Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Archive 023

Can depend on context

Policy page says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Media

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You might also like this quotation from official policy:

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

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

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

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

Speaking of confusion, I confess I am confused on several points here. Ed refers to FM's "gang" (I'm wondering, how does one join? Do they wear black leather jackets, or colors?) as causing him to leave, yet it is clear it was the most recent Rfc[1] which motivated him, which consisted of 15 editors supporting the view that Ed was violating WP:POINT, WP:CON, WP:3RR and no one supporting Ed's version of events; or perhaps it was that coming on the heels of losing sysop status as a result of his repeated habit of misusing any permissions given him[2] - could it be that Ed is referring to Arbcom as FM's "gang"? Here I thought Bishonen held Arbcom in the palm of her hand[3], and it turns out it was FeloniousMonk. I must pay more attention to Wikipolitics. All of which musing has not addressed the main part of my confusion, which is, What does any of Ed's ad hom's against FM and his "gang" have to do with the Neutral Point of View policy page at all? KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

Wingnut writes:

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

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

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

NPOV paradox?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• It is inappropriate to remove blocks of well-referenced information which is germane to the subject from articles on the grounds that the information advances a point of view. Wikipedia's NPOV policy contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view. [[4]]

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

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

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

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

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

Indefinite article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An interesting point, and not one I believe I'm qualified to fully address. On the one hand, this is the English wikipedia, so our primary audience and demographic is the english speaking world. On the other hand, we aren't the whole world and shouldn't think as if we were. The third and perhaps most significant in normal editing is simply that we do not have the same level of easy-to-access information on the views of others. What does the average Indian think of the current Iraq War? How should I know? Where would I even find out? Has anyone actually bothered asking them? Damned if I know. (Or do they even care?) It may not even be possible to discover what the overall picture is for issues which have no impact on the lives of the rest of the world.

Ideally, we should at least attempt to represent the viewpoints of all significant groups, whether they speak english or not. But more important than that would be whether the information is available, verifiable, and citeable. I'd recommend reading the project essay on countering bias, where this is discussed at length. Basically, yes, this is a problem.--tjstrf 09:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree with your conclusion: make the attempt, but understand that you're limited by sources. Still, a strong feature of English, as a language and even as a set of cultures, is that it's more "melting pot" than most. For instance, in the Spanish-speaking country where I live, I'm often expected to translate my name into Spanish, whereas in the English-speaking community where I grew up, people are even expected to make limited attempts to pronounce non-English names correctly. So it should be easier to find English-language representation of a variety of viewpoints than you think. Also, non-English sources are allowed, just not preferred, and those of us who don't know what they say are expected to (provisionally) take other Wikipedian's words about it.

Generally, I'd say that the English-language prevalence, the global prevalence, and the specific-language dominance of a viewpoint should all be taken into account, when available; I'd personally weight these around 40-50-10 percent respectively, again, when available.

As a respectful aside: I think the example of Indians and the Iraq War is spectacularly poorly chosen, given both that India is a country where English is widely spoken and that the Iraq War is a global issue with a relative availability of English-language sources as to global opinions on it. And this goes to show the dangers of own-experience-centric thinking, and also the benfits of a global community in (hopefully, eventually) catching the errors of such thinking. --Homunq 10:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be correct for English wikipedia to represent the viewpoint of all of the people of the world; because most [actually, only a plurality] of the people can understand English -atleast as their second language. but what about the other languages? for example most of the people that understand Persian are muslims. So should the Islamic viewpoint have a more detailed description (depth of detail, quantity of text,...) in Persian wikipedia, as it is the majority viewpoint of people speaking Persian? How can we ask this from the Wikipedia for their official policies?Seraj 12:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

This is the English language Wikipedia. We do not govern other language Wikipedias, so we are not in a position to make such decisions. The Foundation does have an interest in having all of the language Wikipedias adhere to certain fundamental principles, but that is the Foundation's worry, and not ours here in the English language Wikipedia. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 15:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if I should ask it here or not; but where should I ask the question about the policies of other languages' wikipedia? There is no-one to answer my question in Persian Wikipedia. Isn't there anyone governing the other languages wikipedia? Does anyone define the Wikipedia policies? (or it's just the users?)--Seraj 12:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Please ask the Foundation here. It will probably be easiest for you to e-mail User:Jimbo Wales, although he gets a lot of e-mail, and may not respond right away. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 16:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Logging in the Foundation's site requires the user to be administrator in one of the wikimedia's projects(Wikipedia, Wiktionary,...). I'm not an admin. If you are an administrator, could you please ask my question there. Thank you Donald Albury.--Seraj 12:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an admin. Try leaving a message on User talk:Jimbo Wales. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 13:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposal: Template:POV-body

See: {{POV-body}}

Article headers can often be NPOVed comparatively easily, while it can sometimes take months to NPOV an entire article. When agreement on the header does occur, it seems to have utility for readers to know the header is not disputed. Any thoughts on Template:POV-body being placed after introductions, above articles' table of contents (meaning it still must be read before readers can reach the TOC)? --Nectar 08:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't we have already {{sectNPOV}}? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

British

I've changed "British" to "European Anglophone", as I think it is more accurate, and encompasses not only English, Welsh, Scottish, and British, but also Irish. - FrancisTyers · 13:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Is this an improvement? How many Englishmen deny that Britain is part of Europe? And some Continental anglophones speak American. Septentrionalis 16:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Just say no to NPOV

In case anyone else out there sometimes entertains questions and doubts about the concept of NPOV, which underlies many of the assumptions used by many wikipedians, here are some links to debates about NPOV and Wikipedia.

1. "In the continuing debate on the merits & problems of Wikipedia, David Shariatmadari writes in openDemocracy of a group project to fix the imbalance in its coverage reflecting "the concerns of your average white, male, 'technically inclined', developed world 20-40 year old": "Wikiproject: Countering Systemic Bias" http:// *** tinyurl.com/n9wu3 (Note: I added "***" since tinyurl is on Wiki-spam list. Sorry.)

2. "Robert McHenry, former editor-in-chief of Encyclopedia Britannica, counters that the real problem with Wikipedia is that it lacks planning & "a clear vision of what the goal is: http:// *** tinyurl.com/lnlef" (Note: I added "***" since tinyurl is on Wiki-spam list. Sorry.)

3. "Jaron Lanier writes critically of online collectivism in general & Wikipedia in particular in "Digital Maoism: The Hazards of the New Online Collectivism" [1] ,

4. "This triggered responses from various renowned digerati including Esther Dyson & Howard Rheingold [2] "

5. "Robert Y. Eng, Prof. of History/Dept. Chair, Univ. of Redlands Annotated Directory of Net Resources on E & SE Asia: [3]"

6. Roy Rosenzweig, "Can History be Open Source? Wikipedia and the Future of the Past" http://chnm.gmu.edu/resources/essays/d/42 (This article was originally published in The Journal of American History Volume 93, Number 1 (June, 2006): 117-46.

My point with all this is to simply introduce a process of discussion and debate that would be impossible to raise were we only to think within the assumptions of NPOV. Such discussions are meant to make Wikipedia a more informed, self-conscious, and intelligent area. The members of Wikipedia's production of knowledge are all members of specific cultures, geographic locations, historical times, genders, class, and race. All these, and more, affect the knowledge being produced in Wikipedia, and we would all be better of to recognize these affects rather than hiding them by waving the false flag of NPOV.

Wikipedia and many of its members contend that a neutral point of view (NPOV) is both desireable and possible. This contention guides most of the contributors and writers in Wikipedia. But not everyone currently participating in Wikipedia agrees with these fundamental assumptions.

For many people, the concept of NPOV is impossible and undesirable. The reasons underlying their position are many and varied. For some, NPOV is a myth that deludes both writers and readers. "No NPOV" thinkers may argue that it is better to state a point of view and be responsible for it rather than seeking to gain some sort of "objective" consensus which is destined to change later on. As an example, it has been argued that beauty is neither universal nor objective. Therefore, trying to impose, or at least create, a unified meaning for beauty is a hopeless task. Beauty does not derive from the object, but from the viewer. Thus, the number interpretations on what is beautiful depends on the number of viewers. To hold to the view that a "neutral" standard for beauty exists is seen as mistaken, and, such a standard would possibily inhibit the many voices and definitions that fall outside such a standard.

Certain issues (justice, beauty, criminality, among many others), states "No NPOV", need direct reference to individual and group contexts. Markers such as national identity, gender, age, geography, religion, etc. mean "neutrality" is never more than a localized, temporary consensus, and is not a universal and permanent form of knowlege. Meaning does not derive from an object, meaning is subjectively assigned to objects by people.

As stated by John Berger in Ways of Seeing, "out of true with the present…assumptions obscure the past. They mystify rather than clarify. The past is never there, waiting to be discovered, to be recognized for exactly what it is." The "No NPOV" view is that history is, however, waiting to be constructed for what people want it to be. [edit]

The "No NPOV" arguments raise direct concerns for the level and style of discourse and definition of "what is acceptable" with Wikipedia. For Wikipedians, and other people, who contend that people who adhere to No NPOV should think about removing themselves from Wikipedia since they do not share its "highest ideal," a contradiction appears. Wikipedia seems to justify its existance partly through the argument that a person need to agree any group's "highest ideal" inorder to speak. Wikipedians have often stated that the purpose of Wikipedia is to invite discussions. The asking for the departure of "No NPOV" adherents directly undermines that ideal. [edit]

Inherent problems in arriving at a NPOV

NPOV, takes as one of its premises that "neutral" means no side of an argument is omitted and all may be included. "No NPOV" questions such a stand by asking questions such as these: Who is to say when all arguments have been included? And if even one argument is excluded, is it still NPOV? How is everyone to decide what is to be included and what is to be excluded? Is not the very act of deciding the criteria for inclusion/exclusion "non-neutral"? How does a group go aboout deciding whether "neutrality" has been achieved and once achieved would future changes risk be "un-neutral"?? Are such decisions made using a simple majority? What if the majority states one article is NPOV one day, but either the group in the majority or the views of the same majority, shift?

For example, if the majority of a population were to democratically decide that the earth is flat, are "the world is round" arguments to be excluded since they are considered to be far fetched?

NPOV also seems to contend that the goal of each article is not to reflect a particular point of view on the topic, but to include various facts and opinions without showing bias towards or against any of them. "No NPOV" questions whether this is always possible. When mutually exclusive views are housed within the same "argument" the argument runs the risk of becoming self-contraditory. Or, the article may turn into little more than a collection of mutually contradicting assertions that generate more confusion than it does understanding.

As one example, some historians contend that on June 25, 1950, North Korean armed forces invaded South Korea, thereby begining between two separate nations a war intended to spread global communism. Yet, other historians (especially those in North Korea) may argue that the June 25, 1950 was an only extension of conflicts that had been going on for years earlier, that the war was a civil war between two domestic rivals in the same nation, and that UN forces were the foreign invaders who illegally sent troops into the Korean peninsula.

One example that already exists in Wikipedia is the discussion page for Dokdo. How is a single, coherent argument to emerge from there?

When multiple mutually-exclusive points of view are housed within the same article and no "resolution" is allowed, says the "No NPOV", then readers may very well be unable to acheive an understanding of the issues involved.

Moreover, No NPOV argues that the real process in Wikipedia is not simply about inclusion. It is equally (or more) about exclusion. "No NPOV" states this so as to bring attention to an important part of the process of debate within Wikipedia and to help foster even more careful discussions among members. No NPOV fully supports open debate and the exchange of views so as to enable members to participate, learn, teach, and change. Stated simply, "No NPOV" is less concerned with answers than it is with the process of questioning. Hongkyongnae 02:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

This is well said, and I agree with it. I think that the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ addresses this to a certain extent. If this response (that "neutral" is not a philosophical stance but a simple linguistic prescription) is not convincing to the majority of people who believe No NPOV, then I think the word "newcomers" should be removed from the "common objections and clarifications" section. (Anecdotally, I first read this section and agreed with it, then read the FAQ and felt that it was sufficiently addressed. But I am certain that there are some who hold No NPOV who would feel that the FAQ was invalid, for instance a strategic retreat not really reflected in the general NPOV righteousness here. I think that if there are such people who maintain a principled objection yet may continue to work with Wikipedia, the word "newcomers" violates NPOV by casting them as outsiders.) --Homunq 11:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

NPOV as represented by 2 definitions of "published information"

At WP:RS discussions, I'm afraid a problem has risen which examplifies the foundational misunderstanding that editors come away from this policy with. NPOV states that published information will be used to present a neutral point of view to the reader. There are two definitions of "publish" being kicked about at Reliable Sources, these conflicting points of view have been the source of many editing difficulties.

• one understanding of "publish" is that the word, used here in NPOV means, "published to a public" (any distributed information to any group of persons, private OR public). This is represented by User:Fahrenheit451 (and others).
• the other understanding of "publish" is that the word used here in NPOV means, "published to the public" (distributed to the broad, general public without regard to race, creed, job, membership or any other paramenter but being able to, possibly, pay for the information). I am in this group. The discussion has gone on for some time. It has created a clog in the normal flow of things which the discussion of WP:RS normally handles. As a possible solution, what do editors here think of including a clarification of "publish" in NPOV which NPOV means, to clarify its statements ? Terryeo 03:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Not all subarticles are POV forks

Wikipedia:Content forking says:

• Sometimes, when an article gets long, a section of the article is made into its own article, and the handling of the subject in the main article is condensed to a brief summary. This is completely normal Wikipedia procedure; the new article is sometimes called a "spinout" or "spinoff" of the main article, see for example wikipedia:summary style, which explains the technique.
• Even if the subject of the new article is controversial, this does not automatically make the new article a POV fork. However, the moved material must be replaced with an NPOV summary of that material. If it is not, then the "spinning out" is really a clear act of POV forking: a new article has been created so that the main article can favor some viewpoints over others.
• Summary style articles, with sub-articles giving greater detail, are not content forking, provided that all the sub-articles, and the summary conform to Neutral Point of View.

FM and I have been having a months-long disagreement over what constitutes a POV fork and whether either he or I have ever tried to make one. I say that splitting off a controversial aspect into an article of its own is not necessarily a POV fork, provided that both (1) the new article on the subtopic is neutral and (2) the parent article is given a neutral summary of the subtopic.

I'm not sure what FM's position on this is, but he has repeatedly accused me of "creating POV forks" (which would be against the policy I support!) but never explains how any of these 'forks' ever violated NPOV. --Uncle Ed 21:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

How about climate cycle as an example, then? William M. Connolley 21:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

There's been no shortage of explanations, only a shortage of listening. FeloniousMonk 21:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Summary articles, that is, articles that have been split of a main article due to article's size, are not POV forks if the main article contains a good summary of the split one. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Why does an article have to have a summary of a sub article, according to you? Many articles that I helped with, contain jsut sentences with links to the subjects; that's more efficient than to do the same work double. Harald88 18:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)