures against biased writings. Since there is little reward for biased writings, there is little need for discouraging that sort of behavior.

Perhaps people think that Wikipedia is collaborative in that one person will write one article, someone else will write another article, etc., until we have a big pile of content created by many different people. But the real essence of the wikipedia process is that articles themselves evolve under the loosely collaborative effort of numerous editors, unknown to one another and separated by an indefinite amount of time. Articles started today may one day be amended by editors yet unborn. The result of this process is that articles will gradually come to represent a consensus view, one that is mostly satisfactory to most people.

All this process needs is input. Bad input is not a significant cost because it is corrected very quickly. It may have value because it incites people to include other inputs. And this gets the process of evolution started.

Tim Shell

It's equivalent to pitching the legion's eagles into the opponent's camp. It gets people moving, but not because they are happy or like what is happening, and I wouldn't be surprised if most people find it gets old fast. Something to be used sparingly at best. Surely we have more respect for our authors than to try to get them to work in such a fashion. --JG

Tim, maybe the reason biased articles are pounced on so quickly is precisely that we have a firm rule against bias; if we were to remove the rule, maybe they wouldn't be pounced on so quickly. I don't know if this is true, but it sure seems plausible anyway. New people (and maybe the old ones) might begin to view biased claims made in a given article as the "right" of the person who added them, and be less likely to de-bias the claims (after all, if there's no community animus against bias then what justification is there to render the article unbiased?). --User:LMS

I think and hope that Larry's right. I hope that I will jump on an article that is biased, even if I happen to enjoy the bias. Why do I do that? In part because we have all loosely committed ourselves to an ideal. The commitment itslef, as expressed in the loose community mores, is important to me in my role as a contributor.

The expressed consensus rule also serves as a reference point in case someone comes along and gets mad about us editing out their bias. They may say "Hey, why can't I be biased? Why do you jerks keep editing my article to be unbiased?" Because we have an expressed commitment to a lack of bias, we have a reasonable answer: because that's the community consensus of what Wikipedia is about. --User:Jimbo Wales

24 - the idea that any author can avoid bias, or that any informal process of m:governance can reduce it to zero is absurd. Each group and study has its own standards for assessing a statement of fact, and of course if it is possible to identify why you believe something matters, you can use (3), or if you're aware of looking at something very differently, you can use (2), but any author will find sneaky ways to do (1) - like reverting everything that has a point of view at all. This rule is entirely wrongly stated. What matters is to notice a Governing Ontological distinction that guides your own cognition. That done, you can start to share it, and see how it differs from the views that drive the world...

Unless somebody can provide a good reason not to, I will move this article to the wikipedia namespace. --maveric149, Saturday, April 6, 2002

With Larry Sanger gone, much of the context of NPOV has been lost... obviously just saying "this is NPOV" or "this is not NPOV" does very little to tell you how to fix it, or how to balance sources, or deal with outright catfights. I think this is why meta is so full of articles about ethics... some of this material would be useful to those presently discussing the issue.

I'm not sure what meta does vs. what wikipedia does, but "meta" in my mind implies a guiding philosophy or "meta-physics" by which we determine how real we think things, e.g. physics, "actually are". It's stuff of current interest, as opposed to historical or "community" commentary which I think is best moved to wikipedia.

If someone wants to form a political party to take over the wiki, to me, that's meta, since they'll have a philosophy and they'll expound it as one. If a bunch of people just want to complain or point out each other's faults, that's not meta, and it should go in wikipedia.

So it all depends on how you see this article... and the commentary...

This really is more suited to be in wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view, because that is what it is. It really isn't appropriate to just dump this in the meta. I wish it was possible to make wikipedia talk archive:Neutral point of view. So I don't know what to do with it. --maveric149

First of all, I was reading this article, and when I saw the NPOV acronym I was completely lost, that is until I clicked over to this talk page. Now I realize that NPOV stands for Neutral Point of View, but it may be nice to provide that definition in the article itself. Also in the sentence:

"[...] we often use so-called scare quotes. In the Middle Ages, we "knew" that the Earth was flat."

I'm pretty sure that should be "square quotes" and not "scare quotes" unless I'm mistaken.

From http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=scare%20quotes, scare quote n. Either of a pair of quotation marks used to emphasize a word or phrase or to indicate its special status, especially to express doubt about its validity or to criticize its use.

BTW, how come this page is protected? Has there been any sort of vandalism here? A lot of the stuff is pretty outdated (ask Larry?) and I wouldn't mind fixing it, but I don't want to be an administrator... djk

The text 'In the Middle Ages, we "knew" that the Earth was flat' needs correction. Scholars in the "Middle Ages" (the concept of a Middle Ages is highly debatable as well) knew the earth was spherical. What Columbus tried to turn into a controversy was the size of the earth, not its shape. Columbus was wrong, and the scholars knew it. This myth of ignorance dates from the late 18th century. It is easily traced to fanciful biographer Washington Irving and Antoine-Jean Letronne of the Institut National. [Russell: Inventing the Flat Earth, Praeger 1991]

I don't have any problem with the NPOV doctrine. The objections tendered on this page seem either logically fallacious or pedantic to the point of impracticality. I want a useful encyclopaedia. strebe

There were several medieval "scholars" who believed in a flat earth (Lactantius, Diodorus of Tarsus, Cosmas Indicopleustes, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. John Chrysostom and many others), and the more wide-spread belief that people could not live on the opposite side of the Earth (antipodes) may also have frequently been connected to a belief in a flat Earth. Russell writes from a typical apologetic perspective, he is just as biased as those he criticizes, only from a different point of view. For a reasonable debate of Russell's book, see this page. --Eloquence 21:56 Feb 9, 2003 (UTC)

This would be an example of pedantism to the point of impracticality. There are people even today who believe in a flat earth, apparently. That doesn't make it a prevailing view. The very site Eloquence quotes admits that their original attacks on Russell were uncalled for and admits that the flat earth myth, if there was any such thing, largely predates the "Middle Ages". Yes, there were specific scholars who subscribed to a flat-earth theory, and yes the antipodes were a controversial topic, but none of that detracts from the fact that our modern belief in a flat-earth culture dates entirely from the late 18th century. I have history books on my bookshelf dating from the 1700s that discuss Columbus in detail. The flat-earth problem is nowhere to be seen, but the question of the earth's size certainly is. strebe

I'm going to exaggerate the point a bit, but the current way the NPOV is presented is misleading and dangerous. True neutrality is unachievable without omniscience, and that's unachievable. A neutral point of view is something that can be worked toward, but we are imperfect beings with imperfect knowledge and imperfect language. Only perfect beings can be truly neutral. --The Cunctator

The article seems pretty modest in its aims, if awfully long. Somewhere in the middle it makes exactly the point you just made. Ortolan88

One change I might suggest for this page is a re-ordering of the non-English languages listed. For instance, hardly anyone speaks Esperanto; that should be listed last. Hephaestos

Um, the Esperanto Wikipedia is our third most popular after English and (iirc) German. -Montréalais

Can we put a little usage note? Some people say "This article is very NPOV" or "stop being so NPOV" when they mean that it is not neutral. (This should be "POV" or something.) Montréalais

"NPOV" means "Neutral Point Of View." People figure this out eventually, but it would be good to add the note. --Larry Sanger

Quote from document: The neutral point of view attempts to present ideas and facts in such a fashion that both supporters and opponents can agree. Of course, 100% agreement is not possible; there are ideologues in the world who will not concede to any presentation other than a forceful statement of their own point of view. We can only seek a type of writing that is agreeable to essentially rational people who may differ on particular points.

I think this statement while practical is inaccurate. I believe that with enough effort and thought, anybody can be shown the truth of another valid opinion. The reason why anybody ever disagrees with somebody else is because there is something about the presentation that offends them, but doesn't bother the presenter to the same degree. If the presenter modified his presentation, then the other party will agree no matter what you want to communicate.

In other words, I don't believe that anybody is irrational. Irrationality is just a short hand way of saying that you cannot make the effort right now to understand the other person.

So I believe that 100% agreement is possible in every case, it just takes so much work that it cannot always be achieved immediately.

just a note that the essay on neutral point of view states that we should go ahead and edit it, but when i tried (to add a link to quotation marks where the text refers to "scare quotes") i was informed (off to the side) that it was a protected page. someone who can edit this page should remove the line that says we should feel free to edit it, or it should become unprotected. in either case, could someone make the scare-quote link. I'd never heard the term before but its a good one. also, does anyone know the name for the action people some-times do to create "sign-language scare-quotes" like Christ Farley: "in a van down by the river" style?
-Plasticlax

Edit bit removed (for now at least: this page needs help so the creation of a unprotected /Temp page to rework it may be in order). How exactly to you want this link to be displayed? --mav

Why does this page need to be protected? Protection should only be applied to prevent vandalism. Otherwise I see no reason why the wiki process shouldn't work here. --Eloquence

Agree. It appears this page was set a long time ago, and is now carved into stone :-)

I liked Mav comment about someone being given the keys of a castle, but unfortunately not being handled the rule-book, though the rule book already existed. The neutrality rule is presented as being one of the 3 or 4 rules to follow against winds and tides in all wikipedias. So, it has to be protected against all possible vandalism by sysops-knights.

It's just interesting it is implied here that sysops can not be responsible of vandalism.

Also, notice how much this very much general rule is one that can be only modified by english sysops though it is supposed to apply to all of us. Limits of what community is : It is not one huge castle, with several outbuildings, but a set of friendly castles. One has the key of his castle, but not of next door castle. Limits of trust, no ? :-) Thanks Brion for putting international links on protected pages for us.

Anybody to simplify and shorten that neutral point of view page ? Concision would make it easier...

Perhaps we would be better served by implementing something like MeatBall:FileReplacement instead of the sysop-only lockdown. --Brion 10:31 Jan 7, 2003 (UTC)

Hm. So in effect this automatically creates a type of temp page that can be edited for a time while leaving the active page alone and after a time-out the temp page replaces the active page? If that is the case then I like the idea. This should save giga-quads of hard-drive space since only one version is posted instead of fifty (like in an edit war). But who is credited for the edit after the time-out expires? --mav

Moving further discussion to m:Protected pages considered harmful... --Brion 22:44 Jan 7, 2003 (UTC)

I've unprotected this page. If it gets massively vandalised I'll protect it again. If it gets reworked into something concise yet beautiful I shall be happy. If nothing happens I shall shrug my shoulders and move on.

scare quotes

something like that...

Maybe is it time to add a little something about media sources alleged neutrality, and how non-english media sources and non-english pages referenced by google, but not understandable to english-speaking people, may be used for articles as source, or as back-up.

What's a fact?

I think the definition of fact is overly narrow -- something "which no one seriously disputes". Well, the Flat Earth Society disputes that the Earth is round, and they're very serious about it -- should the Earth page on Wikipedia contain a disclaimer "While most people think the Earth was approximately spherical, others propose that it is a flat disc with the North Pole in the center.", and sentences like "If the Earth is round, it is about 7900 miles in diameter."?

I randomly picked a quote from an article on theology: "Apophatic theology is a system of theology that attempts to gain and express knowledge of God by describing what God is not, rather than by describing what God is."

The sentence asserts God's existence -- is this an established fact, in the sense that no one (or even a sizable number of people) disputes it?

But does "fixing" such sentences by the current definition of NPOV make things better? Imagine we included the sentence "Vertebrates evolved from invertebrates, though it is also possible that God created all animals after their kind." in a biological article -- people would wonder whether they're using an encyclopedia or a bible.

So what should, in my eyes, applying NPOV mean here? I would propose that in discussing elements of a philosophical, theological or scientifical field, it should be considered NPOV to imply the basic tenets of the corresponding field, and that discussion of other viewpoints should be limited to the articles describing this field, or the tenet. In theology, it would be the existence of one or more deities, in physics it would be, for example, the validity of the laws of thermodynamics, and in biology it would e.g. be common descent, since in all these fields, no sizable number of experts disagrees with these conjectures.

E.g. the article on evolution theory should contain a "disclaimer" that common descent is disputed, and which alternatives are proposed. There should not be a disclaimer on every biology page for every sentence that implies common descent, though (and no matter what every American Tom, Dick and Harry thinks, the experts count).

Aragorn2 13:54, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)

'I randomly picked a quote from an article on theology: "Apophatic theology is a system of theology that attempts to gain and express knowledge of God by describing what God is not, rather than by describing what God is."

'The sentence asserts God's existence -- is this an established fact, in the sense that no one (or even a sizable number of people) disputes it?'

I am curious, what bit of that sentence asserted God's existence? If the sentence were, "God Exists," then I would agree; however, the sentence is of another sort entirely.

That sentence talks about a theology, and we must presuppose that those who adhere to this theology (theology being the study of God) must (by definition) agree with the statement, "God exists." Still, nothing about saying "Monkey theology describe the ape-like characteristics of God,” asserts that God must therefore exists (or that he is ape-like). Just because my sentence talks about a group of people who think God exists, it does not follow that I am asserting that God exists.

Let us reduce the sentence to symbols, “X is a Y that says Z.” Now, you argue that this sentence asserts Z. It does not. Rather, it asserts that X asserts Z. That is quite a difference.

On a different note, I am all for NPOV; I just call it "good writing". Of course, discretion is needed, and I fully agree with Aragorn2. I agree that when we have an article about the evolution of the dolphin, it would be awkward to try to highlight the controversy over evolution. I feel it is not the place to even mention the evolution controversy. Rather, a reader of an article on dolphin evolution must assume that the results of the article can only be true if evolution is true. When we talk about the theory itself, then NPOV would require a discussion or link to a discussion on the various pros and cons of the theory.

An in-depth look of Calvinistic predestination (a very specific teaching among a subset of Christianity) would likewise be a horrible place for a discussion of whether God exists. Such a discussion would be much more appropriate on a general worldviews page. The reader should be astute enough to realize that they will not agree with Calvinistic predestination if they cannot agree that: 1) God exists, 2) the Bible is his word, and 3) that God predestines people. Still, this is a far cry from a violation of NPOV.

I would argue, it is not the place for Wikipedia to baby-sit those who lack critical thinking skills and cannot realize that a given viewpoint has certain assumptions that they may not agree with personally. Articles should be written with equal balance to those who carry the same assumptions. The Calvinistic Predestination article should link to articles on Armenians views of salvation, but should give no time to atheists or other forms of theism. The dolphin evolution article should give equal time to any variations of the proposed evolutionary sequence, but give no time to creationists. There are better places for these other arguments.

OracleofTroy

I agree with you on all points, except I would say that my example sentence at least can reasonably be seen as asserting God's existence (maybe replace "God" with "unicorns" and "theology" with "unicornology" to see what I mean).

I found the sentence "By "fact," on the one hand, we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." problematic, because it can be used to justify "over-NPOV-ing" that we both disapprove of, but I overlooked the section "Making neccessary assumptions" (sorry!) which basically says just that: "Do not carry a controversy to all pages that relate to a controversial topic."

So the policy is probably ok the way it is.

Aragorn2 16:50, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Besides the sheer number of words used to say what is really a very simple policy, I have a strong objection to the logic/philosophy langague being used here. Specifically, discussion of p versus not-p and p-ists, etc. Unless you're trained in a subject that uses this type of language, it sounds jargonny and all-around dreadful. DanKeshet 07:59, Nov 10, 2003 (UTC)

Health Canada - More government-relatd info/Less attacks, ie. SARS problem SD6-Agent 07:21, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Could folks expert in NPOV comment on the following:

Hmm...doesnt NPOV mean that no one in wikipedia wants to attempt to give legitimacy to the term "homicide bombing" is not important...that NPOV means that the opinions and desires of the people writing wikipedia are not reflected the content of the articles?

OneVoice 22:38, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Defining and Using a Socratic

Can I get some feedback? I am having difficulty with entries on a Republic and Fascism. This is response to one of the discussions:

You can't make that a conclusion. It might also be possible that a word only has meaning inside a certain context of space, time, and maybe also within the context of a single discussion. It happens all the time in formal languages, in any case. Please see: Namespace. Define each year as a new namespace. Now you can have it both ways. The language can evolve, and yet meanings do not change in the same way. Handy philosophical tool that. Kim Bruning 19:18, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Socrates had the same problem in Athens of his day. The people changed the meaning of words. Socrates challenged them on this regard using three principles of Identity, Non-contradiction and Consistency. I have used these principles in forms on this thread called "Socratics". Is this a tool that can be used by Wikipeadia? Can I make an entry "Socratic"? Coin a term and teach the method and history behind it? or will it be deleted?

A Socratic is a method by which definitions can be checked. A Socratic uses three principles to ensure a definition is correct and truthful. etc. Can I have some feedback?WHEELER 18:13, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sounds brilliant. As the word isn't being used for anything else, I say go for it. Just state clearly the origin and meaning of the word, as well as its current non-status as an accepted word. Then find a way to get people to come and read about it. --M4-10 07:26, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute blackmail

As some readers may be aware, yesterday I did a fairly major edit on Kim Jong-il. User:172 then put a "disputed neutrality" on the article, but declined both to edit it himself or to discuss with me what he objected to in my edit, other than that he didn't like it. I then removed the tag, but he reverted. So now the article is permanently tagged as non neutral, but the person who holds this view will not do anything to resolve this. I consider this to be blackmail. What does the panel think? (Note that I am not asking what the panel thinks about my edit - I am asking about the dispute). Adam 07:22, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I could understand if he were unwilling to help fix it, but (at the very least) he has to *say* what he finds objectionable. I agree with you - if in some reasonable amount of time the NPOV objection isn't clearly stated, consider it moot and remove the tag. →Raul654 07:27, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Raul, adding that, even if your change was entirely POV you are entitled to due process - Gaz 12:15, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Raul and Gaz. We need a process to deal with this since way too many articles are semi-permanently tagged. IMO, at least two users should agree that an article is POV before a tag can be placed on it. Then if the consensus on the talk page that the article is OK, then the tag should be removed. This unilateral tagging of articles has got to stop ASAP. --mav 12:24, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I agree - we have had NPOV tags unilaterally added for the most trivial of reasons (e.g. the Macedonian disambiguation page got tagged because someone apparently objected to the term being used for anything other than the Greek province, though it's not easy to tell for sure because no explanation was posted). But how could we enforce your "two users" rule? -- ChrisO 12:45, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Same way we enforce any other rule. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 12:53, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It may be obvious from re-reading the page what is not-neutral. If so, fix it. If not, ask the person adding the NPOV dispute. If you don't like the NPOV header, the onus is on you to write neutral text. Were that not the case, Wikipedia would find it harder to deal with people who have no interest in our NPOV policy. Martin 21:59, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Would charging commercial websites for links undermine NPOV?

Some people from commercial websites seem to work hard to make "stealth" links from wikipedia to their website. It is not that hard. They make a page (with some useful information related to a wikipedia article) on an innocent-looking domain. They make a link from wikipedia to their page. After a few days, they alter their page so that it links into their commercial website.

If there is no way to prevent this sort of advertising on wikipedia, then why not charge $ for it? Why not have a small link on wikipedia pages to a companion "commercials" page where there could be links to commercial websites for companies that are willing to pay? All the money made could be used to improve wikipedia (new hardware, pay software engineers). JWSchmidt 21:21, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Do you have some examples of this practice being used? Martin 01:12, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I guess I should pay more attention to these things. Here is one I saw recently and could find again. There is a link to this from wikipedia Family name. The first thing I did when I went to that website was click on the "Who is in your family tree?" at the top. They then ask for your email. If you give them that, then they ask for your credit card number. I was a tad pissed and put a warning on the link at Family_name.

Well, it sounds like you clicked on a banner ad from the site, because that site didn't ask me for email, or credit card number... Martin 20:00, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sometimes there is a link at the top that says "Who are your ancestors?" This "banner" is also along the right hand side of pages on this website. The point remains, this is a commercial website with just enough free "content" to get them a link in Wikipedia. If they get to use the Wikipedia as a way to attract customers, why not charge them a fee and warn Wikipedia users that they are following a link to a commercial website? (JWS)

I don't think we should eliminate all links to websites that carry banner ads. Nor do I think that banner ads are so rare or unwholesome as to require a warning. After all, we already make clear that it's an external link. Martin 23:24, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I agree that there is no point in trying to eliminate all links from Wikipedia to commercial websites, but If we do nothing then commercial links will tend to accumulate at an even higher level. I think there are companies that would be willing to pay a fee to have links from Wikipedia to their website. I wonder if there is some reason not to develop a sensible system to accommodate them, make some $ for Wikipedia, and make it clear to readers of the Wikipedia what is going on. (JWS)

Oxymoron

Truth does not contradict Truth. It is Paramenides principle of non-contradiction. A subject cannot hold two predicates that are each opposed to each other. The principle of non-contradiction is a form of Logic. If this is an Objectivist website, this is a fundamental aspect of reasoning.

Examples: a square circle; the living dead; far-right-neo-national socialist workers party. These are examples of oxymorons. Another is "There is no absolute Truth". Well, one just stated an absolute truth.

Knowledge is the evidence of the object.

Why aren't direct quotes and references required?WHEELER 01:44, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I put references (and links to online copies of journal articles) into Wikipedia science-related articles, but I have the feeling that most people do not want to be bothered with providing references. I see many comments about the need to keep people stuck in Wikipedia and not provide links to external sites. Maybe the place for well-documented articles would be the textbooks at Wikibooks. JWSchmidt 02:36, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Please preserve verifiability by citing your sources! Nothing drives me more crazy than people who pull out BS like "most scientists prefer bulger to oats" as tho their random musings about what they would guess most XYZ people would think about something were encyclopedia worthy. I used to be a surveyer for sociological research, and I find that sort of blarny inordinately vexing. I've often been inclined to provide a foot to the posterior of those who provide random prattle in place of objective truth. Factual Relativists beware, I'm on to you ;) Sam Spade 03:04, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

In both my posts I have extensive quotes. Any seaker after truth worth his salt should have extensive footnotes. Not to websites but books!!! I think moderators need to put the foot down and go back and question somethings and require EVIDENCE.

I would like to know about posting on a How to define. The principle of Identity. The principle of non-contradiction. And consistency.

Socrates: "And I will begin with courage, and once more ask what is that common quality, which is the same in all these cases, and which is called courage? Do you now understand what I mean? Laches 191e.

Consistency is this "Common quality".

Found another oxymoron. To wit: "a Democratic Republic".WHEELER 18:16, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Democratic Republic of the Congo
Democratic Republic of Afghanistan
Democratic Republic of Georgia
Democratic People's Republic of Korea
People's Democratic Republic of Algeria
Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia
Democratic Republic of São Tomé and Príncipe
Somali Democratic Republic
Lao People's Democratic Republic
Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka
People's Democratic Republic of Algeria

The following comment was pasted into the page by User:Quickwik, just below Jimbo's "absolute and non-negotiable" statement. It belong here on talk, so I (Camembert) have moved it:

This said, Wikipedia, by design, is a POINT OF VIEW encyclopedia.

When a page was drafted describing the common plea of numerous peoples around the world for a United Holyland the article was deleated and all traces removed from List of Middle East peace proposals and the history of the article hiden from users because the POV of the editors.

It is a compendium of a group idology.

NPOV is whatever the staff says it is.

"There is no absolute truth" is not a contradiction. It serves as its own exception, and as an example of a non-absolute truth. It's mostly true.

In most logic there is only one kind of truth, but the statement in question is saying that the kind of truth in pure logic does not exist in practical settings. Only partial truths, such as itself, are useful. ANother interpretation of the statement is, "the truth of a statement varies with the explicit and implicit contexts applied to it". Or put another way, "no statements are beyond debate." The only way to refute that is to supply a statement which is undebatable. Good luck finding one. Ayn Rand thought she had one with "a is a", but that's been torn to shreds.

Another way of looking at it is, a little bit of contradiction doesn't invalidate an entire system. If it did, nothing could ever be decided.

"All statements are false" is a contradiction, because it can only be not true, not false, or not a statement. It is the stength of the "All" which makes this statement false. -- Crag 19:23, 2004 May 11 (UTC)

Fact, Opinion, and God's existence

That God exists is an opinion. That the Beatles were the greatest band is an opinion. That the United States was wrong to drop the atomic bomb over Hiroshima and Nagasaki is an opinion.

While I'm all for the NPOV, there is a flaw in the concept as described. Existence of an entity is not in the realm of opinion. It is a fact: either true or false. God either exists, or He doesn't. And our opinions won't cause Him to exist or not.

What is really being said by "That God exists is an opinion." is that it is too much trouble to prove to people (including ourselves) so we just set it aside as a useless thing to argue. But it isn't opinion. --M4-10 05:08, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

It's an opinion, for the purposes of our NPOV policy, because it is not undisputed fact. Martin 19:29, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

You're right, there either is, or isn't a God. Our opinions don't affect that (at least, in most theologies ;) ), however, which one of these realities is the right one is a matter of opinion, since there is not enough undisputed evidence either way. This is true of a lot of other issues such as 'what killed the dinosaurs?' (there is a right answer, but there is not concensus on what it is). Mark Richards 19:37, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

Existance of any entity can be argued because some people don't believe that an entity needs to be directly experienced in order to know it to exist. I can't look at or test for the existance of a particular rock band, but through their albums and reports from sources I trust, I form a degree of certainty that the band in question exists. On the other hand, someone might argue that the band I choose to believe in does not exist, but was a hoax created as some kind of joke. The person arguing against the band may admit the existance of the band members and the songs, but claim the band itself never actually put together an official album, never played a concert, and that the members of the band never even met in person. Of course, there will be overwhelming evidence for or against the existance of the band, but in the case of things like God and the human soul, it gets more complicated.

Some people say they know God when they look into the eyes of a newborn. Others argue this to be unscientific and meaningless sentimentalism. The most consistant definitions of God tend to say that God is beyond proof. That being the case, God's existance really IS a matter of opinion. God has been defined as "that entity whose existance cannot be proven or disproven." (I'm over-simplifying in order to try to keep this short-ish.)

Furthermore, real-world truth is not black-and-white. Waves or particles? It depends on the test you perform. The only place where "it's either true or it isn't" is in the magical worlds of fantasy and math. The real world is much more complicated than we want to admit. I'd even wager that we summon God to resolve these "contradictions".

If it's true that "That the United States was wrong to drop the atomic bomb over Hiroshima and Nagasaki is an opinion.", then it's an opinion that 99,99% of the world's population shares. Couldn't the writer of this article find an example which is less insulting to Japanese people? :( Alensha 19:14, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

-- Crag 19:43, 2004 May 11 (UTC)

A much deeper explanation than mine... I tip my hat. Mark Richards 19:48, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

Heck Cattle

HELP I have a problem at Heck Cattle, one of the editors is mindbent on the idea that the Aurochs and cattle are two separate species, and the the Breeding back of the Auroch is "erroneous". I have tried to make the page neutral by pointing at the fact that even though, the aurochs may have a proper name, cattle is domesticated aurochs and so the same species. However, is set on having his own narrow point of view in the article. What should I do. --Wiglaf

Dogs are domesticated wolves, but they are considered a seperate species to them.

As I see it, the people that you are disagreeing with have provided evidence (in the form of a scientific paper) suggesting that at least some scientists view aurochs and domestic cattle as seperate species. You are asserting as fact, without evidence, that they are not. If your contention is that the paper does not represent mainstream scientific opinion, then you should provide evidence (in terms of references from other scientific works). If your contention is that other non-scientists have a different view than the scientific opinion, you should provide evidence as to who has this belief, and the basis for it, and if they represent a non-trivial group those beliefs should be included in the article as such (just as the beliefs of scientists are recorded as such).

Proof by assertion doesn't get you far round here. --Robert Merkel 03:59, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

Of course, but your analogy doesn't work. Dogs and wolves are regarded as the same species by many scholars. Just a few examples of sites: http://www.fiu.edu/~milesk/intro.htm http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Canis_lupus_familiaris.html http://digimorph.org/specimens/Canis_lupus_lycaon/ The reason that the Aurochs traditionally has a scientific name that makes believe that it was a separate species is more due to the fact that it is extinct unlike the wolf.

Here are a few sites that describe the Aurochs and cattle as the same species calling cattle "Bos primigenius taurus": http://www.omne-vivum.com/c/7781.htm http://www.world-of-animals.de/tierlexikon/tierart_Watussirinder.html In fact there is a plethora of sites that treat them as a single species.

I have quit contributing to Wikipedia since this dispute, and I haven't even got back to seeing their last response. I know I should have backed my assertion up, but I realised I got too upset about a silly dispute when I have a dissertation to finish. Wiglaf

Criticism and Alternative views

Should all articles include criticism sections? Should no articles contain criticism sections? Where is the line between "Criticism" and "Alternative views"?

For example, it is clearly POV to have a criticism section in Judaism's external links but not in Christianity's.

Criticism and alternative views should follow the introduction and main discussion of the article.

(Hyacinth)

Moved from main article to talk page, as this seems to be more of a request for discussion than a guideline or consensus. —Steven G. Johnson 22:09, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)

Criticism and Alternative views: from Village Pump

Please comment on: NPOV#Criticism_and_Alternative_views: Should all articles include criticism sections? Should no articles contain criticism sections? Where is the line between "Criticism" and "Alternative views"?

For example, no example stays uncontested long enough to list here.

Criticism and alternative views should follow the introduction and main discussion of the article.

Wikipedia is not a place for conspiracy theories (as a certain ex-user was quite fond of). →Raul654 05:38, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure I get what you are asking us to do. There is no poll in progress at NPOV#Criticism_and_Alternative_views. It seems reasonably obvious that some articles -- on controversial topics -- need criticism sections, but one is unlikely ever to have a criticism section on, say, an article about a city.

(You clearly haven't seen the dump I live in...) --bodnotbod 19:49, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC) )

As for the specifics of your remark: I don't see a criticism section in Judaism's external links or Christianity's. Am I missing something?

Right now, the article on Christianity has a remark on the Ebionites poorly integrated into the article in a section entitled Alternative Views. The article Jew has a very extensive discussion of the Karaites much better integrated into the article. Yes, the material on the Ebionites seems oddly placed. I would integrate a mention of them into the article just like we have done for Arianism. Is that what you are asking? -- Jmabel 18:41, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)

I think it is quite conceivable to have a criticism page for a city and this is an example that may be ridiculous. There seem to be two kinds of articles:

Reviews: Reads like bulleted Pros and Cons
Kids books: Always positive and not too substantial (as they must avoid controversy)

Where along this spectrum do you wish Wikipedia articles to lie? Hyacinth 19:18, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

How about this? One could propose:

That wikipedia articles shouldn't ever include criticism or criticism sections. A variant of "when you can't say anything good", the idea being that if the topic is worth an encyclopedic article why set it up to knock it down. Alternative views may be generously covered on articles devoted to those views and issues anyways.

or

That every wikipedia article should include criticism and a criticism section, as is required by neutrality. Everything is, or will be, contested anyways.

Hyacinth 05:02, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Cite sources

I think that the NPOV policy should be more clearly connected with the Cite sources policy. First, I would suggest that Wikipedia:Cite sources be prominently linked to from Wikipedia:NPOV. Secondly, that there be a paragraph on Wikipedia:NPOV discussing the relation between the policies. Hyacinth 20:05, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

me

I've been accused of attempting to include extreme POV's in articles, and it was suggested that be discussed here. Thoughts? Sam [Spade] 18:31, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The question is whether some views are so extreme that NPOV doesn't apply. As an over-the-top example, can we write something like Hitler believed that the Jews must be exterminated, which showed his evilness? Alternatively, should we simply describe Hitler's beliefs and allow readers to decide for themselves whether or not he was evil? Conversely, should we remove attempts to justify extreme viewpoints? For example, the historian Jake Remora argued that "apartheid was a logical economic response to a wide disparity in incomes between two ethnic groups", in a lecture to the Adam Smith Institute. - is this a sentence that must be removed from a Wikipedia article?

So those are the issues. Personally, I am reluctant to apply special rules for certain types of beliefs, no matter how much I may find them abhorrent. Martin 17:16, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You: I would definitely agree that you have attempted to add POVs to articles. However, I must immediately qualify that many of your edits were well written neutral content that allowed and created the inclusion of theretofore excluded POVs. In some cases you have attempted to add material which is non-neutral, but, in my consideration, we have remained friendly wikiquaitences, and you are often very reasonable and NPOV, or facilitate the NPOV of, your own POV statements.

Policy: I would recommend that editors always keep the content of POV material, simply neutralize it.

Hyacinth 03:02, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for being nice, I appreciate your thoughtful reply. There seems to be some confusion amongst certain editors as to what sort of person I am, and you seem to be able to see thru that. I do have opinions, and they probably do leak thru sometimes, but I try to be NPOV. Of course it's more common for me to NPOV towards my own POV (or an extremely unpopular one), but I think part of that is that the wiki tends towards a POV somewhat different from mine (and of course different from extremely unpopular ones). I do strive for balance, and will NPOV against a POV I agree w, BTW. The key question is are some POV's more NPOV than others? Sam [Spade] 05:03, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The most common context where I see people do what I would consider asserting that one POV is more NPOV, or the (most) NPOV, is in an article about a supposedly scientific subject, one should only consult scientists; in an article about music one should consult only musicologists, etc. More generally I have seen people argue that when writing about an encyclopedic topic, in order to be encyclopedic and NPOV, one must write in a clinical, scientific manner with only those sources, with neither terms defined, or vaguely if by context.

Is this what you had in mind? Hyacinth 05:27, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

not really, but I didn't mean something totally opposite either. Lets use Hitler. Saying he was bad would be POV, but a popular one. Saying he was good is POV, and very unpopular one. Most historians agree w the first POV, and their writing shows it. I tried to provide some balance, for example suggesting that the total war engaged in by all sides resulted in massive fatalities. I mentioned that he had a profound personal presence. I also mentioned that his policy of racial hygiene led to a great amount of death and displacement. [1]. This was felt by at least one editor to have been an attempt to insert extreme POV. They suggested that this combined w my opposition to the featuring of gay bathhouse constituted an excess of POV on my part, and might have either violated the NPOV policy, or might require a re-write of it (I'm not real clear on this, and me and Danny havn't had much chance to chat about it). Anyways, the question as I see it is: are some POV's to be given higher status than others, and should some be shut out entirely? Sam [Spade] 05:42, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Obviously there are certain POVs that are required for an editor to accept and attempt to adhere to the NPOV policy, and thus will always be present. That encyclopedias should be NPOV is a highly popular POV (as evidenced by Wikipedia's one immutible policy), at least among those who would read encyclopedias, so those views are probably already present. Ensured, but not created or sustained, by the NPOV policy. Hyacinth 05:53, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I agree that the NPOV policy is a sound one, and should be upheld. I thus also agree w Martin above. Sam [Spade] 06:42, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Possible new "objection" to add to the project page.

In the list of objections/questions, I would consider adding the following. (But rather than make the change right away, I thought I'd ask for input here first.)

Objection: But I'm still not convinced.

Quesition: I'm not convinced. I believe the NPOV policy is internally inconsistant. Or maybe I believe that the NPOV policy is a good way to make an encyclopedia of peoples' beliefs, but not an encyclopedia of truth. Whatever the reason, I've thought about it, and I don't think the NPOV policy is the best way to make an encyclopedia.

Answer: In the end, you may be right, and you may be wrong. But our experience has shown that the only good way to make an open-content online encyclopedia that encourages a wide range of contributers is to instate the NPOV policy. You're free to make a different dictionary that plays by different rules, and for all I know, yours might be better. But this policy is the best way to run this encyclopedia, and it's non-negotiable.

Is this appropriate? If not, can it be altered to be? Quadell (talk) 21:18, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)

Real NPOV

There is A and B. they have anti-opinion to each other.
So, What is NPOV??
I recommand new NPOV policy.
To allow that they write two part equally.

For example,

APPLE

....

There is two view, white and black

White view

Apple is white. not black. becuase... Acording as recent scinence study... ...

Black view

white is incorrect. Apple is black ...

This policy is real NPOV...I think...
Reader will see two view equally. and can have a correct NPOV.
This is for article page, not discussion.
This thinking method is Buddhism's and Confucianism's

thirdid 07:46, 2004 Sep 6 (UTC)

Copied from VP

[[== NPOV resources == Do we have (and if not, should we have) a page of external resources on understanding/developing/encouraging the Neutral Point of View? It's not always an easy concept, even for experienced editors, and we're all prone to falling into errors. This is a fantastic resource, and I feel it should be on some sort of "recommended reading" list. For example, how many of us can claim we've never fallen victim to confirmation bias? --195.11.216.59 14:49, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Your link gives a series of articles on fallacies and bad arguments. Poor reasoning, including confirmation bias, isn't necessarily an impediment to NPOV. I could, for example, reason very badly and conclude that the moon is made of cheese; I could still write from a neutral point of view about the moon's composition. The ability to reason soundly is a skill that we should encourage, but I don't think it necessarily correlates with neutral writing. — Matt 22:25, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Confirmation bias is still something Wikipedians should be wary of, especially when trying to write about current events. On a similar note, Wikipedians should also be careful of using weasel words as support for a debatable statement. —siro χ o 07:50, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

The key fallacies occuring on Wikipedia seem to be the Argumentum ad nauseam and the Argumentum ad numerum. 145.36.24.29 09:06, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Indeed. The former really drives me nuts - it's an understatement to merely say that politicians use it! Our entire govt. runs by telling people how great the govt is, is defiance of the minor trickle of really dodgy stuff they get up to. It works. People mostly vote the same old, same old, despite us having a highly representative voting system (vote your preferences, vote always goes to someone). zoney ▓█▒ talk 16:58, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)