Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Archive 013

What makes a NPOV neutral

To suggest that a person who is able to articulate the universal perspective on something makes it neutral is quite a thought. After giving some thought to this, I refer to what L Ron Hubbard said in his essay 'What is Truth'. His position is that if we want to find truth we 'look' not 'think'. If we filter what we see through our belief system to find out what to do with it, the result will hardly be neutral. If we allow whatever we see to address us without the filtering process, it is much more likely that we will recieve the message waiting for us. Is it possible for a person to be neutral, that is probably the better question. Many people are not even aware of this concept. Will one person be able to tell if another is neutral, or even more important, will we be able to tell if we ourselves are neutral? To make an edict that mandates something that may be the pervue of the gods' is interesting. Nice idea, but to get other people's thoughts on what they see, is probably going to be more important to most people, than what they have heard at least second hand, filtered through one or more biased positions. How far we can go down this road is something that I would like to know. If there are others who have been here before and know what is up ahead, I would like to hear from you!Ken 06:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

It is the viewpoint that needs to be neutral, not every single statement, and most certainly we do NOT expect our contributors to be neutral! (Most good contributors do have strong views about their preferred subject areas they write in.) Nor does having a neutral viewpoint mean that everyone will be willing to accept it as a reasonable summary of an article, jguk 07:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

The policy does not agree with you (but I actually do happen to agree), the policy suggests this manneristic artifact of prose you describe, called "writing from a neutral viewpoint" has the following consequences:

There is another reason to commit ourselves to this policy. Namely, when it is clear to readers that we do not expect them to adopt any particular opinion, this leaves them free to make up their minds for themselves, thus encouraging intellectual independence. Totalitarian governments and dogmatic institutions everywhere might find reason to be opposed to Wikipedia, if we succeed in adhering to our non-bias policy: the presentation of many competing theories on a wide variety of subjects suggests that we, the creators of Wikipedia, trust readers' competence to form their own opinions themselves. Texts that present multiple viewpoints fairly, without demanding that the reader accept any one of them, are liberating. Neutrality subverts dogmatism, and nearly everyone working on Wikipedia can agree this is a good thing.

Please modify the policy before you claim anything about what NPOV is not. --Anon84.x 09:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

What I am saying above is entirely consistent with the paragraph you quote (although I would agree that that paragraph is not well written and may leave some confusion and ambiguity), jguk 09:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I do not agree, wikipedia is not a political movement --Anon84.x 10:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course it isn't, it's an encyclopaedia. But what's that got to do with the above? (and where do you see the inconsistency?), jguk 10:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

There is another reason to commit ourselves to this policy.

NPOV is not dogma, but a policy, nobody should commit to it.

Namely, when it is clear to readers that we do not expect them to adopt any particular opinion, this leaves them free to make up their minds for themselves, thus encouraging intellectual independence.

Wikipedia does not try to justify its policies, it is not an advocacy platform.

the presentation of many competing theories on a wide variety of subjects suggests that we, the creators of Wikipedia, trust readers' competence to form their own opinions themselves.

This deals with the selection of views, not how to present them. Also, Wikipedia does not try to justify its policies.

Totalitarian governments and dogmatic institutions everywhere might find reason to be opposed to Wikipedia

This is a political manifesto, and has nothing to do with an encyclopedia.

if we succeed in adhering to our non-bias policy: the presentation of many competing theories on a wide variety of subjects suggests that we, the creators of Wikipedia, trust readers' competence to form their own opinions themselves.

Wikipedia is not a political movement. There is nothing anyone to "succeed" in. NPOV is not a political manifesto.

Texts that present multiple viewpoints fairly, without demanding that the reader accept any one of them, are liberating.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it does not try "liberate" anyone. NPOV does not tell you what views to choose, but how to present them.

Neutrality subverts dogmatism, and nearly everyone working on Wikipedia can agree this is a good thing.

"Neutrality" here refers to selective neutrality, and this also has more to do with a political manifesto than with encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a manifesto to eliminate dogmatism, Wikipedia is not a political movement, NPOV is not propoganda but a policy. is that clear enough?--Anon84.x 10:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph you cite is an essay extolling the merits of having a neutral point of view policy. I agree it is a fairly poor one and we could do without it, jguk 12:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

And another thing, the whole concept of undue weight deals with the selection of views and how much space to give them, and has nothing to do with the manneristic trait of prose that is a "neutral viewpoint".--Anon84.x 11:15, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Ken, what you're describing is called cognitive bias, a documented concept in psychology, and I agree with you 100%. The problem is that the NPOV policy is extremely ambiguous and unclear. The root of its problem is that it mixes the neutral presentation of viewpoints and the neutral selection of viewpoints. This is an extreme problem I'm trying to solve with my proposal. --Anon84.x 09:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Request unprotect

Couldn't we just block Bensaccount and let everyone else keep working? Stevage 07:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure really whether Bensaccount should have been blocked in the first instance. But we certainly should try unprotecting the page and see what happens, jguk 07:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Bensaccount's block will have expired. I've unprotected - David Gerard 13:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, David. I've reverted back to the 23 January version as I don't believe we've seen any serious arguments on the talk page preferring the mid-November version that the page was protected on. Of course, if I'm wrong on this, people should note this here and we'll go back to the mid-November version. Hopefully, at least in the short term, any suggested tweaks are discussed on the talk page rather than just being inserted into the project page, jguk 13:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Request for a clear, non ambiguous policy

There is enough dispute in this talk page with regard to the clarity of the project page that a {{totallydisputed}} tag is justified. The essential problem was well described by Anon84.x and Iantresman. Anon84.x also wrote a useful small draft as a starting point for a clearer policy. A useful discussion about this issue is necessary. The main proponents of the current version should contribute to this discussion. Please do not dismiss the issue with general POV argments of the kind "this policy is the core of wikipedia and we must commit to it to achieve the liberation of mankind" -- the last quote is a caricature of one paragraph in the current version (see above). --Lumiere 15:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I've been thinking. An alternative "course of action" would be to avoid a needless struggle over a complete rewrite of the policy. Instead, to create a new, unofficial policy by the name of WP:Significance that deals only with the objective criteria for inclusion of views we've been working on. Then, when consensus is reached, "slim down" the NPOV policy (maybe change its name to "Neutral viewpoint" like jguk suggests) to deal only with the presentation of views (not selection) and link back to the WP:Significance policy from it. What do you say? --Anon84.x 16:15, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it will help us to write our own piece of policy in peace. However, it may also be an evasion from the real challenge. There are already 3 policies that are not so well connected. Even the relationship between NOR and V is not that clear. What is really needed is one global policy that connects all the policies and provide some wholeness, but it is OK to start with a clear NPOV policy. What I say is that we should invite people to discuss. We should see if there is progress. If there is no progress, we put the {{totallydisputed}} tag. This is what I say. --Lumiere 16:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm..Yes I know, we should avoid "policy bloat". By the way I agree that "NOR" "V" and "citing sources" are mostly the same and should be somehow merged.. -Anon84.x 16:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe even my longtime dream will come true and wikipedia will finally have an official WP:Editorial policy! --Anon84.x 16:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Did you look at WP:RS? This is also a WP guideline that is or should be closely related to the WP policy WP:V, but the connection is not clear. --Lumiere 16:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow, more redundancy, now we have V, NOR, Citing sources, Reliable sources, and The undue weight section from NPOV, all about filtering and evaluating content for inclusion --Anon84.x 17:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOR is a special example of applying WP:V, and in my opinion WP:NOR should be downgraded from policy to guideline for that very reason. WP:CITE explains how to cite sources, but the requirement to cite sources is in WP:V, jguk 17:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I prefer the idea of a merging of WP:NOR and WP:V. Also, I don't like the title of WP:V, which is "Verifiability" -- it doesn't say what it is. But, this is not what we should discuss here. Jguk, what is your opinion on the small draft? --Lumiere 17:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

You guys are violating WP:WOTTA. Kim Bruning 17:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Kim! I loved this WP:WOTTA, and I got every thing just from the title! --Lumiere 17:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Why should Wikipedia be unbiased?

To help simplify and clarify NPOV I think this section should be entirely removed, or deflated. Please consider this and tell me why you agree or disagree. Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Why should Wikipedia be unbiased? Bensaccount 18:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, you can delete it. However, I think it is more useful at this time to discuss essential issues in this talk page or in the talk page of Anon84.x proposal. What do you think of Anon84.x small draft? --Lumiere 18:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

The "selecting views" section could be a useful addition to this page, but the rest seems redundant, and more redundancy is the last thing this page needs. Bensaccount 19:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

That's a great motivating section, what's your problem with it? If I didn't remember how you reacted last time, I'd say that it's a little too elaborated. Harald88 19:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that Bensaccount was refering to Anon84.x small draft. Right? I am not sure that you (Harald88) were referring to this small draft. Can you clarify and, in all cases, I would like to have your opinion or find out more about your olpinion on this small draft. I am very happy to hear the above comments about the small draft. Yes, it could become a lead section for the policy. If we agree on that, it is a good step forward. Of course, the remainder of the formulation would have to be consistent with this lead section. --Lumiere 20:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Narrative vs. Selective bias - the analogy

To make this critical distinction clear for newcomers, here's a simple analogy:

Let's say I'm an author and I'm writing a novel. I choose a style of storytelling in which the narrator is "objective", ie. the narrator does not make judgements about or criticise the characters or scenarios in the story. For example, the book will not feature statements like:

And then eve, with her usual unbearable manner, replied "I think you're just being ridiculous".

Instead:

And then eve replied: "I think you're just being ridiculous".

In my book, the narrator is neutral, as the narrator is not involved in interpreting the story. Therefore it may be said that the book is written from a neutral point of view. However, me, the author, is far from neutral, as I choose to show different aspects of the characters and places, but not others, that might have shown them in a different light if I chose otherwise. Thus, me, the author, is selectively biased.

--Anon84.x 09:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't the article about the "neutral point of view" discuss the "neutral point of view", and nothing else?

I mean, anything else added to the page (e.g. selecting views, balancing views, other wikipedia specific policies, making research, saving the world, etc..)

1. will encourage misunderstanding of it.
2. will make the subject look more complicated than it really is. (it is pretty simple, after all)
3. will overload the term "neutral point of view". (which is already heavily overloaded)
4. make other principles (like "significance") to be easily overlooked as uninportant, because they don't have their own title. (cannot be easily cited as a policy in themselves)

--Anon84.x 08:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Anon84.x, one way or another, it is important to clarify that a viewpoint must be both (1) written in a neutral style and (2) be significant before it can be accepted for inclusion in an article. The people that are working on the NPOV policy need to understand the above point and it should be mentioned in the NPOV policy even if we adopt a limited version as you propose. Many misinterpret the neutral style as a sufficient criteria for inclusion, and this misinterpretation is often used in disputes. It is simply not true that we can explain a neutral point of view policy, especially its limited role in the selection process, without referring to other aspects of the selection process. As a strict minimum, it must be explained that a neutral point of view is only one aspect of the selection process, and the natural way to explain it is to mention the other aspects. This would still be needed even in a limited version of NPOV as you propose. Therefore, I am not against your proposal, but I am saying that it does not adress the main issue. --Lumiere 10:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Anon84.x, I am aware that we are working toward the same goal. In fact, I can support your proposal, but then do you also agree with me that even this restricted version of NPOV must mention the other aspects of the selection process. --Lumiere 10:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Then it should link to WP:Significance policy, we cannot afford to make this policy more bloated than it is right now. --Anon84.x 10:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I hope you mean that it should be well connected with the other aspects and link to WP:Significance policy for more details. --Lumiere 11:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, we need to clarify what would contain WP:Significance that is not already in WP:Verifiability etc. When I think about it, the main challenge remains a clarification of the NPOV policy, which, even if we shrink it, must be well connected with the other policies. --Lumiere 11:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I just meant not to inline other policies inside the NPOV policy, of course we should mention them! --Anon84.x 11:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I added the {{Contradict}} and {{cleanup-rewrite}} templates. --Anon84.x 10:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

You should write a section with a title like Why NPOV needs a complete rewrite so that people who see your tag can directly get the point. This section could link to the previous sections that are the most relevant. --Lumiere 11:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Is Neutral Point of View an Oxymoron?

I almost feel like I am attacking the 'holy grail'! Is it possible for something to be truly neutral? I made the trip from the Encyclopedia to the Dictionary to see what this word meant. It seems as though the term which is addressed in #6 below ends up being part of an Oximoron. Adjective 1. Not taking sides (in a war or political race) 2. Unbiased, unaligned 3. Neither beneficial nor harmful. 4. Neither positive nor negative, possessing no charge. Having equivalent positive and negative charge such that there is no imbalance of charge. 5. Having a pH of 7, neither acid nor alkaline 6. Favouring neither the supporting viewpoint nor the opposing viewpoint of a topic of debate. 7. Family feuds. Belonging to neither of the two feuding families. Retrieved from "http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/neutral"

Is not a point of view a perspective from which a person observes something? How can a person understand what he/she sees without having something to relate it to? Is that which we relate it to the database which is what will allow us to understand what we see, and will provide us with an ability to do what we intend to do? If we have no data base on which to build an understanding we end up in the condition of a baby, no knowledge of anything, with only an interest is its surroundings. It has no point of view. It does not even know what it is seeing. As time goes on, it finds that certain things do certain things, and begins to check itself to see how it affects it. At some point it finds that some action has an effect. If the action affects the persons condition which relates to a need this is noted and begins the forming of a data base. At some point in time priorities are set to be used in sorting the data for future use. This happens through out the useful life of the person. This allows the formation of the attributes which determine the relationship that the person has with the universe. The profile that is presented and from which it relates is called a point of view. For this to be neutral is not likely to occur. It will have been formed by very strong influences with whatever processing powers that have been developed used to erect a belief system. This is what we humans function out of. Out of this someone suggests neutrality.

It has been said above that it is not the person that is to be neutral, but rather the message. Fine. The question that comes to mind from this is 'Which is more important to the communication...the message itself or the way in which it is recieved?' It is this writers contention that we have less control over the way a message we send is recieved by the intended recepiant than the recepiant themselves. What will determine how they recieve it? Their Point of View!

For me to state that the above is true would be quite a stretch. To state that it is not true would be a greater stretch. To get someone elses point of view is very important to obtaining a great understanding. Just as certainly as no two people can occupy the same space at the same time, neither can any of us occupy all space at the same time. The sharing of what we have from our point of view with others who do not have the opportunity to be there seems to be a blessing, rather than something to be cursed.

If a University is a place where expression is encouraged so that the greatest amount of learning can occur, what is an encyclopedia supposed to be. It is quite clear that most of the people contributing to this work are much more schooled than am I. I attended a University for nearly 3 months back in 1968 before 'washing out'. Since then I have picked up what I know from the real world. 90+% of the learing that I have acquired has come as a result of others providing me with questions. Thank you to all who help me with an understanding of the concept discussed on thege pages.Ken 11:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Neutral point of view does not imply that there is no point of view. It implies that a point of view is presented fairly and accurately. For example:

• America is the greatest country on the world (A point of view)
• America has the largest GNP of any country in the world (A neutral point of view)
• China has the largest population in the world (A neutral point of view)

--Iantresman 14:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Would a statement of fact be the equivalent of a point of view? A point of view would seem like something that would be seen from a specific perspective. If everyone everywhere saw the same thing, would that not be a statement of fact, rather than a point of view? An accountant or mathematician may argue with this but most people would say that 2+2=4. Most would say that that is a fact. It may be a point of view if it is possible that someone my see it another way. Would it be correct to say that 1,000 is larger that 100 as a specific number would be a fact? And if this is true, is it a fact or a point of view? Still trying to figure out what this all really means. Sometimes feel Bill O'RielyKen 00:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

But if I was to say that $2+2=5$, then $2+2=4$ would be an opinion, is that not correct? In reality, everything we say is an opinion, because everything that we take to be as fact passes through our minds and is subject to our own interpretation, not to mention that reality is defined by our perception and therefore there is no such thing as concrete factual reality. Therefore is it not correct to say that anything that is a fact is also an opinion?

An example would be that if someone was in a forest and saw a tree get struck by lightning and fall eastward, but another person standing next to him saw it fall westward, then who's opinion is taken to be fact? In a situation like this, there is no definite fact, and therefore no neutral point of view. If I was to go look at that tree and by my own analasys deduce that it had in fact fallen northward, then would you accept my opinion, or go based on the two people with conflicting opinions who were there when it ocurred?

In my own opinion (which I suppose is a paradox since it cannot be proven because it is niether fact nor a point of view as I have just proven), there really is no such thing as a neutral point of view. There is, however, a reasonable amount of discretion between tones that we use when writing articles. Therefore, it would be my idea to, instead of having NPOV, have NTOV (Neutral Tone of Voice). Just an opinion.

Wait a second, I seem to have fallen into my usual trap of, instead of talking about the original topic that was intended, making a completely different point. Please excuse me, I am not the best persuasive writer, as you can plainly see.

Sonny jim 01:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Why the NPOV policy needs a complete rewrite

• It incorrectly jumbles the two completely different notions of Narrative bias and Selective bias (distinction explained above in the section Narrative vs. Selective bias - the analogy), thus misleads one to believe that eliminating narrative bias has the magical consequence of making the article unbiased - which is far from treating the central aspect of bias.
• It is ambiguous, vague, overly verbose, self contradictory, and tries to deal with many issues that has no relation to it (but can and in some cases should be linked to for treatment elsewhere). For example:

• Selection of views
• Significance of views (undue weight)
• Balancing views (avoiding selective bias)
• Making research (avoiding selective bias)
• Replying to criticisms about selective bias.
• Having a criticism section in the first place. Which makes the subject look much more controversial and unreasonable than it actually is.
• Trying to justify itself over political and ideological grounds.

--Anon84.x 13:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

(Note: these problems have been addressed to Larry Sanger, the original creator of the policy: see his talk page) --Anon84.x 19:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• I support the above. Other relevant sections are #Neutral point of view article introduction suggestion, #Neutral viewpoint vs. Balance and #Request for a clear, non ambiguous policy --Lumiere 13:08, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, so that's two in support, which means there's no consensus to change. But if you'd like to go start your own encyclopedia online somewhere and use your own policies instead of ours, go ahead. We like this policy the way it is, thanks. DreamGuy 14:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. This is a core policy and would need a wide acceptance by a very broad representation from the community to effect a significant change in it. Just because a few people pop in here and think it needs a complete rewrite does not mean the community does. Because this is such a core, long standing policy the onus is on the proposer of the rewrite to demonstrate one is supported by the broad community, not the few editors that happen to comment here. That also applies to claiming there is a dispute. Just because one person wants the policy to read differently, it does not justify a "dispute" if few other editors agree. - Taxman ^Talk 14:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment from DreamGuy

I note from the main article history that DreamGuy has commented [1]: "remove pointless tags, as two people trying to totally rewrite the policy to make pushing their POV easier doesn't overrule the wide acceptance this version has -- convince a sizable group, THEN tag".

Ignoring the tag issues, there is the suggestion that a rewrite is self-serving, so I'd appreciate elucidation from DreamGuy. How would a rewrite make anybody's POV easier to push? --Iantresman 14:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Look at the comments above for the two people tying to rewrite the policy, it's obvious what their intentions are. Obviously, weakening the policy makes it easier to push POV, and Lumiere in particular has a long history on this talk page and in articles of trying to insert his opinion under the claims that it is POV when it clearly is not. Since he couldn't get away with it before he's here trying to change the rules so he can do it.

More to the point, this is a POLICY and has been for a long time. There should be lots of discussion and a clear agreement that tags need to be added. They don't have anything even remotely resembling an agreement from a large group of people that tags or major changes are needed. Adding the tags or trying to change the policy cleary go against consensus. DreamGuy 16:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Can you give some examples? Because I also feel that article has some weak points, and that clarifying NPOV will actually strengthen policy, or at least make it easier to identifiy NPOV. --Iantresman 16:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Clarifying it -- if done correctly -- would be a good thing, provided you have already have broad support for whatever changes you would like to make before trying to make them. From Lumiere's history it's very clear that his "clarifications" would actually dramatically alter the policy. He, for example, tryied to claim that including sourced and verified info from a magazine written by thepeople directly involved in the whole point of the article in question somehow violated NPOV because the magazine, despite being authoritative and scholarly, was not "peer reviewed", when the content of the magazine isn't the sort of thing that peer review applies to. It'd be like having an article on some court case and trying to prevent comments from the major party involved after the case because his comments weren't under oath. "Peer review" and "under oath" are not things required for NPOV, and he was only trying to apply it to the side he disagred with. It was a transparent attempt to remove relevant information and skew the tone of the article without any support from policy, and, surprise surprise, he's here now trying to rewrite policy. I am not opposed to you or them going off to have a discussion somewhere and trying to get broad consensus, but until you that concensus actually happens, this policy isn't going to be changed or tagged in some way to give the false appearance that it isn't as strongly supported as it is.

Frankly, policy pages should be permanently locked so nobody CAN change them until the consensus is clearly demonstrated, and then an admin can make the appropriate changes. DreamGuy 16:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

The best way of finding where consensus lies is by editing the page. If only admins are allowed to do this, it severly limits the number of people who are involved in obtaining the "consensus". Bensaccount 16:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

DreamGuy, you misunderstood the situation as far as my contribution in the Natasha Demkina article is concerned. As I explained in the Demkina talk page and as some others have noticed, I was only interested in applying and interpreting correctly the WP policies. As I do here, I essentially didn't do any edit to the main page. I was even criticized for having no stand, and only interested in the policies! The situation was more suttle than you could perceive. At the end, just before I quited, I kept saying in the talk page that I was open to any objection supported by WP policy against the inclusion of Brian Josephson statement, which was a statement about the scientific validity of the experiment only sourced in his personal web site. I would have been very happy to see someone stands and say that Brian Josephson's statement should be filtered for inclusion because of the no original research or the verifiablity policy with specific paragraphs in support. I was hoping that people will apply the policies. I decided to quit when I saw that the understanding of the policies was very low. Anyway, all of this is irrelevant. Please read WP:NPA: it is against WP policy to attack the logic of an editor because of his point of view on some article. --Lumiere 17:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Protected again.

There shouldn't be edit warring over this page. Obviously, if there is, that means you haven't done your job in ensuring there is a broad and significant consensus for what you are trying to change. If you won't create a sandbox page to work in, then I'll do it for you. Work here, please. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 15:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Great, now we have a dispute tag. Thanks, Katefan0.--Anon84.x 15:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

No problem. If you'd worked in a sandbox page to begin with, of course, this wouldn't be happening right now. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 15:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

You don't understand. There is no edit war on this page. Earlier I added the {{Contradict}} and {{cleanup-rewrite}} templates and they were removed. I did not intend to make a big deal out of this. Now you came and added a dispute template for me, thanks. --Anon84.x 16:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

What dispute tag are you talking about? There's no dispute tag. And you added those two tags you mentioned without sufficient support to place them there, which is why they were removed. You need to get a BROAD and SIGNIFICANT consensus before doing anything like that. Do you understand that point yet? DreamGuy 16:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

All I wanted to show is that the policy is disputed. A protection template also does the job --Anon84.x 16:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

DreamGuy, please read what the protected tag says. It is a dispute tag. We do not mind this specific tag since there was no intention to even start edit the page -- we just wanted to put a dispute tag! Also, to the contrary of what you may think, it is not a support for the present page! Just read it. --Lumiere 21:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

It is not true at all that there is only two people that thinks that this policy page needs rewrite. There is actually a significant support expressed there and there in comments in this talk page and no opposition to the proposal of a separation between the notion of neutral viewpoints and other notions such as the notion of non biased selection of viewpoints, which is the essential motivation for the rewrite. There are only people like DreamGuy who woke up when they saw the tag, and don't even discuss the proposal in the talk page. Also, like Anon84.x, I don't mind the new tag, the {{protected tag}} . We are working on the talk page and also in a kind of sandbox page (which Katefan0 say we don't have). The proposal for a rewrite comes from people that only want to improve the policy. We have strong points and the proposal seems to be supported by more and more wikipedians. --Lumiere 16:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Further information: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Draft (Anon84.x proposal)

-- Ec5618 17:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Poll: Why do you think the "Why should Wikipedia be unbiased?" section should be removed, abbreviated, or kept as it is:

• Delete - It is redundant, vague, and drawn-out. It decreases readability of the article, leads to parallel policy, and obfuscates the subject. Bensaccount 16:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Rewrite - The connection with other policies should be explicit and we must be vigilent that the text does not suggest any rule that is in contradiction with these other policies, which deal with selection. It is implicit in the more general proposal to separate the notion of neutral viewpoints from other notions, and I also support this general proposal. --Lumiere 17:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Rewrite with another title - This section's title and content, with relation to the previous sections, incorrectly suggests that eliminating narrative bias will make wikipedia unbiased. This is fundementally wrong and does not stand the test of reality. It is not the narrative neutrality (the neutral viewpoint) that makes wikipedia look neutral (balanced for many views), but the diversity of its contributors and their views. This section might be rewritten, however, to explain how the narrative neutrality helps contributors with conflicting viewpoints work more easily with each other (avoiding social conflict) and consequently achieve a higher level of diversity of views that will result in the article having a broader outlook over the subject. --Anon84.x 17:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Improve This is a key policy of Wikipedia, and despite lip service by everyone, it's clear that it faces much opposition in practice, seen the actions of people. Thus everything should be done to get the effective opposers on-board, and a specific motivation section not only stimulates good actions but also helps (or should help!) to hammer the spirit of the rules down. See also my comments below: I specifically disagree with Bensaccount on the subject of what he/she calls "a lot of abstract and vague irrelevant commentary". Harald88 10:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I do not necessarily disagree with the content here, I just think it is redundant to other sections on the page. Bensaccount 17:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it could be rewritten with a different title so that it does not conflict with selection of viewpoints and clearly only apply to narrative neutrality. As far as redundancy in itself is concerned, usually redundancy is only a problem when the connection with the remainder of the text is unclear. Otherwise, redundancy in a well structured text might just help. For example, if it is clearly announced as being redundant, people that need it will read it and others will be free to ignore it. If it is not clear whether or not it is new material, and the connection with the remainder of the text is so unclear that it may actually conflict with it, then there is a problem. --Lumiere 18:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok let me be more specific, the section repeats what has been said while providing no new relevant information. It does, however, includes a lot of abstract and vague irrelevant commentary. Ie: "Where there is disagreement about what is true, there's disagreement about what constitutes knowledge." That is why I want it deleted or abbreviated. Bensaccount 18:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree! I guess I was just saying that redundancy by itself is not bad. However, plain repetition in a vague context is not that good. Since you agree that it can be abbreviated (which will still keep it redundant), we might actually all agree. The key point as far as I am concerned is that we should be vigilant that it cannot be used to misinterpret the NPOV policy and its relationship with selection of viewpoints. --Lumiere 18:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course, I agree it is badly written. My criticism above was that it is not only badly written and vague, but also misleading and incorrect in a more fundemental level. --Anon84.x 18:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Well vague implies misleading, and if it is really vague how can we say that it is incorrect? One of my professors use to say (not about my work): "It is so bad that it cannot even be wrong!". --Lumiere 18:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

A second thought

Our critic of the ideologic or political part of the text is most likely biased by the fact that we feel that the connection of the entire policy with selective bias is not clear enough or other issues of this kind. It is not fundamentally wrong to have some inspiring components to a text. Inspiring expressions such as "liberating", "help the whole world", etc. might actually be welcome if we really like the policy. I know, it is kind of playing with our human nature, but we are human. The problem is that, if someone is not into it, then these expressions start to look weird. Perhaps, we should wait and see how we feel after we got a version that we like. Maybe we will then want to see these inspiring expressions. --Lumiere 20:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

It might be only my personal opinion, but I don't see a reason for such statements. If the policy was well written and effective, it would have been inspiring by iteself. --Anon84.x 20:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Lumiere: just a set of rules is less effective, no matter how well put, in stimulating people to follow them than the same set of rules with an inspiring motivation. See also my comment below about the usefulness of using different words to describe the same idea. Harald88 10:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

While we're at it, I'm creating a draft at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Draft (Rewrite proposal). I'll make a copy of the existing and policy and start to "savage it". --Anon84.x

It's great! I am not an admin, and I have removed the protected tag! (-: --Lumiere 20:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Really, I would like to focus my critic on the essential. I don't mind redundancy, and believe it can be useful. I don't mind inspiring expressions, and believe they can be useful. The only issue is there is a need for a better connection with other policies so that we do not confuse people about how Wikipedia policy deals with selective bias. --Lumiere 20:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Is this inspiring enough for you? :) --Anon84.x 09:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Here is a 'quote from above' ""Where there is disagreement about what is true, there's disagreement about what constitutes knowledge." That is why I want it deleted or abbreviated. Bensaccount 18:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)" From my perspective the equivalance of what is true, and knowledge is not even close. My understanding of knowledge is that it relates to the ability to use something and is not based on the correctness of what is being used. If this quote is from the article, which cannot be changed, and I am correct in my understanding of the above, then I do not know how it can continue unchanged, and have this site claim integrity with the implication that the word manifests.

As to wanting to "savage it" were you intending to do that, or to 'salvage' it. Kind of interesting. Seems sometimes one sets out to do one thing and ends up doing something different.Ken 01:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

As everyone has a personal idea about the meaning of words, the advantage of using different words is that it allows the reader (well, myself at least!) to understand a thought better than when only one word is used. For example, by using instead of only the word "true", also "knowledge", "fact" and "reliable information", it is (likely) for most people clearer in what way "true" is meant. The common meaning of true and knowledge is that of being a reliable fact -- which indeed may be used. Harald88 10:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Ken, do you have any idea what happened in your last edit. It was somekind of revert to a previous version. --Lumiere 01:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not certain what you are asking. What I did might have been confusing. I was addressing two different issues. I am not aware of any problem that I did not create with deliberatness. Some genius, eh.Ken 03:17, 29 January 2006 (UTC)