Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Archive 31

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

← Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32 →

Contents 1 UNDUE vs DUE 1.1 proposal: what is DUE 1.2 Quick note about the undue weight section 2 Morally offensive views 2.1 Morally offensive views 3 Remove templates 4 Remove Undue Weight 5 User complaint 6 WP:UNDUE doesn't need changing 7 UNDUE Employed in Religious Pages 8 Weight in an uneven environment? 9 History of NPOV 10 Negotiable! 11 Quotes and NPOV 12 sympathetically 13 The Wrong Version 14 Resolution 15 Controversy and NOR 16 undue needs a good example of a minority view page 16.1 proposed change 17 POV considerations before starting a new Article? 18 internal conflict 19 Please consider taking the AGF Challenge 20 Why? 21 Paranormal ArbCom 22 Fact vs contingent fact 23 Lies, Controversies, and NPOV 24 The example in Undue weight 25 How can NPOV be easily enforced on a contentious article? 26 NPOV and criticism 27 SPOV 27.1 Olive 27.2 Truzzi 27.3 Carroll 27.4 SPOV/NPOV wording 27.4.1 WP is SPOV 27.4.2 WP is not SPOV 27.5 Dissent 27.6 SPOV- response to all reactions 27.7 SPOV vs NPOV 28 History 29 POV forking between wikipedia 30 Thinking about multiple possibilities using averaging algorithms is a recipe for disaster 31 China article 32 What if an allegedly NPOV prohibited word such as "propaganda" is accurate within a definition?

UNDUE vs DUE

• Since there has been no further discussion upto now, I made a corresponding change, being BOLD. Let's hear if it needs more improving.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 14:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

  I edited the comments with two ideas in mind: one) minority viewpoints should only be described if they are prominent. two) balance is not the point of WEIGHT. The wording about "not describing majority viewpoints as fact" and "every majority viewpoints deserves a minority viewpoint" is counter the the sense in which this policy is made. For an example of why this is absurd see Apollo moon landing hoax accusations. Following your proposal would mean we wouldn't say that "Neil Armstrong stepped foot on the moon in 1969" anywhere in this encyclopedia -- an absurd proposition. More than this, given your new wording we would have to counter every mention of the moon landing with a fringe viewpoint in such a case: obviously this cannot happen. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not interpreting Xiutwel's comment that way. I heard "may be balanced with a RS-sourced claim or statement representing a >>significant<< minority view. Could anyone reasonably make a case that the Apollo moon landing hoax accusations are significant, and use that assertion to "mean we wouldn't say that "Neil Armstrong stepped foot on the moon in 1969" anywhere in this encyclopedia". Seems like a stretch. WNDL42 (talk) 15:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I just edited the text to suggest that "a prominent viewpoint" be "prominent viewpoints", insofar as often there are several prominent minority views. Simple example is Christianity. Catholicism is by far the most "prominent" perspective, but "a prominent minority view" would only require describing Protestantism, if "due" comes from a primarily numeric weight. However, Orthodox Christianity is another "prominent minority view". That's not a great example, because several million people would also made that group "of due weight", but this was intended as a simple example of the non-binary nature of prominence. --Christian Edward Gruber (talk) 16:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec) :::Opps, I see there's a discussion up here. The final result wasn't so bad but I don't see a case for needing them and my concerns I spoke about below are still valid. RxS (talk) 16:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it's way too prescriptive. The wording seems to address a relatively narrow content dispute in one area of the encyclopedia, but such prescriptive language is going to have all kinds of unintended consequences. Mandating "minimal due weight" - that a minority view's claims be presented in detail - will lead to the insertion of "rebuttals" and the refighting (rather than characterization) of disputes on Wikipedia.

Also, "majority viewpoint claims should be explicitely attributed as such, not presenting them as undisputed facts" is a recipe for disaster. I can guarantee, for example, that immediately after such language is enacted, a handful of editors will insist that we alter every reference to HIV/AIDS to read "AIDS is believed by the majority of scientists to be caused by HIV" - to accomodate the AIDS denialist viewpoint. Does that make the encyclopedia better or worse?

What problem are we trying to fix here? Also, the edit in question bore little resemblance to the "second proposal" archived above, unless I'm missing something. MastCell ^Talk 17:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

"little resemblance"... In my opinion, and certainly in my intention, it meant exactly the same. I am not a native English speaker, and the sentences do not come naturally to me.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 08:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Quick note about the undue weight section

moved section up from more below to avoid confusion, Xiutwel, 08:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I took out the new content in the undue weight section. I'd rather not have editors who are involved in undue weight debates and minority views go and start changing relevant policy without discussion first. Being bold is a good thing but sometimes it can go too far. I realize some modifications were made to that section, but I'd still prefer changes to come from the ground up via discussion. Thanks. RxS (talk) 16:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I commented further up, in an earlier thread, to the effect that the proposed change was way too prescriptive and focused narrowly on a specific content dispute. I also agree on the undesirability of having changes to policy enacted by editors involved in a content dispute in which they would benefit directly from the proposed change. MastCell ^Talk 20:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• I am happy with the contributions this proposal is getting. Let me make some points clear:
  1. What problem are we trying to fix here?
     —endless POV debates on countless talkpages. /X
  2. ...the undesirability of having changes to policy enacted by editors involved in a content dispute in which they would benefit directly from the proposed change.
     —If I get my way, I benefit. If we make an enhancement to policy together, all will benefit. (It appears I had to make a change to the policy first to get the debate here on the talk page going.) /X
  3. There are two issues at stake (let's edit the new proposals just underneath using strikethrough and red text):
     1. A.: What is the minimum DUE weight? /X

        • Keeping proportion in mind, the minimum due coverage would be to present those facts and claims which are deemed relevant from the perspective of the significant minority viewpoints even when they are not deemed significant from the view the majority viewpoint.

     2. And B.: When should the majority view be attributed, and when should it be presented as factual?.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 08:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

        • Majority viewpoint claims, when opposed by prominent significant minority views, should in principle be explicitely attributed as such, not presenting them as undisputed facts. In case they are not attributed (per sentence or per subsection or per article) each claim ought to be balanced by the corresponding significant minority claim on each separate occasion, regardless of overall proportion in the article.

Comment on proposal B: I've added the possibility of attributing per section, which would make it unnecessary to use weaselish words. Rationale for B is to "force" our editors to remain neutral and attribute claims appropriately. A good example is the evolution article, which in its first sentence explaines that part of is a theory and refers to Evolution as theory and fact, and after that it makes sense that the rest of the article is describing a theory, not absolute truth.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 09:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment I agree we must not make a policy which will lead to unreasonable editing. So if the proposals above can be mis-interpreted, please improve them!  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 09:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see what is unclear about the policy as it stands. Why does it need to be changed? The case does not seem to have been made. Dlabtot (talk) 12:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Dlabtot. Evolution is a good example, as it's a science article and science, by definition, does not describe absolute truth. Adding these ideas to policy would provide a loophole for demands that every mention of evolution be qualified as being "the mainstream scientific theory", giving undue weight to creationist "teach the controversy" ideas. .. dave souza, talk 13:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, I think 1A is way too prescriptive. Mandating "minimum due weight" in policy is a bad idea - this should be left to the editors of individual articles, because the minimum due weight really does vary substantially depending on the view being described. Additionally, 1A substitutes "the perspective of the minority view" for the "perpective of the majority view", which conflicts with WP:WEIGHT and, I think, is a mistake on encyclopedic grounds as well.

As to 1B, again, I think this is too prescriptive and would be destructive if applied to large portions of the encyclopedia. My example is that of HIV/AIDS: according to 1B, our articles on HIV/AIDS would have to continuously say that AIDS is "believed by a majority of scientists" to be caused by HIV. That's awkward, misleading, and unencyclopedic, but 1B would presumably mandate it. MastCell ^Talk 21:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Morally offensive views

I'm not entirely sure about what we have written for Morally offensive views:

Morally offensive views

What about views that are morally offensive to most Westerners, such as racism, sexism, and Holocaust denial, that some people actually hold? Surely we are not to be neutral about them?

We report views that have been published by reliable sources. We do not report views that are held by tiny minorities, or views that reliable sources do not write about. Beyond that, we make no judgements. No view is omitted because someone might see it as prejudiced; if it is omitted from Wikipedia, it is because reliable sources have omitted it.

What I think:

1. Yes, of course we report views held by tiny minorites - as long as there are reliable sources regarding them.
2. The questions asks about NPOV, and the answer talks about criteria for inclusion - reliable sources.

I don't know if other people could help with that...

Thanks, Drum guy (talk) 14:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Ad 1.: we report on "significant minority views", but not necessarily on tiny ones. If with report you mean "mention that they exist", then mention in a RS would be enough. If by "report" you mean: balance the article with this view to be overall neutral, then tiny views should not be addressed, simply because there are too many tiny views possible to write about: it would clutter the article and selection would be arbitrary.
  Ad 2.: I think you are right, and that needs clearing up. — Sockrates dual 22:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, and sorry for taking so long to get back :)

I was still thinking about the issue of whether to include them - even for a miniscule minority view (I'm thinking of, for example, Holocaust denial), if there are reliable sources, it does need (I think) to be included - i.e. given an article. I of course agree about having a neutral article, which includes not giving undue weight to a view that's considered wrong, or have random possible views that some people might have.

Again, thanks for waiting :D Drum guy (talk) 23:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Remove templates

Would anyone mind if I removed the templates that are accumulating at the top of the page? They are unnecessary instruction creep. Bensaccount (talk) 22:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

This page, or the project page? Which templates? Thanks, Darkspots (talk) 22:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The project page. The nutshell and the 'reflect consensus' waste of space. Bensaccount (talk) 00:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

They should stay. As annoying as it is to regulars, the "page in a nutshell" really helps the (very) casual visitor. Darkspots (talk) 00:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

No it just repeats the introductory sentences in a box. Thats not helpful at all. Bensaccount (talk) 01:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Some people will come to this page because they click on a link in a template on their user talk page. If these people see nothing but a solid block of legalistic-looking text, they'll hit their back button faster than you'd believe possible. The templates soften the page, give their eyes something to rest on, something they may actually read. Seriously. Many, many people are like this. The two templates are simple, punchy points. Darkspots (talk) 04:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

We don't need to sacrifice having succinct nonrepetitive policy pages just to please people who are incapable of reading unboxed text. It is instruction creep and the clutter it creates outweighs any usefulness you may imagine it has.Bensaccount (talk) 05:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

If someone has an NPOV temp on their user talk page, we're not going to please them no matter what we do. If we can communicate, just a tiny bit, we're a little further ahead. If you quickly scan those text boxes you know that a) NPOV is a policy, b) we're serious about it, and c) NPOV means x. Maybe you'll stop whatever it is you're doing without a block, which means there's an incrementally larger chance you'll stick around and contribute effectively. The greater good of the project is worth a little clutter. Darkspots (talk) 13:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the threat, but I have been contributing effectively far longer than you, and I think I will stick around. The nutshell template and the reflect consensus templates on the project page are what I am speaking of. Your arguments are making very little sense with respect to this ("we aren't going to please people with NPOV templates on their user talk pages???") There is no good that comes from these boxes (never mind "greater good") Bensaccount (talk) 18:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa, whoa. The "you" in my post above is not you, Bensaccount. The "you" is a theoretical new user who has a {{Uw-npov1}} template on their user talk page. You misread my post--why in the world would I threaten you with a block? You and I are both longtime editors, and I've never thought differently.

We're talking about the same two templates. I'm talking about my impression of how the page would look to an impatient new user who made some edits that were considered tendentious and got an NPOV template slapped on their user talk page. They hit the link to this page, and look at it for the first time. My post above describes what they would see in a quick scan of the page. Perhaps they would then stop what they were doing because they realize that we have policy that covers this and we're serious about that policy. If they don't stop, they'll get blocked, and we almost certainly lose that contributor.

My above post is a little unclear, and I apologize for being unclear. But my arguments, I think, make a lot more sense than you give them credit for. I'm talking about a certain kind of user that this page needs to communicate with, and I think these text boxes could help to reach that kind of user. Every post I've made above describes that user in greater detail. My impression of your responses to me above is that you feel that impatient, tendentious new users can either read unvarnished plain text or lump it. I think that we need to try to reach these people, to do something to communicate with them, and that these text boxes are a good way to get across the points that need to be made to them. Darkspots (talk) 17:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Remove Undue Weight

I protest this "policy" and don't think popularity is a factor of truth. Here's my suggestion for an alternative: Wikipedia:Balance Your Perspectives. To any admins, if the page is to be deleted for not being official, I understand, if it has been, see User:IdLoveOne/Balance Your Perspectives. IdLoveOne (talk) 03:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

User complaint

I have had additions I have made to articles removed that were verifiable and annotated clearly because editors, who had to make it clear they are part of Wikipedia's elite, did not agree with what I said. One addition, to a politician's page, was made "OK" through a lot of modification, was later moved to a separate page about a certain election, and later removed. You can threaten to banish me after one warning, you can stick your nose up in the air, you can demand politeness, but the TRUTH is that there are editors who seem to be highly placed who are damned hypocrites who have their own political adgenda that dictates what is allowable on Wiki, and I think it stinks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.141.198.58 (talk) 05:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

This is not the right place for this complaint. Try the village pump. Bensaccount (talk) 18:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Everywhere is the right place for this complaint. Dear anon, you are not alone. All I can say is: if you comply with all the WP policies, be stubborn, you will win at the end. Emmanuelm (talk) 15:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE doesn't need changing

I'm concerned about the rush to introduce changes to a core policy, with discussions being templated closed after just a few days. WP:UNDUE is just fine and perfectly clear as it is. It already provides a sensible, workable guideline for determining what constitutes a significant view and what constitutes undue weight. It shouldn't be changed just because some folks aren't winning their battles. Dlabtot (talk) 12:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not about winning battles, it is about avoiding them. I admit I have my personal view on what the guideline is saying — I hope I am correct in it; the purpose of the discussion is to clear up misunderstandings. That can include me, if I am misunderstanding it.
The need? The battles I encountered exist because the policy is interpreted differently by different sides.
Discussions have been templated "closed archived" by me only to avoid confusion during discussing, because the same discussion has been accidently started at 3 different positions on this talk page. No implication of anything having been resolved is intended, nor any manipulation of any debate.
Are you willing to discuss the policy amendment with us now, or are you needing examples how and why the policy is causing disputes instead of avoiding them?  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 12:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm totally willing to discuss the proposed policy change, which is unneeded and should not be implemented. Dlabtot (talk) 17:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The fights are because of differing interpretations. What needs to be done is to have the policies written more clearly, with examples, and possibly even with multiple choice tests to test your knowledge so you can understand what the policy actually is.--Filll (talk) 17:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The undue weight section definitely does still need changing. There are too many trolls here who like to argue just for the sake of fighting change. Bensaccount (talk) 18:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I like it how it is, but it is of no value if we will not enforce it, or the POV pushers and trolls interpret it in the opposite way from what it is intended. And the powers that be have decided NPOV and all related policies probably should not be enforced, so we end up in the mess we have now.--Filll (talk) 21:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

From the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Homeopathy, NPOV and Minority Topics#Back to basics, it appears that there is a desire at alternative medicine articles at least for something on these lines:

Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them—Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. On such pages the minority view may be spelled out in great detail, and appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint can be shown in a linked article devoted to majority views of the minority topic.

From my viewpoint, this would invite problems and conflict with WP:NPOV/FAQ and WP:FRINGE. A suggested revision which in my opinion clarifies the existing policies follows:

Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them—Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. But on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, the article must include appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint showing the majority view of each topic covered in the article, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view.

My understanding is that this is the intent of existing policies, so that all articles represent fairly all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.. . .. dave souza, talk 21:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that undue weight is vague. This is why almost every other section on this talk page since 2005 is another person complaining about the vagueness of undue weight and subsequently being told that it is fine. Here are the changes that need to be made: It must state that the criteria for exclusion of viewpoints include lack of popularity, lack of relevance, and lack of expertise. It must also state that these are not absolutes, so consensus as to where the line is drawn must be worked out on the individual article pages. Everything else is useless rambling and must be removed. Bensaccount (talk) 22:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The other problem is that the lack of criteria and the vagueness seems to serve as a means to allow users to bypass discussion of reasons for inclusion or exclusion of a view and enforce the removal or inclusion of views based entirely on their personal biases. Bensaccount (talk) 22:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• It is better to have no guideline than one that is vague. UNDUE is not so vague but DUE is. So, it is incomplete. Let's have an example then, where I am involved in. For instance, suppose a French minister, a former British minister, and a former German minister are calling for an investigation into 911 government complicity, how much proportionate coverage is DUE? All I can find is a link to the 9/11 conspiracy theories article, which in turn focusses on the conspiracy theorists instead of the alleged lacunes in the official version. What is DUE? And how can participating editors use guidelines to ascertain that? A group of editors at the 911 article is blocking factual RS-sourced information on the basis that RS do not share the minority opinion. Is that what's intended?  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 00:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

That example is way to confusing and personal to help us clarify anything here -- take it to the articles discussion page.Bensaccount (talk) 01:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

It's there already. Something else then: I have a little fantasy: it appears to me that you like majority opinions, and do not care when minority opinions are deleted using WP:UNDUE. But how about the core of NPOV, which says that significant minority views should get adequate treatment. We must be able to say more than "editors should discuss what is DUE"???  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 02:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Undue weight is too vague to be "used" for deleting anything. The problem is that it nevertheless continues to be brandished by anyone who wants to exclude or include anything without reasonable discussion. Ideally it should provide the criteria that should be evaluated when considering to exclude a view. And popularity is only a small fraction of what needs to be considered. Bensaccount (talk) 02:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Undue weight is too vague to be "used" for deleting anything. That's not what I've encountered from at least 3 admins. Maybe you can find the time to have a look at Talk:9/11 at the undue weight discussions there?  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 09:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

As I review past disputes on this topic, it strikes me that we have to do a better job of describing NPOV and documenting NPOV, handling difficult cases that "fall between the cracks" like what to do with FRINGE topics which have not been addressed by the mainstream in WP:RS since they are so obscure, giving examples and training people in NPOV. Part of the problem is that we just are too obscure and confusing when we describe NPOV. The information is spread over too many pages and too confusing. I would like to see an FAQ and other tools to help people understand NPOV. For example, creating an FAQ on the evolution talk page helped tremendously. I would like to see two versions; a succinct version with just short one sentence summary answers, and a longer set of FAQ answers.

Even if we do a better job of describing NPOV, we will always have some who are frantic to misinterpret NPOV or reinterpret NPOV. We will never change these. What we will do, is make it far easier for the average editor to get up to speed very fast on NPOV to slam these characters who want to misinterpret NPOV for their own purposes. --Filll (talk) 19:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

This thread is about the Undue Weight section. If your concerns are more general, create a new thread. Bensaccount (talk) 20:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the policy is perfectly clear. Just what is about the policy that you find confusing? Dlabtot (talk) 21:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

It is "clear" to those who need to be sure that others cannot speak of the policy with the same authority as they do. Not to me, or to the endless stream of editors who flood this page with requests to clarify it. Bensaccount (talk) 21:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Just what is about the policy that you find confusing? Dlabtot (talk) 16:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's an exact copy of what I said a a few lines above (as if this time anyone will read it or care): Here are the changes that need to be made: It must state that the criteria for exclusion of viewpoints include lack of popularity, lack of relevance, and lack of expertise. It must also state that these are not absolutes, so consensus as to where the line is drawn must be worked out on the individual article pages. Everything else is useless rambling and must be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bensaccount (talk • contribs) 23:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

lack of popularity, lack of relevance, and lack of expertise - ok - lack of popularity I understand. Lack of relevance - I'm not so sure.. I thought significance was established by citations to reliable sources ... of course there must be an editorial judgement as to whether a citation is relevant to the article topic - is that what you are referring to? I'm at a loss as to what you mean by "lack of expertise" in the the context of the NPOV policy, however. Could you elucidate? Dlabtot (talk) 05:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

ALthough I'm am not in principle opposed to modifying it I don't see the need to change it either at this time. Perhaps a companion essay or a guideline would be appropriate to clear up any confusion. Anthon01 (talk) 16:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I appears the problem is not with WP:UNDUE, but with those who'd like to alter it to give their viewpoints undue weight at Homeopathy articles. For that reason alone it is obvious that WP:UNDUE is functioning as it should. Odd nature (talk) 21:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Xiutwel: On second thought, do you have an example of what you would like to change? Anthon01 (talk) 02:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Often enough, I've added a sourced fact to an article, concerning news reports which are in my view relevant, which support a significant minority viewpoint that is disliked by other editors, and then gets removed/blocked from the article. I agree that a minority viewpoint should not take 50% of an article, but systemic deletion of the facts that support it, is not fair either. Someone wrote above that UNDUE cannot be "used" to block content, but in practice it is quoted when doing so. My question is: when 50% is (UNDUE) too much, how much would be DUE then? Giving significant minority views fair coverage means we cannot at the same time assert the majority view is the truth. This is a nuisance, but it is a fact: the majority view should be attributed to its proponents, and not stated as "the truth". Agree?
In my opinion, if we want to avoid using clumsy wording in every sentence, we should have either a broad disclaimer in the beginning of the article that it is presenting a majority view, with a small paragraph for the minority view, or it should be allowed to balance each unattributed claim with a counterclaim. This is the solution I proposed. Maybe I'm wrong, and looking in the wrong direction. But when 50% is UNDUE and 0% is too few, we have to have some guideline to help editors on a specific page get consensus on what is due. Even when all feel that no such criterion can be given in general, it would help to add the sentence: "The amount of coverage which is DUE should be decided upon by the editors on a per article basis." That would make things more clear already.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 16:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The question of whether a viewpoint is significant, and the further question of how much weight should be given to a significant minority view, is an editorial decision that is arrived at through consensus. Dlabtot (talk) 16:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

If "UNDUE" says no more than "SigMinView should not receive as much attention as the majority view", then I agree UNDUE does not need an amendment. However, I can use some help at discussing consensus at Talk:9/11, where a group of editors seem to me to feel that any addition which is unsupportive of their view is UNDUE.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 13:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I took the plea "I can use some help at discussing consensus at Talk 9/11" at face value and went there and read through that whole overlong, tedious, tendentious discussion. There's no help I can offer there except to echo, as gently as possible, the many things people there have already tried to tell you, that you're just not hearing. That's how it looks to me, a complete outsider. Woonpton (talk) 21:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

What happens when the majority view is out of sync with the evidence? When science says one thing but the public believe another wouldn't that make science the fringe view and thus mean that the entry should be weighed towards the popular opinion?

For example, if it could be demonstrated that 90% of the population believed that folk remedy XYZ worked, but 1 scientist does an experiment that said that proves that it didn't. Would the fringe be the uneducated masses or the educated scientist, and how would you weigh it? - perfectblue (talk) 17:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Classic argumentum ad populum. The truth of the matter is irrelevent of what people believe - Earth was still round when most people believed it was flat. To find reality, we follow the evidence. In most cases dealing with physical reality, scientists are the most capable at collecting and analyzing the evidence, and so their collective opinion is the strongest driving force (and we often further segregate it: physicists for physics, chemists for chemistry, historians for history, etc.). The public is easily swayed by propaganda and logical fallacies. The experts on a subject are (usually) better. They know what the pitfalls to investigation are, and so they try to avoid them. This is why our policy on undue weight appeals specifically to the expert opinion in the relevant field of study, and not public opinion. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh look - another person questions the vagueness that is 'undue weight' and is subsequently told that it is fine *see my comment above. Bensaccount (talk) 20:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

UNDUE Employed in Religious Pages

The "Dispute Resolution" page suggests asking questions on policy talk pages for deeper insights on them; so hello. I'm trying to understand when the "exceptions" for WP:UNDUE apply. Because the group I belong to is in a "tiny-minority", it is contended by editors from the mainstream Baha'is that the policy of undue weight exempts our views from being stated on the Baha'i divisions page; a page which outlines the history of division in the Faith. The discussions I've read here mainly have covered scientific views. My concern is religious in nature.

It has been contended on the talk page that the only appropriate place for criticisms of the mainstream group is on main article pages devoted to that particular group in the minority. I've contended that the policy states ""Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented *except* in articles devoted to those views". My question is what dictates exactly what is an "article devoted to those views"? Am I confused to think that an article that summarizes the history of dissent in the Faith is "devoted to those views"? The opposing contention is "This article is about Baha'i divisions, not Remeyite postions on Baha'i divisions. The majority position is the Baha'i position. As such your opinions are indeed tiny-minority ones — even here. Therefore, your insisting that it be "established or even eluded that anyone believed the UHJ was 'not elected per Shoghi Effendi's instructions'" be included is inappropriate. You've already got pages to make your own points." I wasn't ever trying to give and "extended treatment" to our view, but rather include one sentence that sums it up. They contend that the article is about the "majorities view" on the matter. So doesn't that mean its an "article devoted to those views"? _{Baha'i Under the Covenant}^Jeff 07:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Someone will be along shortly to tell you that your questions regarding the vagueness that is 'undue weight' are unfounded and the section is fine. Bensaccount (talk) 17:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Part of this depends on just how "tiny" your particular group is. Has it received sufficient coverage to warrant an article of its own? If so, its own article is actually the place that the section means as being "devoted to those views," and it would be quite appropriate to describe everything about them there. On a broader page such as this one, it depends. The article you're talking about isn't actually specifically about listing all cases of dissent, but rather the major divisions. However, if your particular case is notable enough, you should be able to show some reliable third-party sources commenting on it. This may be enough to warrant just a sentence or two. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Infophile. Our group fits the "tiny minority" definition. Actually all the smaller groups do, as there are 5-7 million mainstream Baha'is, and each of the other groups by orders of magnitude are tiny (in the 100's). Our group in particular has been noted by a couple third parties; mostly researchers. I would concur that any criticisms of the mainstream Administration wouldn't warrant inclusion on it's mainpages; but this ancillary article would seem to qualify for the exceptions. Do you feel that would only be the case on our own main articles, or in an article specifically about dissenting views (there isn't such one)?

There is a larger implication that I didn't mention in the interest of brevity. I guess I've looked at this article as one outlining the Divisions, and as such should be devoted to those divisions, as the article's title implies. The mainstream group has used UNDUE to expand their views to the extent that four sections of history and detailed accounts of their POV precedes the summaries of the Division groups. These sections have zero space devoted to any contrary opinions. If I'm mistaken that this is FORKING in an effort to marginalize these groups, then so be it. I'm trying to understand if this article in question warrants any minority "views"? For UNDUE is consistently stated as the reason their POV dominates and suppresses all others. _{Baha'i Under the Covenant}^Jeff 18:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I haven't looked much at this particular case, but it does sound like they're interpreting UNDUE correctly. It says pretty clearly that "tiny minority" views don't get mentioned at all, and this sounds like the case here. There might be an exception, though, if the sum of all these small groups is more than a tiny minority (ie. each is 1% of the total, but there are 30 of them... 30% merits a mention). In this case, there might be a way to present this general dissent.

Now, what you're describing with the article devoting more space to the mainstream views than the actual divisions is really a COATRACK, and not directly an NPOV concern. The solution there would be to get rid of that material, not to try to make it NPOV. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, okay. I didn't even know about COATRACK; I'll look deeper into that. They contend it's necessary to give the detailed history of their perceived proper succession "for the sake of the reader". As far as tiny minorities go, I was under the impression that there was an exception in "Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented *except* in articles devoted to those views". _{Baha'i Under the Covenant}^Jeff 19:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there is such an exception, but I don't believe this is such an article. That would have to be an article specifically about your group (or a more comprehensive list of all alternative views than what we have here). --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Weight in an uneven environment?

How should you play it when you have a topic where the primary point of notability comes from sources that express one side of an argument but which are usually considered unreliable, while the other side of the argument comes from reliable sources but is not in itself notable enough to carry an entry, or even to justify its existence?

For example. On one side somebody claims to see a monster in the local lake. It generates masses of wild and spurious claims (sufficient to make it notable) all saying that the creature is real and that there is evidence for its existence and generating masses of potential content. On the other side there is a 1/2 page word entry in a peer reviewed journal explaining that the monster was something perfectly explainable, and that the evidence isn't. Not enough to make the entry notable. How do we weight it? Do you crop the first side down to give the second side the weight of the entry, do you give them equal billing, or do you do you say that because the first side has the weight of notability it should have the weight of the entry?

perfectblue (talk) 17:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Since the current section on weighting viewpoints is hopelessly vague I will explain to you how it actually works: Generally all views are included. The criteria for exclusion of viewpoints include lack of popularity, lack of relevance, and lack of expertise. These are not absolutes, so consensus as to where the line is drawn must be worked out on the individual article pages. Bensaccount (talk) 21:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The answer to perfectblue's question is remarkably simple. We write an article saying that someone claims to have seen a monster in a local lake, leading to all manner of wild claims. If these claims are notable, they will be covered in independent, reliable secondary sources, which addresses the WP:RS issue. We also note that a scientist has looked into the claim and found evidence against it and in favor of a less supernatural explanation. It's really that simple... except when the article is being edited by people who have a deep belief in the existence of the monster, or vice versa I suppose. MastCell ^Talk 19:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The important thing is that we keep this policy page vague so people must come here for those who really know things to put it straight. Bensaccount (talk) 20:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Some degree of flexibility ("vagueness", if you like) is essential for the policy to be a useful tool across a wide array of subject areas. If you have a point, it may be more effectively made without sarcasm. MastCell ^Talk 05:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Flexibility is the quality of being adaptable or variable. Vagueness is the property of being not clearly understood or expressed. We keep the policy vague so that those who "understand" it can tell people what to do in every case (no matter how unique). Bensaccount (talk) 16:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

History of NPOV

Any thoughts on removing the "History of NPOV" section" (perhaps by moving it to the talk page)? It adds quite a bit of text without adding any guidance regarding NPOV. Moreover, I would expect that the specific history of the principle and the policy are of interest to relatively few people... Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I've been copy-editing this article, and think a bunch of the text could be distilled for readability's sake. Would make the article less intimidating to newcomers, too, who might feel they need to read the whole thing in case they miss something Really Important 4/5ths of the way in. But that's just me. Xavexgoem (talk) 19:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Move it to its own project page and make a link. Bensaccount (talk) 20:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Negotiable!

Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikipedia principle. It would be very hard to alter the basic principle of neutrality without altering the nature of wikipedia.

This much is true. However, foundation issues *are* negotiable. Have been negotiated, are occasionally negotiated, still need to be negotiated today.

Hey, it's on meta, a foundation wiki. It's determined by consensus!

The consequences of such negotiation can be rather large, so it's potentially very hard to make headway... so I guess lots of people have never tried.

But saying that they're non-negotiable is silly. If you want to make them non-negotiable, please negotiate that option on meta first. Oh, and good luck with that.

Contradiction with foundation issues therefore removed.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 11:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Has the change made by Kim Bruning to the article page been discussed? --Doug Weller (talk) 11:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

No, and it's been reverted. Clearly it should be discussed before making such a change. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 13:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

"points of order"

• @ Doug Weller: Duh no. @SheffieldSteel Note the order, Bold first, then discuss. Note that this is a cycle, so once we're at the discuss stage we discuss to find a compromise *quickly*. (that means preferably today :-P). It doesn't need to be perfect, we can be bold again and try to get more input and ideas. Moving quickly along, no I don't care what people told you earlier about what BRD is supposed to say, or what you did in wikiproject:obscuretopics last week Tuesday. Read the fine documentation and do it right. ;-) not that this will likely help, but it's worth trying saying it at least once... you never know ;-)
• Please note the tag at the top of the page by the way (am I the only person who still reads it?): Please ensure your changes reflect consensus. Someone added "NPOV is non negotiable" to the page when I wasn't looking, clearly :-P. They definitely didn't discuss it with me either. Now, as "non negotiable" pretty much denies consensus entirely, I've removed it as being a rather silly. I could have done that at any time, but I'm doing it now. Ok?
• I'm editing the wiki, which, I may point out, is *also* a foundation issue, so this sort of balances out.
• Possibly this discussion should be held on meta instead.

actual discussion

Now that we've covered the whole what policy are we following debate (hopefully :-P ), can we get on with "non negotiable". Why do you believe NPOV is non-negotiable? That's pretty absolute. You'd oppose people suspending this rule even temporarily, while sorting out nitty gritty details of one POV or another? Refusing to negotiate makes it very hard to mediate a situation. I've seen people play the "non-negotiable" card in attempted mediation, and I was less than impressed.

So basically, I think it doesn't work that way, and I haven't seen anyone get it to work that way(short of driving people off-wiki) and we really don't need that line in there. If anyone can show where it does work that way, I'll listen and possibly change my position.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 13:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

(undent) My preferred wording:

“

Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikipedia principle. It would be very hard to alter the basic principle of neutrality without altering the nature of Wikipedia.

”

--Kim Bruning (talk) 14:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

5 November 2003:

According to Jimbo Wales, "NPOV is absolute and non-negotiable". [1]

The link to the mailing list message had become incorrect, by 2006 the reference (in a footnote by then) read:

NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable" in statement by Jimbo Wales in November 2003 and reconfirmed by Jimbo Wales in April 2006 in the context of lawsuits.

The first of the two included links in this version is still OK, the second is out of order but shouldn't be too hard to locate. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Next to that being a brief short throwaway statement (and possibly a lie-to-children) in an e-mail exchange (as opposed to an explicit statement about "I want this to be policy") , it actually causes major issues (see above). So I don't think that that's a good idea to mention here at all. --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Note that currently the third paragraph of the NPOV policy page also has "[...] This is non-negotiable [...]", no longer needing Jimbo to support the inclusion of this statement.

Whatever the statement at m:Foundation issues (which includes statements w.r.t. to all Wikimedia projects), for en:Wikipedia the formulation has continued to be ... "non-negotiable" ... since November 2003, as far as I can remember without interruption. For the Wikimedia projects in general it became "essentially considered to be beyond debate" some time later, covering some other principles too. For English Wikipedia we kept "non-negotiable" for WP:NPOV at the time, and after, until today.

Anyway, if you want to negotiate about it, do so with the Wikimedia Foundation, it *is* a Foundation issue now. I don't see any major issues caused by non-negotiability on this page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Anyway here is the correct link to the April 2006 "non-negotiable" statement by Jimbo: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-April/044386.html - I don't see anything "throwaway" about it (or whatever derisive comment you're making). --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec) As far as I'm concerned, the statement was not ex cathedra and thus not a binding policy. :-P pre-ec... this does not refer to the 2006 april statement, let me check

If you don't see major issues, let me explain some of them to you.

• Basically, anytime you stop a conversation or declare things non-negotiable, the other party is forced to expand scope. There are many ways in which temporary exceptions can be made to the rule which actually help to enforce the general rule. If it's just the NPOV rule that is non-negotiable, well, maybe we can live with that but...
• Apparently declaring a rule non-negotiable has a knock-on effect. Suddenly the term "non negotiable" will tend to spread across multiple rule pages. This makes it almost impossible to have a tolerant policy anymore, and makes the wiki a much harsher place to work (or even nigh-on-impossible). Fortunately most of these knock-on effects have been reversed. Unfortunately sometimes they still crop up again.
• non-negotiability has a negative effect on dispute resolution. it makes it harder to mediate, and puts a larger load on the arbitration committee. Since the only time we really really need to depend on written documentation is precisely during dispute resolution, this is Not A Good Thing.
• Anytime something is non-negotiable, you create an exception to our policy that everything is done by consensus. This then allows people to think they can ignore consensus in other situations too.
• Anytime something is declared non-negotiable, people just immediately start playing hardball (and typically failing :-P ), even when a softball solution was available, and would have solved the problem.
• with a negotiable rule, you can [{WP:IAR|temporarily work around it]], while building a consensus, when that might be helpful. In that way, negotiable rules are more likely to actually have their intended effect.
• If two people disagree on interpretation of a soft rule, they will negotiate and come to a compromise. Therefore, a soft/negotiable rule is more likely to have the intended effect.
• If two people disagree on interpretation of a hard rule, they tend to fight. Only one will win, and they are likely to actually be wrong. In this way a hard (non-negotiable) rule tends to have a different effect from the one intended, or can at times even have the opposite effect (see earlier in this thread where someone misquoted BRD... if that had been a hard rule, we may have had lots of wikidrama, and ended up doing The Wrong Thing. Fortunately, BRD is not a hard rule)
• (This space reserved for expansion)

--Kim Bruning (talk) 15:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see that misunderstood my post regarding WP:BRD. Let me rephrase what I said. Since your bold edit was reverted, it is clear that we should discuss the matter before making further edits. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 15:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It's clear that I should discuss with Francis Schonken, at least. :-P --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC) rtfp for rationale ;-)

WP:NPOV has been non-negotiable for four-and-a-half years, with or without Jimbo. None of the monsters colorfully depicted by Kim ever came to life in those 4½ years. The only incident I can remember is that at a certain point there was an attempt to make WP:V and WP:NOR as non-negotiable as WP:NPOV (and make WP:NPOV a little less non-negotiable at the same time). Jimbo's opinion was asked. Nor WP:V, nor WP:NOR have any language currently pertaining to non-negotiability, but they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another as all three policies note in their lead section. But expansion of non-negotiability to other pages never materialised. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

To continue the metaphor, These monsters materialized but we managed to hold them off with a lot of blood sweat and tears. Perhaps you never noticed them showing up due to the diligent efforts of our wiki-superheros ;-) Now it's the final episode. We've fought the monsters back to the source, and are here to finish them off once-and-for-all. ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC) ps. if you doubt any one of my statements above, obviously I can dig up diffs, discussions, mediations etc for each; as I try to be sure to never make a statement I can't back up. Note that this might take a while since I'm actually busy elsewhere as well.

(post-ec) Now having read the 2006-april statement, this seems to refer to dealings with the outside world, where this is a useful position. In other news, it might be interesting to draw Jimbo into this debate (by which I mean actual debate, not drive-by posting ^^;;) but I'm not sure he has much time --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)Imagine the situation

1. Someone makes a horribly POV edit to an article.
2. Another editor reverts, and quotes WP:NPOV.
3. The first editor visits this page, looking for a loophole they can use to make their preferred edit.
4. Instead of seeing, up front and clearly spelled out, the information that this policy is absolute and non-negotiable, they see that it isn't going to be easy to change it without significantly changing wikipedia.

What are they supposed to make of that? What if they believe sincerely that wikipedia needs to change? This isn't too much a stretch of the imagination - we have conservative Christians worried about evolution and abortion, nationalists of all types concerned about history and news article, businesses looking for free promotional opportunities - all of whom would dearly love to see a paradigm shift in WP policy. This proposal is asking for trouble, and I can't see any benefit to it. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 15:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see this as a proposal, but rather as a description of how things actually work.

As to your example:

• Say someone does make a POV edit to an article. You mention NPOV but they're not buying it.
• Cool! An opportunity to teach a newbie how to edit. :-)
• Just like in any other rational consensus discussion, you should now easily be able to convince them of the merits of neutrality. You *have* properly internalized the contents of this page, RIGHT? :-)
• If you fail to convince them, that's ok, you tried and failed, and normal dispute resolution can handle it.
• This is not theory. I've been doing things like this for the past 5 years or so. (I was nommed for admin because I handled my first case so well :-) )
• And please *DO* handle situations that way first, please. DR is congested enough as is, thanks. We don't need to pick up behind petty wikilawyering exchanges. :-P

As a separate note, notice that soft&negotiable rules tend to not have loopholes (typically none), while hard&non-negotiable rules tend to resemble swiss cheese. Nations typically set hard rules, and everyone knows about the high priced lawyers who can steer you through the loopholes ;-) (compare how arbcom views wikilawyering, and you'll see where I'm getting at) I can give a more detailed explanation on request.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 16:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

There is a mis-perceived idea that NPOV is some kind of "truth" that lives in a theoretical domain, removed from the practical aspects related to its application. It is not. NPOV is an ideal, and the application of principles embodied in that ideal is arrived at in articles by the building of consensus about how an article measures against that ideal. Attempts to make NPOV a hard rule in the manner of (Thou shall not steal) will never work. So, this discussion about if NPOV is negotiable or not, is a bit of a red herring. NPOV as an ideal is one of the foundations of this project, and it is not going anywhere regardless what formulation we choose to display in this page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Re. "This proposal is asking for trouble, and I can't see any benefit to it." - Seconded.

Re. "[...] this discussion about if NPOV is negotiable or not, is a bit of a red herring. NPOV as an ideal is one of the foundations of this project, and it is not going anywhere regardless what formulation we choose to display in this page." - Seconded too. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The two seem to be somewhat mutually exclusive. You pick the one or the other? :-)

Actually, In my experience, the "non-negotiable" mindset seems to be positively disruptive. Many situations like that have required mediation. I have always used WP:IAR to work around it, and get things mediated, but I would much prefer if the page actually reflected current best practice. --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC) that is best practice, not random practice, or worst practice. (to forestall that particular debate :-P)

I second both. I don't see a benefit to the change, and I think the discussion of it a bit of a red herring. But the formulation of the NPOV principle is something I think on second thought not to be wholly without merit. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Rather than asserting that NPOV is non-negotiable, we can describe who said that, how it is applied, and the fact that NPOV is a principle that is at the core of the project. That would be a much better way to explain the importance of NPOV, than just say "non-negotible" without an explanation as for the reasons. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The statement "NPOV is absolute and non-negotiable", and other condescending rhetoric of this kind is unnecessary instruction creep and as such should be removed. Bensaccount (talk) 17:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

"This proposal is asking for trouble, and I can't see any benefit to it." - Thirded. Publicly declaring that NPOV is negotiable will, in many cases, simply nullify NPOV. Consider the present situation with the various nationalist disputes on Wikipedia, and imagine how it would be if we implied that the righteous struggle to ensure that The One And Only True And Holy Truth prevails, despite the constant efforts of members of the hedonistic and cannibalistic Other^TM to suppress it with lies, misinformation, and brainwashing, might be justified. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes some people think that way, and I've noticed that this is counter-intuitive for them. Interestingly, at least as far as dispute-resolution is concerned, removing the non-negotiable clause from NPOV (rather than explicitly declaring it negotiable) , actually makes the rule much stronger, not weaker. This is the key thing you need to understand. I've actually applied WP:IAR to NPOV several times, and by doing so, managed to convince people to be on our side, and they then actually applied NPOV and other policies not because they were told to, but because they were convinced it was the right thing to do.

Now I was raised this way, so it's natural and intuitive approach for me. I understand that some people have had a more authoritative upbringing? --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that removal of the clause is preferable to a change in wording; however, I'm not convinced that removal is preferable to the current version. :) I'm not sure how much effect upbringing has, but my concern has more do with the difficulty of convincing someone to do the right thing, when he or she is absolutely convinced that the right thing is nothing other than revealing The Truth about a certain event, object, or activity.

I'm not saying that it's not possible (or even that it's rare) for editors to put aside their personal viewpoints in favour of improving the encyclopedia (my experience with disputes related to the Sri Lankan conflict is enough proof that it can and does happen), but there will always be editors who don't get it or refuse to get it. In such cases, it would be much harder to uphold NPOV if the policy page implies that the principle can be negotiated. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

@Black Falcon: No one is arguing for describing NPOV as "negotiable". The arguments are for explaining how and why NPOV is a fundamental principle of this project. Big difference, no? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes, but explaining how and why NPOV is a fundamental principle is also substantially different from removing the statement that it is "non-negotiable". Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Either it's negotiable or it's not. If you want to add detail about why it's important, that's a different matter. Perhaps removing the "non-negotiable" sentence should be discussed separately. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 18:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The two are strongly intertwined. To make things black and white: Either you say "no, it's not negotiable" and chase people away, or you give people a little more leeway and draw more people into the project by teaching them about NPOV. In both cases, NPOV still applies. In the latter case, NPOV becomes stronger, because you end up with more people genuinely supporting it (after all, you catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar). This is not just something I'm making up. I've seen it happen that way. (I am allowed to "violate" NPOV via IAR, if I can show that this improves the encyclopedia... which it does.)

In general, I've found that the way rules work is counter-intuitive. Often a change will have a different effect from what you'd expect. In fact, a lot of things about wikipedia are counter-intuitive. That's why we expect people to think about them rationally instead. :-)

Am I making sense to you? --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

If people think NPOV is negotiable, telling them it isn't won't change their minds. Removing instruction creep to facilitate reading the policy will. Bensaccount (talk) 18:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

My 2 cents: calling it non-negotiable gives editors a reason to find a way to non-negotiate there way out of the spirit of the policy by lawyering over the text. Xavexgoem (talk) 19:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec) @Blackfalcon: Well, I figure that if you can't convince people that they need to remain neutral or follow other best practices of their own accord, they're going to be a net time sink and a negative contributor to the encyclopedia anyway. (As they will constantly need to be watched, thus using up valuable time of other volunteers.)

In that situation, the only benefit of having a hard rule is that you get to drive the bad apples away a little faster. On the other hand, you'll also end up driving away people who are redeemable (because no one bothers to redeem them).

So having a soft rule allows you to recruit more good editors. At the same time it also gives you a decent rationale to actually get rid of the bad editors ("we really tried, but they're just not listening").

Cynically: When it comes to The Exchange Of Diffs (tm) in many dispute resolution processes, you'll end up looking squeaky clean, while the "bad guys" look really bad indeed. Getting them banned is so much easier then. O:-)

--Kim Bruning (talk) 18:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Why do you think that having a soft rule "gives you a decent rationale to actually get rid of the bad editors"? As I see it, it would only increase the possibility for wikilawyering and use of multiple loopholes. (Incidentally, I think a block or ban is easier to obtain for repeated violation of a hard rule rather than for a pattern of tendentious editing (i.e. repeated violation of a soft rule)). Black Falcon <suYp>(Talk) 19:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

You are violating assume good faith. Bensaccount (talk) 19:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Huh?! How? I'm discussing my perceptions of the potential consequences of a change in wording; I've not suggested anything about Kim... Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Your goal should not be to facilitate the banning of editors. Why not focus on more helpful goals (ie. removal of instruction creep) Bensaccount (talk) 19:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, if an editor is disruptive to the project and is unwilling to change his/her behaviour, then banning is a reasonable option (and sometimes a necessity). There is no reason we should make it easier for disruptive editors to carry for longer periods of time... In any case, this has nothing to do with AGF since it's not an assumption of bad faith to state that there were/are/will be disruptive editors who were/are/will be banned. That's a fact, not an assumption of any kind. As for "instruction creep", one brief sentence hardly makes a difference in 40KB of text... (besides, I have focused on the goal of removing instruction creep - see the section below). Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It is an assumption of bad faith, and one sentence does make a difference. The statement "NPOV is absolute and non-negotiable", and other condescending rhetoric of this kind is unnecessary instruction creep that should be removed. Bensaccount (talk) 20:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It is an assumption of bad faith... Please see Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. It is not an assumption that disruption has occurred and that disruptive editors were banned -- it is a fact. Moreover, it should not require any stretch of the imagination to realise that disruption will continue to occur in the future and that some editors will be banned in the future. WP:AGF involves assuming that "we work from an assumption that most people are trying to help the project, not hurt it"; however, it would be naive to assume that everyone acts in this way. Perhaps it would clarify if you could state about whom you think I'm assuming bad faith?

The statement "NPOV is absolute and non-negotiable", and other condescending rhetoric of this kind is unnecessary instruction creep that should be removed. I can understand the claim that it's unnecessary (though I don't agree with it), as well as the claim that it's instruction creep, but how is the claim that "NPOV is absolute and non-negotiable" in any way condescending? Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

You answered your own question. It is condescending because it assumes the editor is out to harm the project and might need to be banned. Bensaccount (talk) 21:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Following that logic, having Wikipedia:Blocking policy is condescending because it implies that some users might need to be blocked and having Wikipedia:No personal attacks is condescending because it implies that some users might make personal accounts. However, those policies are not assumptions of bad faith -- rather, they are responses to situations that theoretically might and in practice do arise. Your definition of "assuming good faith" does not match the common understanding of the term, as define here. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Theres a difference between responding to theoretical situations and assuming the editor is out to harm the project. Bensaccount (talk) 02:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Just chiming in to briefly agree with Black Falcon (and to add that I'm not convinced Bensaccount understands what Black Falcon is saying).--Doug Weller (talk) 08:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if you don't understand how some people might find the sentence condescending. What matters is that we all agree the sentence is instruction creep. Bensaccount (talk) 18:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

In reply to a bit further up, why soft rules allow for less wiki-lawyering? Well, that's an interesting one. You're still going by intuition there. ;-)

Here's a general case:

If you're trying to find a way around a rule, and you have to negotiate about the exact interpretation of a rule anyway, there's only so far you can go while still taking into account the other party (or parties). And once you've agreed on what to do, you need to stick to the agreement. Lawyering your way out of a good faith agreement is generally "Not Done". Also you know *exactly* who you will be offending, and social pressure will keep you in line. Forget loopholes. Other people you've talked with will know exactly what you're up to and tell you off. "No, we really agreed to this behaviour... stick with the program". You use soft rules for community standards and for meatball:SoftSecurity, when you would like people to cooperate.

Conversely, a hard rule is set by some anonymous entity far removed from the trenches. It is triggered in an exact set of circumstances. If you know the exact trigger, you can act right up to the line and not get into trouble... except if you sneeze, in which case you're suddenly banned for a week. ;-) If there's a loophole, you can sneak through. Very few people will care if you sneak through a loophole, because (practically) no one has any vested interest in your good behavior (at best they have a vested interest in you Not Being There At All :-P). You typically only use hard rules for meatball:HardSecurity, when you have already given up on people.

In general, if you have to start using hard rules, you're probably better off just banning people outright (which is a basic expression of hard security).

So to summarize: Soft rules are for keeping people working together, hard rules are for keeping people out.

Now, what is NPOV for?

--Kim Bruning (talk) 20:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Well argued, Kim. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

If a dozen editors on an article decide they don't want to follow WP:NPOV on an article, that WP:CONSENSUS is invalid, as all articles must comply with WP:NPOV, regardless of any agreements to the contrary. It is non-negotiable. One can negotiate about whether or not an article does indeed comply with WP:NPOV, but one cannot negotiate it away as a requirement. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

You're too paranoid. :-) If another couple of editors from the general community join the discussion, then the previous consensus to ignore is certain to fall. That's the meaning of large-scale consensus, and that's why the foundation issues are listed as what they are. They'r