Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Archive 015

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Contents

Please stop all these proposals for reform

Please stop all these proposals for reform. The neutral point of view policy is a fundamental policy of Wikipedia. Yes, it is reasonable for newcomers to Wikipedia to have questions about it, and it is also fair to say that the comments on the project page are not as good as they could be in explaining to newcomers what the policy is, but that does not make it reasonable for you to make fundamental changes to it. Lumiere, Anon 84 and Sonny jim are all inexperienced editors (in some cases having no real experience of editing outside of this page). It is right for you to be curious, and good that you are willing to help to improve things - but changing the wording of our foremost content policy is not a good idea for newcomers. Please create content - write on subjects that interest you - and once you've gained experience of how we work, then by all means consider how you can improve the wording of our policies.

I have archived all the previous discussions - please leave them there. Try out our articles. Improve them. Write new ones of your own. Enjoy Wikipedia! jguk 18:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that there are proposals for reform, but for clarification; and that can't be a bad thing. If a fundamental policy is misunderstood by newcomers, then it definitely needs clarification. --Iantresman 20:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I am mainly interested in articles that could be controversial. I am not controversial myself, but I am interested in subject that push the frontiers ahead, and tdihese are always controversial. I am not interested in working on these articles without clear policies. Working on the policies would have to be the first step for me. I have seen enough what happens in controversial articles to know how to contribute to these policies. Your request is dismissed. Instead explain what is so inexperienced in my proposal. This will be more to the point. Moreover, we will have to put back some sections that you archived but are crucial to the understanding of the current issue. It is good that newcomers bring new ideas and I understand that it may seem to create disorder, but I read somewhere in the policies or guidelines that editors should consider that such apparent disorder can actually be positive and very healthy. --Lumière 18:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I am unable to control myself. Please ask an admin to protect this page. --Anon84.x 18:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

That's a good one! --Lumière 18:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Folks, there are some niggles with NPOV-as-written you know. At least give people a chance to look into it, but DO please keep an eye on the process, lest things go off the rails. Kim Bruning 19:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

M./Mme./Mlle. (I apologize, I do not know which) Lumière, I believe that you have a good point. It would seem to my eyes that all of these ideas for reform should not be banned, persay. In my opinion, I think that you should allow people to say their ideas for reform, and at least give them a gander (hell, there may be good ideas there!) I myself do not have any ideas for reform, but I would like to stand up for being able to say them.

In another point of view, it would be wise to watch what you propose for potential edits; there are some things that probably won't happen, mais non?

But, again, proposals for reform are "positive and very healthy".

Sonny Jim news/poll 18:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I suggest that User:Jguk's advice on this subject should be taken to heart. Jkelly 20:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I suggest that people also take to heart that we are sincerely interested in Wikipedia. As we explained above, it came to be a natural first step that we first clarify the policies. Jguk's advice basically means that we will not be able to work on Wikipedia, not by resentments or anything like that, but just because we sincerely do not see how we can work on the type of articles that interest us if the policies aren't clear enough. --Lumière 21:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it is necessary to prevent proposals for reform, but I think demonstrating a willingness to work on the project, before making such proposals, is a very good suggestion. Some possible ways for someone interested in controversial subjects to demonstrate such a willingess include, IMO:

  • Going to some controversial article, picking 6 facts (trying to balance them between whatever "sides" there may be), and resarching and citing (on the talk page) sources for those facts.
  • Going to some controversial article, reading over the voluminous talk page archives, and adding summaries of them to the list of archives on the main talk page, allowing people to find old discussions more easily.
  • Finding a controversial topic that is not yet covered in Wikipedia, and writing a good stub on it, or expanding a existing stub.
  • Looking through the list of uncatagorized articles, and catagorizing 20 controversial ones into the proper categories, so interested editors can take a look at them.
  • Reading over RfAr Evidence pages (effectivly all Arbitration cases are controversial), and summarizing the evidence presented.

Any of these actions, if repeated a few dozen times, would throughly demonstrate a willingness to work on the project. If anyone suggesting proposals here already has done these things, then I'm not talking to you - thanks for your work! If you are suggesting proposals, and have not done these things, I gently suggest that you would meet with more success if you did. JesseW, the juggling janitor 02:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

My interest is sincere but limited to one kind of actions: removing bad insinuations and not well supported and unfair criticisms about any topic. The topic per se need not be controversial. It only becomes controversial in Wikipedia because of these criticisms. I am only concerned by the fact that, in my opinion, Wikipedia is a platform that allows unfair and not well supported criticisms, and also includes plenty of bad insinuations. For many topics, readers will be better informed about the topic if the topic was deleted from Wikipedia. I really mean it, as strong a statement as it may seem. Unfortunately, people that care about the topic don't even have the power to remove it from Wikipedia. I know enough about what happens when you try to discuss with editors that devote their life to discredit some category of topics, if not a given topic, to do better than continue to discuss with them without clear policies. My line of actions is very simple. I want to first improve the clarity of policies in a very simple way: just add more references between policies and avoid conflicts. It is a simple thing. If people were a little bit open, it would not even take much time. Then, I will be better equipped to discuss and explain why some unfair criticisms or bad insinuations should be removed. --Lumière 15:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

If Wikipedia can become a place reasonably free from this polution (bad insinuations, etc.), perhaps I might become interested in other forms of contributions, but not before. Sincerely, with the current level that Wikipedia has, I will not even be proud to say that I have contributed to it. --Lumière 16:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Poll: Non-NPOV articles, new namespace

I know it seems like a stretch (okay, a really BIG stretch), but who thinks it would be interesting if they could write articles with opinions, but under a new namespace (like opinion)?

NOTE: I don't think that namespace is the right word.

This is also the same poll that is on my page User:Sonny jim/Poll

Sonny Jim news/poll 19:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

  • How would disagreements about content be resolved? Kappa 19:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
You have a good point Kappa. If there were opinion pages, then obviously there would be conflicts of opinion within Wikipedia...I never thought of that... You would have to have some sort of moderation, but if there was, then that would mean that the moderators would be bioused, too...
BLOODY HELL!

Sonny Jim news/poll 19:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Sonny jim - if you want opinion pieces, you may be interested in the Wikipedia fork, Wikinfo. It's run by Fred Bauder, one of the Arbitrators, and has been going a while. Wikipedia has declared itself firmly against this approach, and people will not be receptive to such a proposed change (remember Jimbo has declared the "neutral point of view" policy as being absolute and non-negotiable, jguk 20:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

You may also be interested in Everything2. Jkelly 20:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing that up for me. I'm new :(.

Sonny Jim news/poll

On the other hand, the proposal is not at all a big modification to the policies, but in fact just a proposal for a better connection amongst them. Therefore, I don't see that I should start to work on a different encyclopedia. OTOH, I would like to acknowledge that perhaps I (and perhaps others with me) am responsible for a big confusion about the proposal. At some point, I suggested to put a dispute tag. I went along with others in using a new terminology, which was not really needed. In this way, the overall impression is that perhaps we want to completely change the policy. It is not the case at all. I think that the whole thing is just a big misunderstanding. The proposal is very simple: just add references to other policies as needed for clarification and avoid conflict amongst the policies. That's all. --Lumière 20:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Now that sounds good to me, and no doubt everyone will agree! :-) Harald88 21:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
So, perhaps we should just proceed. --Lumière 21:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
You can't proceed as you need a developer to set up a new namespace. And no, it is not acceptable to proceed. A new namespace for "Opinion" is entirely contrary to Wikipedia's longest-standing fundamental policy on content, jguk 21:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
My friend, you should take the time to read more than just the title of the section. You seem to be a title guy! The last few paragraphs were not at all about a new namespace. --Lumière 22:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Of course I'm a title guy. Most policies don't have any real meaning (in real-life editing) that goes beyond their title:) jguk 10:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Good point! OTOH, we don't help the situation if we only improve their title! --Lumière 14:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The following live discussion was archived but looks important to me (who archived just started discussions?) Harald88 21:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. As the person who added that section, I agree, it is certainly still current. JesseW, the juggling janitor 02:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Changes since March 2005

I went through the diff (actually, various sectional diffs, made with ediff) between the current version and the one from March 2005 (specifically, this version). There have been a number of important changes, which I'd like to alert people to.

  • Various new sections have been added:
    • History of NPOV - Pointers to old forms of the policy. Excellent historical work,, IMO.
      I got some help from Larry Sanger and the village pump people with this. The point was to replace the so called "original formulation" with the actual history. Bensaccount 16:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
      Great; that makes sense to me, I support this having been done. Anyone oppose this, please speak up... JesseW, the juggling janitor 04:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
    • The neutral point of view - Seems to basically be part of the introduction, for which see below.
      The introduction was combined with the "What is the neutral point of view" section.Bensaccount 16:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Bias - Examples of types of bias, many article-space links. Wholly new - where was the discussion on this?
      Someone else created the bias section, I made it more comprehensive. Bensaccount 16:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
      Ok. I think we should have a bit more discussion on this, I've started a topic below. JesseW, the juggling janitor 04:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
    • POV forks - Seems to be a summary section of another page, Wikipedia:Content forking - Discussion on this?
    • Rewording a potentially biased statement - Seems to be based on old material, just moved around and rephrased - Discussion?
  • Various sections have been significantly changed:
    • The introduction section(s) - considerable rephrasing, moving things around, etc. Considerably more discussion is needed on this.
      See above. Bensaccount 16:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Why should Wikipedia be unbiased? - A sentence has been added to the end of this section: "Neutrality has long been, and will always be, the only way Wikipedia can remain an unbiased source of information for the whole world." Discussion?
      I disagree with this sentence. Bensaccount 16:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
      I also feel that it is unnecessary;It was added by an IP, with no edit summary. I will remove it; if someone supports it, feel free to propose it's addition on talk. JesseW, the juggling janitor 04:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
    • The vital component: good research - Notable rephrasing, introduction of new material - discussion needed.
    • There's no such thing as objectivity - Seems to have been heavily cut. Should this be reverted?
      It was too-long winded. This version gives the same information and addresses the objection quickly and finitely. Bensaccount 16:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
      I'll look at what exactly was cut and report below. JesseW, the juggling janitor 04:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Morally offensive views - Notable rephrasing, introduction of new material - discussion needed.
  • Some sections have been removed:
    • Parts of the introduction, i.e. Introduction, The basic concept of neutrality, and the long quote from Jimbo, The original formulation of NPOV. Some of these may have been rephrased into the new introduction section(s), but discussion is certainly needed.
      See above. Bensaccount 16:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
    • What is the neutral point of view? - Was turned into the Undue Weight section, but the top three paragraphs were removed. Should this be reverted, or were they rephrased elsewhere?
      See above. Bensaccount 16:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
      So, you are saying that the top 3 paras were rephrased into the introduction? JesseW, the juggling janitor 04:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
    • A consequence: writing for the enemy - Was removed in full - discussion?
      The section was misleading. Other editors or other POVs are not "the enemy". The section was not missed. Bensaccount 16:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
      Was there a talk page discussion on this? I've opened one below, in any case. JesseW, the juggling janitor 04:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I assume many of these things were discussed somewhere in the archives of this talk page; help finding and linking to the discussions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! JesseW, the juggling janitor 13:00, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Bias section

Seems to have been originally broken out into a seperate section by SlimVirgin in this edit. Was re-written by Bensaccount as of this edit into it's current state. No talk page discussion that I am aware of. JesseW, the juggling janitor 04:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

There's no such thing as objectivity section

Heavily cut by Bensaccount.

Parts of the old version I think should be re-inserted, and why:

  1. Insert "Everybody with any philosophical sophistication knows that. So how can we take the "neutrality" policy seriously? Neutrality, lack of bias, isn't possible."
    All the other objections have a italized statement of the objection, this should have one too.
  2. Replace "rather that where bias can be detected, it can also be eliminated." with "to characterize disputes rather than engage in them."
    That is the standard phrsing of the policy. We are re-stating the policy there, we should use the standard phrasing.
  3. The whole rest of the old version.
    I'm not as sure about this one as I am about the other two. I happen to like this answer, and feel it is a nice response to post-modern or philosopical critics of Wikipedia. However, it probably should go into Common Criticisms, or Replies to our critics, rather than the NPOV policy, as I can't see that it particularly helps to develop or explain the policy itself. So, make this proposal to re-insert the old text into one of the two pages mentioned above. JesseW, the juggling janitor 04:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

A consequence: writing for the enemy section

Removed by Bensaccount, saying it was: "misleading. Other editors or other POVs are not "the enemy". The section was not missed."

I agree that the title was misleading, but I think there were some good pieces that should be restored. I think the last part of it: "The other side might very well find your attempts to characterize their views substandard, but it's the thought that counts. In resolving disputes over neutrality issues, it's far better that we acknowledge that all sides must be presented fairly, and make at least a college try at presenting the other sides fairly. That will be appreciated much more than not trying at all." and " "Writing for the enemy" might make it seem as if we were adding deliberately flawed arguments to Wikipedia, which would be a very strange thing to do. But it's better to view this (otherwise puzzling) behavior as adding the best (published) arguments of the opposition, citing some prominent person who has actually made the argument in the form in which you present it, and stating them as sympathetically as possible. Academics, e.g., philosophers, do this all the time. Always cite your sources, and make sure your sources are reputable, and you won't go far wrong." are both good, and should be re-inserted, somewhere. I will go into more detail if requested. JesseW, the juggling janitor 04:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

"Writing for the enemy" is a historical phrase used wrt NPOV, so please do reference it, at the very least. Kim Bruning 16:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
There is still a "writing for the enemy" section under common objections. If we could get this page unprotected I could try and merge what you want restored into this section. Bensaccount 16:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
The page is now unprotected; please go ahead! JesseW, the juggling janitor 04:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

A simple proposal for a clearer formulation and a better connection with other policies

The proposal is not at all a big modification to the policies, but in fact just a proposal for a better connection amongst them. Therefore, I don't see that I should start to work on a different encyclopedia. OTOH, I would like to acknowledge that perhaps I (and perhaps others with me) am responsible for a big confusion about the proposal. At some point, I suggested to put a dispute tag. I went along with others in using a new terminology, which was not really needed. In this way, the overall impression is that perhaps we want to completely change the policy. It is not the case at all. I think that the whole thing is just a big misunderstanding. The proposal is very simple: just add references to other policies as needed for clarification and avoid conflict amongst the policies. That's all. --Lumière 20:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Now that sounds good to me, and no doubt everyone will agree! :-) Harald88 21:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
So, perhaps we should just proceed. --Lumière 21:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Disputes over how established a view is

The inclusion of a view that is held only by a tiny minority may constitute original research because there may be a lack of sufficiently credible, third-party, published sources to back it up.

From a mailing list post by Jimbo Wales, Wikipedia's founder:

  • If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
  • If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
  • If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view for more detailed information.

The above is a section taken from WP:No original research. In our policy, in the corresponding section "Undue weight", it is clear that the purpose of these three points is not selection of views, but only to distinguish views that are held by a significant minority from views that are held by a majority, the other views that are held by a tiny minority having only place in special ancillary articles. The purpose is to balance the space attributed to each view in a given article. It is important that we do not interpret any of these three points as a sufficient criteria for inclusion because this would take these points out of context and bring them in direct conflict with the requirement for a reputable publisher of WP:No Original nResearch and WP: Verifiability. Therefore, to address this specific issue, it is proposed to add in our corresponding section "Undue weight" one or two statements that remind the readers that No Original Research and the associated requirement for a reputable publisher is policy and add a reference to WP:NOR. This is an example of what I mean by adding brief references to other policies and avoiding conflicts between policies. In this case, this is particularly important since they refer to us. --Lumière 01:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
So you just want to add a sentence or two to "Undue weight"? Bensaccount 16:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
This is the above proposal yes. Of course, there will be similar proposals for some other sections that might also be misinterpreted in a way that conflicts with other policies. I modified the wording to avoid a confusion. --Lumière 16:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Well what exactly is the statement you want to include. Bensaccount 16:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
We can change the exact formulation, but something like "This section is about a fair representation of each acceptable viewpoint. To be acceptable for inclusion a viewpoint must respect all other requirements of the neutral point of view policy and the requirements of the no original research and verifiability policies.
OK. I support adding the statement just above to the section on Undue Weight. It seems somewhat redundant to me, but I don't see that it is harmful, so it's fine by me. JesseW, the juggling janitor 18:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Instead of saying "This section is about a fair representation of each acceptable viewpoint" why not just change the section's title to something descrtiptive like "Fairly representing views? Bensaccount 19:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
The acceptable in "of each acceptable viewpoint" is important. --Lumière 23:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

This is a non problem. It is already clear each of the major content policies are in force and you can't use an unusual understanding of one to violate another. What the policies allow is at the intersection of each of them, which should be obvious from them all being in force. That being said, minor changes to make that even clearer are not a big problem, and neither is pointing out any actually conflicting statements in policies (though there aren't really any major problems on that front). And since I can see no good evidence for there being a dispute I'm going to unprotect the page. Keep in mind that this is a bedrock principle, so significant changes to it must be backed by a community wide consensus. Just because one or even a few editors feel they disagree with it does not make a valid dispute given the level of consensus that this policy has. Continuing to re-add a dispute template is disruptive and instead consensus should be gathered for any desired changes. - Taxman Talk 22:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Taxman, I disagree with your vague definition of consensus. It seems so much like a standard non-NPOV argument: "Every one knows ..." "The overall consensus is ...". There is only one definition of consensus in Wikipedia and it is the consensus amongst the active editors. Of course, anyone is free to call a Rfc etc. If really there are many wikipedians interested in the issue, they will come and be part of these active editors. There is no need for a special rule that is only a disguised non-NPOV argument. The standard rule is already very very efficient, perhaps too efficient, to preserve the statue quo. --Lumière 23:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

"There is only one definition of consensus in Wikipedia and it is the consensus amongst the active editors." That might wash over at Corn, but not on this bedrock policy. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 23:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. It is impossible to prove that we have the consensus of the entire wikipedian community. You can only see that you have the consensus amongst those who participate in the discussion. With this community wide concensus requirement, all edits that were done thus far were not acceptable because not known to have the required concensus. Please revise your position. This is a call to common sense. What is going on here? --Lumière 23:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

To me, common sense says new users (or anyone, really) shouldn't tinker with THE foundation upon which Wikipedia functions, particularly in the absence of a broad consensus. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 23:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
It seems that by "tinker" you mean edit. You are wrong, the foundation upon which Wikipedia functions is: anyone can edit. You are attempting to change this or make exceptions to it. Bensaccount 00:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Articles, yes. Not THE policy upon which Wikipedia functions. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 00:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
This is really simple Lumiere, and it seems you simply don't have enough experience editing to have the needed context. Perhaps your misunderstanding is where I said significant change. To enact a significant change in meaning to a bedrock principal, you would have to make an offical proposal. That would include a clearly worded proposal and posting a link to it in all of the standard places where proposals are discussed. Even that is not recommended in the case of this policy. You appear to not reallize how long and how broad the consensus for this policy is. That's fine, but proposing changes to something you don't understand is just wasted time for everyone. Pointing out areas that need tweaks for clarity is different of course. - Taxman Talk 00:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh! You are saying that "community wide consensus" means posting a link to a proposal in all standard places etc. I already agreed that it seems reasonable to require the opinions of others via Rfc etc. when we check the consensus. This is consistent with the definition of consensus in Wikipedia, which is a consensus amongst those who participate -- it cannot be anything else. So the misunderstanding is just that you did not expand my "etc." Also, I told you that "community wide consensus" was vague, but I admit that I should have asked for a definition instead of just saying that it was vague and then reject your request on that basis. From my examples, it should have been clear that my problem was that there was no precise definition of who are the persons involved in that concensus. It would have been so simple just to see that definition so that we can all appreciate that we were actually in agreement. I really like the idea that we work to have a "community wide consensus" on this policy. There is no other way it should be! --Lumière 00:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Taxmam, I just realized that you immediatly answered my issue with regard to the meaning of "community wide consensus" and it was only Katefan0 that interfered in between. So, the above should not have been addressed to you. The only thing I feel about you is that you consider that I have less right to edit and propose improvements because I have been around for less time. I am acting as if it was not the case. It just turns out that naturally I never personally proposed any significant change to any policy, but it is not because I feel that I have no right to do so. I hope it is not a problem with you. --Lumière 05:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me, I guess I'm "interfering" again. Your reading is, once again, incorrect. Simply posting notice is not adequate. It is the minimum of what must be performed in terms of due diligence. The community must be informed, and then they must approve the proposed changes by a wide consensus margin. Anything less than that and the proposals are, for all intents and purposes, moot. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 06:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
In french "interférer" does not attribute a bad intention, but do refer to a disruptive effect. For example, an official legislature can be said to "interférer" with an administrative procedure. I do think that you have "interféré". Now, back to the issue of "community wide consensus", I think I understood that correctly. I thought I was very clear that I agree with the "community wide consensus" requirement as defined by Taxman, which obviously is more than just a posting, but also includes a consensus. I don't know what it is exactly that I wrote that you misinterpreted (except perhaps that you failed again to expand an "etc."), but it is just a misinterpretation. I propose that we stop this debate. --Lumière 13:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

POV information suppression

For some time now (first discussed here in November) we have a useful list with bad examples of how articles can be biased due to selective "omissions".

However, while it was first planned to be just a few clarifying sentences on the NPOV page, it has been expanded on and is now parked away for discussion "to make it policy" - something that doesn't make sense to me (and which caused negative comments). It already is the most basic policy of Wikipedia to fairly represent notable information and opinions, surely we don't need new policy on that!

Instead, I propose to spin it off to the NPOV_tutorial, where more good and bad examples about NPOV are given. Harald88 14:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The obvious concern is that a tutorial does not seem a valid reference when you want to refer to the policy in a dispute. If the purpose of these examples (see Information suppression ) is to help use the policy to resolve a dispute, to move them in the tutorial will seriously reduce their usefulness. To the contrary, IMO, we should make sure that there is a "community wide consensus" on these examples so that they can be seriously used to resolve a dispute. An alternative is to rise the level of the entire tutorial so that it reflects a "community wide consensus" and essentially gains the authority of a policy, but it will take time. It is easier to focus on these examples. This comment is not a support for these specific examples. It only supports the general principle that examples are not going to be useful to resolve disputes if they are not part of a "community wide consensus." Please do not attack my opinion on the basis that I have been around for two months only. I believe that Wikipedia is welcoming new comers at every level. --Lumière 15:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Just noticed that Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Examples is a proposal that, if accepted, will have the status of a policy or guideline. I hope it will have the status of policy. --Lumière 16:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Lumiere, you may be new here, but can you tell me what the difference is between policy and guideline, in practice?
I don't see how we can call examples "policy"; however, they are useful to help enforcing the policy that articles must be unbiased, which certainly means (who stressed that point recently?) not only in choice of phrasing but also in choice of content.
Thus, verifiable cited information that is notable must not be suppressed or represented in a non-neutral manner. Such a phrase should perhaps be added to this NPOV policy article, with a link to the examples. The problem now is that the article still neglects this aspect of NPOV.
This has also been recently brought up by anon84 ("selective bias"); likely Anon didn't know that we had already agreed on mentioning this. But still no explanation of that appears in the article space, which should be corrected ASAP, for what's in fact half of the policy isn't really explained -- this is certainly more important than items like "POV forks"!
At least the summary still states clearly that:
"Wikipedia policy is that all articles should be written from a neutral point of view, representing all views with significant support fairly and without bias."
The point is to explain that "writing fairly and without bias" implies much more than only phrasing, it's also about selection of content as well as way of presentation.
The only hazy point is what "significant" means, while other places use "notable". That's important for drawing the line somewhere so that not too many junk ideas seep through but also not too many valuable opinions are omitted. But that's the subject of other discussions. Harald88 18:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

PS I regard the NPOV_tutorial as a guideline; while hardly anyone will look at the specific NPOV examples, I'm afraid. Harald88 18:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Harald88, the practical difference that I see between a guideline and a policy is that I already heard the argument "this is only a guideline, not policy". I agree that the examples are not policy in themselve, but they are a part that is necessary for their correct interpretation. Whether we try to communicate a policy or something else, a mathematical theory, etc., abstract concepts should always go together with examples. Editors should feel that they can refer to these examples with authority. In particular, the interpretation of the policy that is expressed in these examples should have a "community wide consensus." Also, the text of the policy should refer to these examples whenever needed. In this way, these examples will not be overlooked and they will gain authority. Perhaps, they should not be declared policy. Perhaps, we can declare them "policy examples" with some official header similar to the one that declares a policy a policy. What I meant is that I hope that they will not be declared only guidelines. --Lumière 19:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Point by point

Thus, verifiable cited information that is notable must not be suppressed or represented in a non-neutral manner. Such a phrase should perhaps be added to this NPOV policy article, with a link to the examples. The problem now is that the article still neglects this aspect of NPOV.
Yes, I agree. Lumière 20:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
This has also been recently brought up by anon84 ("selective bias"); likely Anon didn't know that we had already agreed on mentioning this. But still no explanation of that appears in the article space, which should be corrected ASAP, for what's in fact half of the policy isn't really explained -- this is certainly more important than items like "POV forks"!
Yes, I agree. However, I think that it just means that we need to make sure that every section is well connected to the whole policy and other policies. The only thing that is missing, IMO, is proper connection between the different parts and some wholeness. Also, remove all potential conflicts. People are right when they say that every thing is there. Lumière 20:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
At least the summary still states clearly that:
"Wikipedia policy is that all articles should be written from a neutral point of view, representing all views with significant support fairly and without bias."
Where is this sentence in the policy? It should be there in the lead section. The part that is important is "with significant support", which IMO should in addition refer to the other policies. Lumière 20:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
The point is to explain that "writing fairly and without bias" implies much more than only phrasing, it's also about selection of content as well as way of presentation.
Again, if we make sure that there is a good connection between the different parts and with other policies, this problem would be taken care of. (see below for more) Lumière 20:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
The only hazy point is what "significant" means, while other places use "notable". That's important for drawing the line somewhere so that not too many junk ideas seep through but also not too many valuable opinions are omitted. But that's the subject of other discussions. Harald88 18:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
This is the point. Significant or notable in the sense of acceptable is defined in the other policies. In particular, no original research filters for content that does not reflect what is already published in reputable source. There is nothing else we can do to guarantee neutrality in the selection process. (I mean we can help improve these other policies, but we should not deal with the selection process as part of the neutral point of view policy.) So, other policies filter the content (this includes any presentation that communicates a content that is not really supported in reputable source) and the neutral point of view policy takes care of (1) the style and (2) fair representation of the viewpoints that are acceptable in accordance with the other policies. The point (2) is discussed in the section "Undue Weight". We should always refer to the other policies for the notion of acceptability, which is different from (1) a neutral point of view style and (2) fair representatiom (of acceptable content). Lumière 20:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

PS I regard the NPOV_tutorial as a guideline; while hardly anyone will look at the specific NPOV examples, I'm afraid. Harald88 18:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

If we refer to the examples in the policy and if these examples receive the official status of "Policy examples" or something like that, they will not be overlooked. Lumière 20:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

retake

OK -- but first of all, I don't think that that sign about "policy proposal" on the NPOV specific examples page means anything: it was added without discussion by someone in reaction to my suggestion to add the POV suppression examples to the NPOV tuturial!. Thus I will take that sign away.

To get back to my point (I will split it up):

- those guideline examples have been parked away for months, and few people noticed them at all; while a few corresponding policy explanation lines are still lacking; - meanwhile this NPOV article got a number of less relevant additions without a similar procedure (or, where are the coresponding opinion poll pages?).

In short, this essential part of NPOV still isn't mentioned at all; IMO, the recently added Bias and POV forking chapters may go to the NPOV tutorial, and this article should focus on the main issues.

Below is, slightly adjusted, the text of NPOVenforcer which wasn't so bad but which first was tranfered to this Talk page and extended etc. etc., so that still nothing on this problem can be found in the article space, eventhough you and others independently brought up this same missing issue.

"POV selective fact suppression"
"In wikipedia, a common form of violating the strict wikipedia NPOV policy is to selectively remove specific facts from an article so as to give a false impression of "truth"."
"To illustrate how POV selective fact suppression works:
"Suppose that there is belief A and belief B. Some evidence favors belief A and other evidence favors belief B.
The NPOV policy is to include all relevant facts in an article. In POV selective fact suppression, evidence that supports one or the other beliefs is deleted by the opposition.
"An other variant of this behavior is to delete the details of why one's own evidence favors one's own position, when those details reveal that the evidence is in fact very weak.
"Yet an other variant of this behavior is to delete any mention altogether of specific beliefs or ideals that oppose one's own, when those opposing beliefs or ideals are highly credible, yet other opposing beliefs or ideals have little credibility and thus make one's own beliefs or ideals look good by comparison."

It is high time to insert a statement like the one in italics in the article space - or, my suggestion, with a retake of the summary phrase:

Wikipedia policy is that all articles should be written from a neutral point of view, representing all views with significant support fairly and without bias. Thus it is not allowed to suppress notable, verifiable information related to a significant view if such suppression considerably biases the article; similarly, articles may not be biased by presenting information in an unfair manner.

Later we can link to the examples; I disagree that we only need to connect the different point better. NPOV boils down to an interdiction of thought manipulation together with explanations. Please read the policy again, and tell me what percentage is about phrasing, what percentage about content selection, and what percentage about content presentation. In fact, if articles are only corrected by more neutral sounding phrasing, they can be worse than not improved at all: they may give a false impression of being NPOV.

PS. about the excellent summarizing policy sentence: it's complete up in the header. As you missed it, probably because of the similar polcy block just above it, we should put that text box lower, and repeat that sentence in the body of the text.Harald88 22:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Harald88, The sentence that I see in the policy is
"...must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly and without bias". There is no mention that the views must be sufficiently supported, so it is not as good. In fact, I think a good sentence should refer to the other policies that define "sufficiently supported", or at the least another sentence should make the link with other policies.
Yes you are right that the policy is mostly about the narrative aspect. Except for the section "Undue weight", there is not much about the fair representation of the selected viewpoints. There is nothing about how to select these viewpoints properly. Note that in a way the narrative constraint of the NPOV policy is a criteria to select or reject a viewpoint -- we can say that we reject the viewpoints that are not presented in the proper style, but here for simplicity what I call "selection" is what is done with the other policies.
The fact that most of the policy is about the narrative aspect is exactly why I felt that the wholething was confusing. So, I am sympathetical to your point. However, if you understand the situation as I understand it now, there is some logic about the fact that there is nothing about how to select viewpoints properly: this must be taken care by the other policies. The fact that fair representation (after the selection) is essentially only discussed in the section "Undue weight" is also reasonable because there is not much to say about it, but I might be wrong here. So, I do believe that most of the issue will be taken care of with a proper connection of each section with the whole policy and other policies.
With regard to positive suppression of facts, my understanding is that this is taken care by the understanding that the NPOV policy cannot be used to suppress any fact or content, but can only require a neutral style. Period. So, every viewpoint or content that is acceptable in accordance with the no original research and verifiability policies and is presented in the proper style cannot be suppressed. I think that we should have such a sentence. This is an example of what I mean by a proper reference to other policies.
To answer your main concern, I also agree that it is useful to have concrete examples of incorrect attempt to suppress information with POV arguments, even if the basic rule is very simple: no suppression at all, except those that are justified by an improper presentation of the viewpoint or by the no original research and verifiability policies. I agree with anything that can help, especially examples. --Lumière 03:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
OK, so we agree that the current presentation of the NPOV policy is incomplete, as well as that only one sentence needs to be added with proper links; and that this really needs to be done; and also how it should be phrased, roughly. I'll wait for comments from others now.
BTW, I simply copy-pasted that summary sentence from the article page; thus I don't understand what happened! Harald88 08:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Unless you were only referring to an explanation of no suppression of facts in the policy, I do not think that only one sentence is enough. This would go too much in the opposite direction, We do not need a complete rewrite, but first we must also check carefully that there is no potential conflicting interpretation and second, for every part of the policy, we should make sure that the readers see where this part is situated with respect to the other parts. It is always useful to place a section in its context. None of the additions or modifications that are necessary to achieve this goal should be problematic: they will only explain what we already understand, but is not explicitly said in the current formulation. We already discussed such a modification (addition of two sentences) for the section "Undue weight" (see above), and it was not problematic at all. I think such modifications will be very useful for those who just start to learn the policies. I have the impression that some underestimate how confusing it can be at first to go through these policies. --Lumière 12:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Also, in addition to the above, I recall that you also suggested that we add links to the examples. I think we should do that as much as needed. I know that the formulation is essentially complete as it is now, but it does not mean that examples are not important. To the contrary, it is necessary IMO to see how the abstract formulation connects with concrete examples. IMO, we never really understand any material until after we can connect it with a variety of concrete examples. It is so often the case that one has the impression to understand, but then examples bring new aspects or connections that were not considered in the original understanding. --Lumière 12:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Those who like the statu quo for the policy should agree because it is like reenforcing the policy as when you add a few more diagonal timbers in a construction. --Lumière 12:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Lumiere and Herald88, are you trying to define what exactly is meant by "fairly representing views"? If so, rewrite the appropriate section, not the general statement of the policy. After the rewrite we can address the changes and revert or modify as appropriate. Bensaccount 16:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Bensaccount, that's a good idea, although usually we first discuss proposed additions or modifications before implementing them. Thus I propose to wait a few days for more reactions, and meanwhile we can do some tweeking of the phrasing. BTW, I like your last title change which covers not only "undue weight" but also unfair editing, and thus avoids the need for adding a separate chapter. Harald88 17:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't necessarily mean you should edit the article, although if you do it is easy enough to revert. You could make a section on this page, or do the rewrite wherever. Bensaccount 17:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Bensaccount, I have no personal opinion on how we should explain what is a fair representation of the views in the section formerly known as "Undue weight". I think that the use of the concepts of minority with prominent adherants and majority with standard text references is perhaps the best that can be done. The only concern that I have is that, even if this approach is well explained, it could be misinterpreted to conflict with other policies. This issue can reasonably be adressed by adding the two sentences that I proposed before. These two sentences do not attempt to better explain the section. They only situate the section in its context, which is very useful.
I also think that, in addition, the lead section should be clear about the connection between the NPOV policy and other policies. In particular, it should be clear in the lead section that the NPOV policy only considers well supported views as defined in other policies. Even if it is to going to be said later, we should be clear about it right from the start in the lead section. This situates the NPOV policy in its context, which is very useful. --Lumière 17:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Harald88 that we should work on the specific phrasing in this talk page. --Lumière 17:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
For now a few more short comments (I really hope to hear comments from others, and I largely agree):
"Minority" and "majority" viewpoints are not necessarily an issue; such bias may just as well come from the hand of a minority POV pushing editor. Thus it's not clear to me what lumiere means.
I am lost here. "Minority" Vs "Majority" is not my invention. I expressed no opinion about it. I only expressed the opinion that it is about "Undue Weight" because this is what the section is about. So, what do you mean by "it's not clear to me what luniere means". Lumière
I'm guessing he's refering to the lack of an Aufklarung. Jim62sch 02:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Undue weight isn't necessarily always an issue of "majority" vs. "minority" views. Harald88 22:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I only see these concepts being discussed in the section Undue weight. If I missed something, let me know. BTW, a point that is somehow related, you do realize that WP:no original research is very useful to eliminate some bias, including some examples that are mentioned in the list that you propose. In any case, it is orthogonal to our current discussion. Whatever Undue weight mean, I only want to explain that we must still consider WP:verifiability and WP:no original research. --Lumière 01:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Also, as NPOV is one of the few policies that is not decided by the editors but instead was a non-negotiable founding decision by Jimbo, I wonder if there doesn't exist some explanations of him that relate to this matter of giving a proper umbrella description of NPOV. It may be worth to search through some discussions. Especially in case of conflict with other policies, that may prove to be of great importance.
Interesting, I have the impression that you suggest that we change the current policy that has a community wide consensus! Clearly, the three points (irrespectively of their source) that are mentioned in the section "Undue weight" are about undue weight. So, they are not intended to conflict with other policies about reputable sources. --Lumière 22:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
To the contrary: I was referring to the NPOV policy as defined by Jimbo. Harald88 22:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Aren't they supposed to be essentially the same, except for clarifications and small improvements? I am quoting you here "as NPOV is one of the few policies that is not decided by the editors but instead was a non-negotiable founding decision by Jimbo". Oh, perhaps you are suggesting that the current community wide consensus on NPOV is a misunderstanding of Jimbo orginal policy. --Lumière 23:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't know, I surely hope that they are the same! I simply point out that the basics of this policy are not for the community (us) to decide on; instead it's up to us to assure that this article continues to correspond to his basic requirements.
Cheers, Harald88 23:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
It may be worth to give a more general introduction of NPOV, pointing to the related policies insofar as they take care of certain aspects so that the relations as well as the hierarchy are clear, and that what is further discussed in the article space is the remainder. Does that correspond to what lumiere has in mind? (Of course, no need to do that at the same time as the few additional sentences, but it's helpful if we are working in the same direction). Harald88 21:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I am not sure that I understand what you meant in your first sentence. I always said that we should clearly explain where this policy fits in relation with the other policies. If this is what you meant, then Yes. The additional sentences should have this purpose. This is always what I meant. I always proposed that we add a few references to other policies so that the relation with other policies is clear. --Lumière 22:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Good! Harald88 22:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy description in the lead section

Wikipedia policy is that all articles should be written from a neutral point of view, representing all views with significant support fairly and without bias.

I just did a cut and paste so that we can have a discussion. --Lumière 17:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

My first comment is that the above sentence should be followed by a statement that specifies the respective role of the NPOV policy and the other policies. More specifically, it should be clear that the "significant support" is defined in the other policies. --Lumière 18:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Indeed; but notice that the qualifyer "with significant support" is now completely lacking. I also reconstructed what happened above: I copied it from an older page version, of 8 November or so, whiie looking at additions. I had not expected such omissions. When was that change discussed? I'm not necessarily against a change, for it's arguable if it should be notable or significant. However, leaving such a qualifyer completely out altogether is no good, as it is now it could be interpreted as "any" view. Harald88 21:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Reminder, in case someone lost track: at this moment the article does not read anymore
Wikipedia policy is that all articles should be written from a neutral point of view, representing all views with significant support fairly and without bias. Harald88 22:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Who removed the qualifier "significant"? It is a good question. It is not me that removed it for sure. It is interesting that it went unnoticed and that it is such a big issue now. --Lumière 23:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Again, What viewpoints are significant is verfiable without relying on subjective opinion. What viewpoints are "well supported" is not. Also, I see no pressing need for rewritting section that is widely accepted, established policy. What is the justification? FeloniousMonk 22:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
If so, please give the link to back up your claim; next we can repair the opening sentence accordingly, and add the proper link. Harald88 23:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Undue weight

Shortcut:
WP:NPOV#Undue weight
NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant neutral and well supported views in proportion to the prominence of each. To be acceptable for inclusion a view must be neutral as described elsewhere in this policy and it must be well supported as specified in the no original research and verifiability policies. Now an important qualification. Articles that compare acceptable views ...

This is a proposed variation on the first few sentences of "Undue Weight". Italic is used here to mark new content, but will not be used in the final version in the project page. --Lumière 18:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

No. This is dismantling the entirety of the concept of NPOV. All views are explained neutrally, not all neutral views are explained. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree. What viewpoints are significant is verfiable without relying on subjective opinion. What viewpoints are "Neutral and well supported" is not. FeloniousMonk 21:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
To me, such an evisceration of the current standard only bodes ill for Wikipedia as it opens the door for countless minor viewpoints that have "x references on google" (a somewhat useless indicator of representation), and in addition, "neutral and well-supported" lends too much subjectivity to the process. To me, the fact that someone is even willing to gut NPOV is an indication of just how well the concept is working. I would hazard a guess that someone was not able to get his or her viewpoint into an article and decided to propose a recipe for disaster. Jim62sch 00:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

You just misinterpret the sentences. Your concern is taken care of in the sentence: "To be acceptable for inclusion a view must be neutral as described elsewhere in this policy...". I think you exagerate when you say this is dismantling the entire concept of NPOV. However, there is perhaps room for improvement. What about what is proposed in the next section Lumière

New introductory sentences for Undue Weight

NPOV says that the article should neutrally and fairly represent all significant well supported views in proportion to the prominence of each. A view must be well supported as specified in the no original research and verifiability policies. How to describe a view neutrally is explained elsewhere in this policy. Now Here is the important additional qualification fairness requirement. Articles that compare neutral and well supported views ...

I have removed the bold emphasis. It is like saying that what came before is not important when in fact it prepares well what follows. --Lumière 19:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

See my comment in the subject just above: we first have a bigger nut to crack! Harald88 21:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
This is surprising because the above paragraph is totally equivalent to the addition of the two sentences that I proposed before, which have received local consensus. It is just simpler. The key idea which was accepted is that the views must be acceptable for inclusion as described in NOR and verifiability, and that the "Undue Weight" section does not conflict with this. --Lumière 22:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Then who removed the qualifyer so that now it's missing, and why?
See above, about the lead phrase. Harald88 22:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Who removed the qualifier "significant"? It is a good question. It is not me that removed it for sure. It is interesting that it went unnoticed and that it is such a big issue now. --Lumière 23:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Again, What viewpoints are significant is verfiable without relying on subjective opinion. What viewpoints are "well supported" is not. Also, I see no pressing need for rewritting section that is widely accepted, established policy. What is the justification? FeloniousMonk 22:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps this is just a problem of terminology. What is your definition of "significant"? My definition of "well supported" is clear: something is well supported if it is acceptable in accordance with WP:no original research and WP:verifiability. I don't care about the terminology. We can use another expression. There is obviously a need to have a clear policy which is well understood in relation with other policies. Nobody can argue against that. --Lumière 22:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
NOR and verifiability do not indicate that a potential addition to an article is well-supported. If I say that the Earth is flat, I can easily find proof that that is NOR and that some people think it is true, thus it is verifiable, easily allowing such silliness to creep into articles on paleontology, geology, physics, etc. However, such a viewpoint is hardly significant in the sense that it would be supported by only a few people who revel in pseudoscience. Jim62sch 00:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Jim62sch, there are two things that I want to tell you: 1) The paragraph I propose does not reject the notion of Undue weight as defined in the NPOV policy. It only says that WP:verifiability and WP:No original research should also be considered. So, it is just additional protection, not less. 2) You underestimate how WP:Nor and WP:verifiability if well understood can be useful to help achieve neutrality. --Lumière 01:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I think I know what is your problem. Perhaps, your definition of "significant" is "held by a significant minority or a larger group", and you would like to say that only significant views should be considered. This would be in conflict with both the remainder of the Undue Weight section and the other policies. It is in conflict with the Undue Weight section because it is clearly said that the view that are held by a tiny minority can be acceptable in their own article. It is obviously in contradiction with the other policies. It is also plain nonsense: we do not want to reject a view that is well supported in accordance with NOR and verifiability only because it is held by a tiny minority. --Lumière 22:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
See my above example. In an article on the Flat Earth Society, obviously the material would be significant as it directly relates to the specific topic. However, it is too insignificant a viewpoint to be put into very many other articles. Jim62sch 00:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Good point! I love the NPOV policy! I am not trying to change it at all. It is just a misunderstanding. The paragraph is very clear. I think the problem is that you are so afraid that it might change the policy that you see things in this paragraph that aren't there at all. --Lumière 01:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
"we do not want to reject a view that is well supported in accordance with NOR and verifiability only because it is held by a tiny minority"
The existing policy is already clear on this: "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..." This is established and widely accepted policy, and your changes are attempting to alter that. I'm just one of many who'll object on a number of grounds.
"Perhaps, your definition of "significant" is "held by a significant minority or a larger group"
My point is exactly what the article has said for a very long time now: "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints, in proportion to the prominence of each." Nothing more, nothing less.
Changing "significant" in the sentence to "well supported" fundamentally and mistakenly shifts the issue and the topic from the amount of weight given any viewpoint in an article being based on its significance in the real world to the amount of weight given any one viewpoint in article based on its verifiability at Wikipedia, which is something else altogether.
The concept that the weight given a viewpoint in an article should be based on its verifiability is supported neither by convention nor policy. WP:V enjoins us to make sure that all content must be verifiable. It says nothing about the amount of weight given to relevant viewpoints.
Undue weight is a long-standing, fundamental part of one of Wikipedia's foundational policies. Changing it to mean something completely different from what it has traditionally meant is not going to meet with wide acceptance. FeloniousMonk 23:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. One need only look at the current success of Wikipedia to realize that the current guidelines are working. I, for one, will never support the changes suggested in this discussion. Jim62sch 00:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Me too I will never support what is being understood in this discussion because what is being understood is not what the proposed paragraph meant. --Lumière 00:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Obviously this points to the paragraph needing significant clarification. It also raises the quesion, "why bother to change that which has proven to be effective"? Jim62sch 02:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Reply point by point to FeloniousMonk

"we do not want to reject a view that is well supported in accordance with NOR and verifiability only because it is held by a tiny minority"

The existing policy is already clear on this: "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..." This is established and widely accepted policy, and your changes are attempting to alter that. I'm just one of many who'll object on a number of grounds.

To the contrary, my changes entirely support that. In any case, I am happy that you agree that WP:no origibal research and WP:verifiability are not in conflict with the Undue Weight section in the above. --Lumière 00:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

"Perhaps, your definition of "significant" is "held by a significant minority or a larger group"

My point is exactly what the article has said for a very long time now: "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints, in proportion to the prominence of each." Nothing more, nothing less.

I see that you avoid the question. We will not progress if we do not know what is meant by "significant". Is it in this kind of context that we have a "community wide consensus"? --Lumière 00:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Changing "significant" in the sentence to "well supported" fundamentally and mistakenly shifts the issue and the topic from the amount of weight given any viewpoint in an article being based on its significance in the real world to the amount of weight given any one viewpoint in article based on its verifiability at Wikipedia, which is something else altogether.

This a misunderstanding. The paragraph that I proposed does not say at all that the weight given to a view is based on its verifiability. It clearly says that the weight is based on the "prominence of each view", and this is exactly as it was before. Nothing changed at this level. The paragraph only reminds us that the views must be well supported as defined in WP:verifiability and WP:no original research. That's all. --Lumière 00:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The concept that the weight given a viewpoint in an article should be based on its verifiability is supported neither by convention nor policy. WP:V enjoins us to make sure that all content must be verifiable. It says nothing about the amount of weight given to relevant viewpoints.

I totally agree. Again, this is just a misunderstanding. The paragraph does not say at all that verifiability should be used to determine the weight. As you say, verifiability only says that we should not accept content that is not verifiable (i.e. does not have a reputable source.) This is perfectly in accord with the proposed paragraph. We have no disagreement here. What I find useful is that you seem to say that WP:verifiability cannot be found in conflict with WP:neutral point of view. This is my point. The paragraph just try to make it clear. It is not enough that you and I agree. It should be very clear for the new comers. --Lumière 00:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Undue weight is a long-standing, fundamental part of one of Wikipedia's foundational policies. Changing it to mean something completely different from what it has traditionally meant is not going to meet with wide acceptance.

Sure, but again it was just a misunderstanding. There was no attempt to change the NPOV policy that you and I understand, as I can see above. The goal is just to clearly explain it in the context of the other policies, which will be very useful. --Lumière 00:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The misunderstanding with regard to significant Vs well supported.

The confusion is very simple to understand. The paragraph strikes "significant" and replaces it with "well supported". So, naturally people interpret it as if the proposal is to reject significance as a criteria and to replace it with well supported. I almost cannot blame those who had this interpretation. However, the motivation to strike "significant" is, of course, not at all to reject the criteria. This criteria remains implicit in the remainder of the sentence: "in proportion to the prominence of each". We can put it back and write "significant and well supported". The tricky point is that it is not true that we reject all non significant views, as it is clearly explained in the remainer of the section Undue weight. However, this is issue is completely orthogonal to the essence of what is proposed in the new paragraph. Therefore, for now, I propose the paragraph

NPOV says that the article should neutrally and fairly represent all significant and well supported views in proportion to the prominence of each. A view must be well supported as specified in the no original research and verifiability policies. How to describe a view neutrally is explained elsewhere in this policy. Now an important qualification. Articles that compare significant, neutral and well supported views ...

Later, we can discuss if we want to keep "significant" or remove it from the first and last sentences. I do not mean keep or remove the criteria, but only the word "significant". We could keep it, because the presence of two or more views to compare is kind of implicit in these sentences, and a non significant view should go into its own separate article. Also, as pointed out by FeloniousMonk, the policy is very clear that non significant views are acceptable in their own article. So, there will be no misunderstanding. OTOH, it is somehow redundant in the first sentence because of the "in proportion to the prominence of each", which could be rewritten as "in proportion to the significance of each". We obtain this other alternative

NPOV says that the article should neutrally and fairly represent all well supported views in proportion to the prominence significance of each. A view must be well supported as specified in the no original research and verifiability policies. How to describe a view neutrally is explained elsewhere in this policy. Now an important qualification. Articles that compare neutral and well supported views ...

What people think? --Lumière 01:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The current wording is accurate, narrow, concise, and easily understood. You're proposal adds ambiguity and introduces a new concept, fairness, to an already clear and appropriately narrow policy subsection.
By mentioning "fairness" the proposed wording would open the door to pov pushers on non mainstream topics to challenge the mainstream viewpoint being presented in non mainstream articles as fundamentally unfair.
Adding "neutrally and fairly" is unnecessary: neutrally is already sufficiently covered elsewhere and fairness has nothing to do with undue weight. If you want the NPOV policy to address fairness then propose a new section. Fairness and undue weight are two distinct, separate topics.
Again, undue weight has stood for some time now as it is and has been a useful, necessary, and widely accepted guiding principle within NPOV. You've made several proposals now to rewrite it, but from my perspective, you've made no case for why this necessary. I haven't found the reasoning given here compelling, nor can I see how the current policy is flawed, how these proposals improve the policy (indeed, just the opposite), or any other pressing need for rewriting Undue weight, so I don't support the proposal. FeloniousMonk 02:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
FM's right. There's nothing wrong with the wording as it stands, while this change introduces ambiguities and dilutes the policy. This is part of our contral policy and the wording fits the way it is used. I do not favour the change. Guettarda 03:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Two additional sentences to Undue Weight instead

I appreciate your intention not to dilute the policy, and your right that there was nothing (very) wrong with the formulation per se. However, I still think that it is necessary to place this section in its context. The formulation can be very good, but the link with other policies was missing. A situation in context is very standard and considered necessary to communicate well a new concept, and it is a new concept for the new comers. What I understand now is that I am better do that by adding new sentences. I propose to add two sentences at the end, after the three points:

The three points that are mentioned above should not be interpreted as a replacement to the WP:verifiability and WP:no original research policies. To be acceptable for inclusion in an article, in addition to the requirements of the neutral point of view policy, any content should be acceptable in accordance with the WP:no original research and WP:verifiablity policies.

Similar sentences (see above) were already accepted by many editors. I hope this will not be considered as a dilution of the policy. Clearly, the goal is to place the policy in its context. This was always my only goal. I am sorry that my first attempts diluted the policy. --Lumière 03:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

This, as said above, seems like it would already be obvious, but, also as I said above, I cannot see a harm in the addition. I have no opinion, positive or negative, on this proposal; but can you point me to where you provided evidence of confusion on this point among editors? (I assume you did, somewhere in the volumnious archives, that's why I'm phrasing this in this way.) JesseW, the juggling janitor 04:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually, it is just by principle that I have this request. Note that it is also a good principle to say what we believe is obvious. Nothing is so obvious for new comers. I am very happy that you find it obvious. --Lumière 05:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Removing "significant" in the first sentence of Undue Weight

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

This is a cut and paste from the current version of the section Undue weight of the policy. There is nothing from me in this sentence. I did not add the "fairly" nor the "significant". I never edited that section.

I propose to remove the "significant". This proposal has nothing to do with the previous proposal. The justification is that (1) the requirement that non significant viewpoints should only appear alone on separate articles is not expressed at all when we use "significant" as it is used in this sentence and (2) the fact that the significance of the view must be taken into account is already there in the sentence at the end: "in proportion to the prominence of each". So, it is completly useless. BTW, I also agree with FM that the "fairly" is not really useful, if it is what he/she meant when he/she said that the notion of fairness was not clear. --Lumière 04:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

It is useful as it makes it clear than non-significant viewpoints do not need to be, and should not be, included in articles. I oppose this change. JesseW, the juggling janitor 04:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
JesseW, you are suggesting a rule that goes beyond the policy. Clearly, the policy is that a view that is well supported in accordance with verifiability and no original research is acceptable for inclusion in some article, perhaps not in any article, but at the least in some ancillary article. Otherwise, what is this rule exactly? It seems to me that it could be used by a few biased editors to suppress some well supported information. Why would we want to allow the complete suppression of some information that was presiously published in a reputable source? Certainly, the quality of Wikipedia is safe if the information was already published in a reputable source. So, why? --Lumière 04:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
"This proposal has nothing to do with the previous proposal."
This is ridiculous, of course it does. It's the exact same word, the same sentence, the same issue. Now it really looks like you're trying a fast one. How many new sections here are you going start in your campaign to remove this word from the policy? And how many other editors have to object? There's no support for what you propose. FeloniousMonk 05:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh wow again a misunderstanding. By previous proposal, I meant the proposal of the previous section, not the one in the next section above it. Make sense? Also, I do not propose to remove this word. I just want to know what is the purpose of this word exactly. If the purpose is to completely suppress well supported (sourced) information, then I ask why do you want the power to completely suppress this kind of information from Wikipedia?
Note that I understand that you think that I was discussing this issue with you before (in the next section above the previous one), but actually at the time I was not really interested. I did not really appreciate the point. My interest at the time was only to situate the section in the context of the other policies. Now, that I see the point, I am interested. It is a completely different point, but it is important.
Also, it is you that I have no support for what you propose. Just this isolated phrase with the word significant is not policy. You will have to show that some further elaboration of your interpretation, whatever it is, is found in the policy. What every one can see from the section Undue weight is that even the view of a tiny minority is acceptable for inclusion in Wikipedia. This is not at all in support of a special interpretation that says that we can completely suppress well supported (sourced) information. --Lumière 05:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
JesseW, I am not impressioned by FeloniousMonk. My question is perfectly legitimate. --Lumière 05:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
So what are you suggesting? That the word "significant" be removed from the undue weight section? What benefit does the project gain if we make it easier to insert crackpot viewpoints? We already have a reputation for indulging crackpots, which hurts our credibility. If anything, the policy should be tightened, rather than loosened. Too many people here push fringe viewpoints. Guettarda 07:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
About this, yesterday I asked FeloniousMonk to back up his claim that "What viewpoints are significant is verifiable without relying on subjective opinion." Harald88 08:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
BTW, as far as I recall, Jimbo's explications about how to deal with what we may regard "pseudoscience" sound more like lumiere's than FeloniousMonk's -- but now I have difficulty to find them, where are they grouped? Harald88 08:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
JesseW and FeloniousMonk are correct - significant vs. insignificant should be illuminated, otherwise it may open the door to every fringe theory and idea being treated equally by a few determined POV pushers. This would fundamentally damage WP's reliability as a source of information. There are a couple of hundred hollow-earthers; should we present their views equally with the geology and structure which is presented in Earth#Physical_characteristics? I think not. To go down this path is madness and we should not even be considering it. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Puppy's opinion is certainly shared by all, not only by JW and FM. However, at the moment the article is potentially selfcontradictory, as shown above but ignored by many. Any added qualifyer such as "significant" should be based on input/precisions from other policies, and then the problem is solved.
We have now a proposed precision of what "significant" means from lumiere; and I agree with that formulation, as it is in harmony with all policies so that such a clarification doesn't change the NPOV policy.
I still hope to find Jimbo's comments on these matters. (Anyone?) Harald88 17:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I can only tell you that there is nothing about the three points of the Undue weight section in the wikipedia-l mailing list in the November September 2003 period, which is the period where Jimbo apparently wrote these three points. Also, I agree with you, Harald88, that we should not invent our own definition, but refer to other parts of the policy. Otherwise, it is like a significant modification of the policy. --Lumière 17:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
are you sure that he wrote those three points? Harald88 19:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
No. I only know that it is what we say in the Undue Weight section. Bensaccount who worked in the history of the NPOV policy might know more about it. --Lumière 21:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I now found that it was Bensaccount, who removed "significant" from the article summary on 15 december 2005, with the comment: "(What kind of view is an insignificant minority and why should it be ignored?)". Probably he remembered the similar original summary definition, which he pointed to on the Talk page around that time:

Wikipedia has an important policy: roughly stated, you should write articles without bias, representing all views fairly. Wikipedia uses the words "bias" and "neutral" in a special sense! This doesn't mean that it's possible to write an article from just one point of view, the neutral (unbiased, "objective") point of view. That's a common misunderstanding of the Wikipedia policy. The Wikipedia policy is that we should fairly represent all sides of a dispute, and not make an article state, imply, or insinuate that any one side is correct. It's crucial that we work together to make articles unbiased. It's one of the things that makes Wikipedia work so well. Writing unbiased text is an art that requires practice. The following essay explains this policy in depth, and is the result of much discussion. We strongly encourage you to read it. - http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neutral_point_of_view--draft&oldid=20764#Executive_summary Harald88 03:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I can think of only one reason for removing "significant" from this wording: to allow people who want to push fringe (for which, in most cases, read "crackpot") points of view into Wikipedia articles, and have them treated with a seriousness that they don't deserve. When, for example, writing an article on a controversial politician, we should be neutral as between those who disapprove of her and those who don't; we don't have to be neutral between those who think that she's human and those who think that she's the spawn of Satan, sent by the dukes of hell to prepare the way for the coming of the antichrist. That is, we treat significant viewpoints neutrally, and either ignore the rest or give them the space that they deserve.
Incidentally, I find it worrying that Bensaccount doesn't understand the plain English phrase "significant majority". I haven't checked the History yet, but did he really write that? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Mel, as far as could find out, someone had added "significant" to that phrase. I have not yet found when it happend nor with what motivation. It may have been added by some people who were not acting in good faith. For example, a few people who fanatically adhere to certain majority POV's could be incited to attempt to silence alternative POV's by tinkering with this policy. Anyway, the addition of that word has led to ambiguity. According to Wikipedia policy, less significant monority viewpoints can be given separate article space with a link from the main article. In the end, notability is the selection rule for inclusion in Wikipedia. See also below. -Harald88

Should we allow complete suppression of well sourced information?

The real problem is not whether or not we keep "significant". The problem is to keep it without a reasonable definition for it. There is no problem to keep "significant" if we define its meaning as follows: A view is significant relative to an article if (1) it is held by a significant minority or a larger group and is relevant to the article or (2) it is held by a tiny minority and the article is exclusively devoted to this view. With this definition, the requirement that a view is significant is perfectly in accord with the Undue weight section. The problem is that some people would like to keep "significant" with a definition that is so vague that, when it used to resolve a dispute, could exclude case (1) or (2) above. With this vague definition of significant, one gains the power to completely suppress well Sourced Information even if it held by a majority! I am not saying that someone will try that, but in principle it can happen. For example, one could say that an article about standard classical mechanics is not significant because it is too elementary. My point is that as long as we do not define what we mean by significant we open the door to any kind of argument like that.

Those who want to remove the term "significant" in the first sentence do not want to remove the concept that views must be selected in proportion to the prominence of each. The fact that the view of a tiny minority does not have its place in Wikipedia, except in their own ancillary articles, is very clear in the Undue weight section and nobody wants to change that. Removing "significant" in the first sentence will not change that. The problem with "significant" is that it is not well defined. It is a new term that is not defined at all in the section. Concretely, the problem is that such a vague notion allows the suppression of any well sourced information. Why would someone wants to insist to have this power? --Lumière 16:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The "Undue Weight" section

The undue weight section is the part of the ar