Wikipedia:Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view

From Global Warming Art

The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Wikipedia. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Before editing this page, please make sure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss on the talk page. Always remember to keep cool when editing. Changes to this page do not immediately change policy anyway, so don't panic.

Are you in the right place? For questions or discussions about the application of this policy to any specific article(s), please post your message at either the NPOV Noticeboard (any neutrality-related issue) or the Fringe Theories Noticeboard (undue weight given to a minority view).

	WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia	Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:Talk Spoken WikipediaSpoken Wikipedia articles
v • d • e The spoken word version of this page is part of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, an attempt to produce recordings of Wikipedia articles. To participate, visit the project page.

When starting a new topic, please add it to the bottom of this page, and please sign your comments with four tildes: ~~~~. This will automatically place a date stamp, which will allow us to maintain this page better.

Assumptions

I made edits to a section on assumptions, which seemed muddled. I do not think we are supposed to make "assumtions" when editing articles. As best I could tell, the point of the section was, that articles concern some things and not others. That is not making an assumption that is a straightforward matter of having clarity about the scope of the article. Some things that may appear connected to an article do not go in because there is another article for them to go into. And that is not about "assumptions" either, it is about POV forks. So I rewrote it so it would make sense. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

While the section you've added looks valid and worthwhile, it's not the same as the longstanding WP:MNA policy which I've restored. I've just been looking at a discussion where an editor asserts "This does not disprove the argument; assume for a second Creationism were true; there can still be missing fossils. This also assumes that evolution is a fact."[1] We don't argue that out on every page, we refer to the arguments and sources on the relevant main article. This is an important aspect of "Neutrality disputes and handling" and the section you've added doesn't cover it. . . dave souza, talk 11:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed clarification of the lead

First version of proposal

I am perplexed by the last two sentences of the lead:

If this passage is reliable (it doesn't appear at the other Core Content Policies), I take it to mean roughly the following:

These three policy pages (NPOV, NOR, and V) are attempts to document, explain, and apply three respectively-named principles; the former being but Wiki-like and transient, the latter bold and eternal. Wikimedia mandates that obedience to the eternal principles trumps obedience to the Wiki-like policy pages.

But if the three policy pages are but Wiki-like and transient, how does we know which qualities of their respective principles is stable? Do the underlying principles simply equal whatever is conjured up by their respective English-language labels? Then we're really saying that the policy pages entitled "Neutral Point of View," "Verifiability," and "No Original Research" are trumped by whatever is at Neutral point of view, Verifiability, and Original research...

This mumbo-jumbo really isn't necessary. The cool thing about Wikipedia is that we don't need Wikimetaphyisical and/or Wiki-Constitutional arcana to function. Here's all we need to say: These three policy pages cannot be superseded by other policy pages, because Wikimedia said so. A small issue then arises: Wikimedia has not said so. (meta:Foundation issues only testifies to NPOV, but not to NOR or V.) This can be solved by asking Wikimedia to say so.

At this stage in Wikipedia's lifecycle, I find it highly unlikely that if we did this, a "consensus" will ever form that would enervate the "principles upon which these policies are based". That's because this isn't a democracy, it's a culture with an institutional knowledge -- as we learned in the PARC study. Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 04:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• On further reflection, the "Because Wikimedia said so" thing isn't really necessary either. We're all grown-ups here. We've reached a consensus as to this and it won't get shaken. Let's just substitute the following text:

.

• It's superfluous whether or not Wikimedia states that something is non-negotiable; what matters more is that it actually is non-negotiable. Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 05:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

There's no problem with those sentences as they stand. A strict reading would leave them liable to create a constitutional crisis, but we're not subject to the traditional vagaries of constitutional law. Anyone that tries the time-honored trick of stitching together other policies to craft a contradiction will be dismissed with the same. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 06:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Second version of proposal

Sentences 2 and 3 read as follows:

What are we trying to convey here? Ridiculous interpretations are tempting:

Both articles and article editors alike must not violate the policy that WP encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view.

I suppose we're really trying to convey something about professionalism and respect for our mission:

we're not merely barring POV's from articles, but we'd also kindly request you to not blabber about them in the talk pages of articles.

That's superfluous. Our mission is to write an NPOV encyclopedia, and we expect our editors not to distract us from it.

Here's how I see the lead looking:

It may seem startling that I've removed the first sentence, but it makes sense. There's no need to mention the core policies of WikiMedia (per my discussion in the previous thread). We don't do NPOV because WikiMedia says so; we do it because it's a good idea. And there's no need to mention the Pillars of Wikipedia either. They are not policy pages. They attempt to summarize what's here, not the other way around. And it's a bad idea to emphasize that NPOV is a pillar, when WP:O and WP:V are not. Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 06:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 06:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

You did read WP:5P before making that statement, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.111.114.131 (talk) 06:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

well, WP:NPOV is the second pillar, whereas WP:O and WP:V are scattered around the first and second pillars. You could argue that the first pillar combines WP:O and WP:V. But how would you propose articulating that at WP:O and WP:V?

Anyhow, the Pillars page is emphatically not policy, it attempts to describe policies made elsewhere. That statement was made as early as August 2005 and the page was created in May 2005. Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 06:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

If this doesn't get any more feedback before tomorrow, I'm going to unleash it on the world. Really, I was expecting more indignation ... Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 02:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Research

This section describes the history of the relevant features of the lead.

• 08:46, 5 November 2003 introduced this text: "According to Jimbo Wales, "NPOV is absolute and non-negotiable". [2]"

• Comments: Actually, the link provided has changed. Here, Jimbo says "A few things are absolute and non-negotiable, though. NPOV for example." I found the link herethough the other links there have also changed.
• Talk page: In the earliest talk archive, Larry Sanger wrote: "this is one of the rules that Jimmy Wales and many others on Wikipedia have said ... is non-negotiable, and really is a rule."

• For a long time until 9 June 2006, the Lead ended with, "Because the three policies are complementary, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one other, and editors should therefore try to familiarize themselves with all three. The three policies are also non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus." 10 June 2006 was the first introduction of the policy/principle distinction, with the edit summary: "The principle is non-negotiable, this page is not." The prior and subsequent edits are much more nuanced than all that.

Talk page history:

• This was preceded by adiscussion started on June 6 which started with User:AvB's suggestion, "... Would it be feasible to update the policy language to reflect that Wikipedia has three non-negotiable principles that are explained on their respective policy pages (which are negotiable)?"
• In the subsequent thread, on 7 June 2006, the same editor proposed this text: "These policies are non-negotiable and their policy pages may only be edited to better reflect practical explanation and application of each policy's principles."
• AvB started another related thread on June 8.
• On June 10, AvB started a great thread entitled "List of Wikipedia's non-negotiable key principles" which raises similar points. (incidentally, I'd really like to meet this person!)
• Another very relevant thread was started on June 13, discussing the word choice.

Third version of proposal

I'm going to summarize the previous discussion for new participants. I have proposed some clarifications to the lead:

Pre-existing text:

Neutral point of view (NPOV) is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors. For guidance on how to make an article conform to the neutral point of view, see the NPOV tutorial; for examples and explanations that illustrate key aspects of this policy, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ.

"Neutral point of view" is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies. The other two are "Verifiability" and "No original research". Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. Because the policies are complementary, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should familiarize themselves with all three. The principles upon which these policies are based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus. Core content policy pages may only be edited to improve the application and explanation of the principles.

Proposed text:

All Wikipedia content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly all significant views that have beenpublished by reliable sources. Editors must not let their personal biases obstruct this goal. For guidance on how to do this, see theNPOV tutorial and the NPOV FAQ.

"Neutral point of view", "Verifiability" and "No original research" jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. These core content policies are non-negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other policy page. Editors should familiarize themselves with all three, as they are complementary and cannot be interpreted in isolation.

Some reasons for these changes

• According to the research I've collected above, the phrase "non negotiable" has historically been attached to NPOV, based on a comment by Jimbo, but could just as easily have been applied to the others. I can't find the comment being referred to, but Jimbo has said, "A few things are absolute and non-negotiable, though. NPOV for example." Based on other evidence from the research, I don't think it would be wrong to attach the "non-negotiable" phrase to all three content policies.

• I haven't had a chance to research the history of the first sentence of the existing text, but I would remove it. First of all, saying "because Wikimedia said so" isn't necessary to establish the "Constitutionality" of a policy; it's something we can do by consensus, and we do it because it's a good idea. Also, it's inappropriate to "ground" any core policy in WP:5P. They are not policy pages (that statement was made as early asAugust 2005 and the page was created in May 2005. ). They attempt to summarize what's here, not the other way around.

• The "policy/principle" divide has had a spirited historical debate, but I believe that if we simply say "Policy X cannot be superceded by another policy page", we will have provided ourselves all the "constitutional safeguards" we need. At this point in Wikipedia's lifecycle, I find it highly unlikely that revisions made to the NPOV "page" itself will ever degrade the NPOV "principle". Our community and institutional knowledge is just too strong for that.

Previous feedback

• Peter jackson's response to removing the last two sentences of the original lead: This is all rather academic, as there's no effective procedure for enforcing these policies.

• PBS: "These core content policies are non-negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other policy page." This is a problem because it would have excluded theWP:ATT debate, and to date there has been no agreement that there is a hierarchy in policy pages.

• Slrubenstein: I have no objection to Andrew's change, but I think the "non-negotiable" clause or sentence should stay in. To my recollection NPOV is the oldest policy and most content policies in one way or another grew out of NPOV, and this clause has beeen part of thee page for a realllllllly long time. I would say that its presence in the page for such a long time and the age of the policy itself are enough to support the argument that NPOV is central. "Truth not verifiability" I think used to be part of NPOV until it was clear that we needed a lot more explanation about what we meant by verifiable, and NOR comes out of the point that editors cannot introduce their own views into articles.

Discussion

I'd like to open this up to discussion. Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 15:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I have several issues in this case, I've been lazy and never really gotten around to attacking the "non-negotiable" phrase, and it is hurting more and more.

• First off, politically this would make it sound like consensus is deprecated. Consensus system is not exceptionally strong. If we give people a strong toe-hold with which to convince others to stop using consensus, and stop using the wiki-principle for editing. (Long story, see WT:CONSENSUS for current rumblings in this area)
• A much more important issue is where people "non-negotiate" their way out of trying to gain consensus. They think that their POV is NPOV, and say "I don't need to negotiate with you, because NPOV is non negotiable". You now need a skilled mediator to even get started. If we make non-negotiability even stronger, even a mediator will not be able to resolve an NPOV dispute, and one side will have to be banned based on a coin-toss, essentially.
• I have never actually been convinced that WP:V was essential. I'm pretty certain that WP:NOR is one of the worst mistakes ever made in the history of wikipedia (it started out small and innocent, and has grown to monstrous proportions, making certain kinds of content on wikipedia impossible, including for instance large amounts of potential content that could have been submitted by scientists. Oh well, life sucks.)

But I think we can live with the lot of them still, and I *am* committed to NPOV, at the least.

But even for NPOV, I think it would be easier to ensure NPOV if we could allow more negotiation on the matter. In mediation situations, you first need to handle peoples assertion that they refuse to negotiate (since that is a game-ender for mediation). Only then can you get around to actually mediating the case. I can't imagine how many attempts at self-mediation among editors fail because of this too.

How about if instead of saying "NPOV is non-negotiable", instead we say something like "NPOV is part of our m:Founding principles, that are fundamental to everything we do on wikipedia" or similar wording.

You're saying the same thing, but now less people are tempted to short-circuit consensus and get right down to serial 3RR violations. ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I think Kim makes some good points about consensus and I also see the sense in the alternate wording (founding principles instead of noon-negotiable). I still see NPOV as non-genotiable ... but i take Kim's point to be that the actual application of NPOV is always negotiable and that we cannot deprecate processes that help make for an efective negotiation. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Absolutely! This is not the first time that Kim has pointed out that what I perceive to be muddled language, actually reflects an underlying policy issue. I think it would be wise to focus this discussion on the issues implicit in this proposed sentence:

• In an effort to make an insightful contribution to this question of "non-negotiability", I have created a stub article for super statute which I am going to attempt to elaborate soon. I may take a break from this thread for a bit while I'm doing so, but I think that there's a fruitful analogy here. Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 18:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I haven't been following the discussion closely, but to me this seems an instance of "why fix what ain't broken". What problem are you going to solve? Remember policies have to be "descriptive" not "prescriptive": it summarizes consensus so that new editors can familiarize themselves quickly with what is being practiced. Since the application of NPOV hasn't changed as far as I know, neither should this page. -- Taku (talk) 21:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

This page is perfect in every way, and came into existence by the word of god, to fully inform the wiki community of how to live in perfect harmony? ;-)

If not, it may need editing from time to time --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Well, any text that could say the same thing in fewer words is broken. Especially if that text is designed to help people familiarize themselves with practice "quickly"! In trying to "fix" (clarify) it, I exposed content in the previous version that might not represent consensus. What we are doing here is trying to figure out whether or not it does in fact represent consensus. If it does not, the page is doubly broken. Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 23:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• I don't see it broken, and I don't see how the new wording improves anything at all. This just moves stuff around while dropping important things. I don't agree with this change at all. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I've added a section heading for convenience. The first sentence seems a little too important to disappear. It is a cornerstone, and this needs to be made abundantly clear as soon as possible. There are other places with different policies which have been founded and crafted specifically in response to this. Wikinfo operates on a "sympathetic" basis - all its articles present things favourably, achieving balance by Criticism of X counterpoint articles. Conservapedia employs WTFPOV, and enforces it strictly. Simplifying "articles and other encyclopedic content" to just "content" is a good move - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, all other namespaces exist purely to support the main product. The rest is a pretty uncontroversial rewording, of which I approve. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 02:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think this is right. Follow up question: should WP:5P be included or is meta:Foundation issues enough? One is an authority, one is a fluff piece;I'm having trouble expressing this. The following is an attempt. (It also contains other significant differences from my proposal above. These are mostly for illustrative purposes. Notably, it no longer says "significant views." I don't pretend to have an opinion on whether it belongs. Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 03:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC))

Neutrality enforcement?

Thanks for summary and reboot of this since it confirmed my concern that at least some of the proposals were a way of preparing the ground work for implementing SlimVirgin's failed Neutrality Enforcement proposal that included creation of an NPOV monitoring group. It got shot down for a variety of reasons you can read on the talk page.

Strong wording that an article should be NPOV is great. However wording that an editor (in one article or across a series of articles) must be "NPOV" can be very destructive since there are a lot of reasons editors may represent one point of view more than others, mostly related to their areas of interest, expertise, or to balancing out chronic POV in one or a series of articles. Not to mention articles where you have 3 or 4 partisan editors with one view and one editor with the other view who is trying to keep things NPOV - and those 3 or 4 editors could gang up on them.

Now obviously there are obstructionist editors who pull every trick in the book to keep an article reflecting bias, but that must be described as a behavior issue which results in a POV, not necessarily a POV issue.

For example, all the articles that do not represent a libertarian viewpoint where one could be added; or all the articles that trash anyone who's ever criticized Israel, two areas I will tend to go in and add (or delete unsourced) info to make an ARTICLE more NPOV but where I as an editor COULD be accused of exerting a POV. In fact this diff a few minutes ago when someone complained that I and another editor had not used the "best" source on left libertarianism, implying POV, I replied: I am just trying to make sure content reflects what sources actually say and make sure things actually have a source and aren't just someone's unsourced WP:Original research. It's up to others to find the "best" quotes on that topic since frankly it's not my area of expertise so I wouldn't presume to do so.

So my main comment is, let us beware of anything that leaves editors open to sanction because of alleged POV in one article or more than one article, if there is not an obvious behavior issue. CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, this resonates with another problem I had with the text. As I pointed out (flippantly) in a previous version of this proposal, trying to claim that any policy "is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors" is redundant, since articles are written by editors. When describing NPOV, it could stand for any number of things: 1) Our articles must have no bias, and so must their talk-pages. 2) Our articles must have no bias, and so must your userspace. 3) Our articles must have no bias, and so must YOU. 4) Our articles must have no bias, and you must cooperate with that rule.
• I assume we're after 4), because 3) is impossible, 2) is undesirable (see e.g. DGG's userspace), and 1) is pernicious, since we don't want individuals to try to expunge their own biases solely by themselves, but actually believe that the use of dialogue on talk pages is the best way to do it. This is what I tried to convey in my recent changes to the NPOV pillar at WP:5P.
• The striking thing about 4) is that it's the only formulation that requires two different verbs: NPOV requires different things of articles and users. And while we roughly agree what it requires from articles (i.e., haha, everyone of us knows what is NPOV!), we all have a variety of experiences with POV users. As I understand it, it is the stubborness of POV editors that constitutes the biggest difficulty with enforcing this policy, as well as the difficulty of determining which of our personal opinions is objective, versus which is a POV. That is why my proposed revision of the first paragraph pust special emphasis on the ethic that editors must undertake to try to sort their own biases from objectivity:

• Articles are the grammatical subject of the first sentence, editors are the grammatical subject of the third. This solves our problem. Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 19:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Inanimate objects

Where proper nouns such as names are concerned, disputes may arise over whether a particular name should be used. Wikipedia takes a descriptive rather than prescriptive approach in such cases, by using the common English language name as found in verifiable reliable sources. Where inanimate entities such as geographical features are concerned, the most common name used in English-language publications is generally used. See Wikipedia:Naming conflict for further guidance.

There is, however, a problem, which makes this less than coherent. WP:Naming conflict in turn says:

A city, country, people or person by contrast, is a self-identifying entity: it has a preferred name for itself. The city formerly called Danzig now calls itself Gdańsk; the man formerly known as Cassius Clay now calls himself Muhammad Ali. These names are not simply arbitrary terms but are key statements of an entity's own identity. This should always be borne in mind when dealing with controversies involving self-identifying names.

This is being read by a couple of editors at WT:Naming conflict as saying that we should always use self-identifying names, even when they are not common usage; it would be helpful to solve this by removing inanimate and making the last sentence into a {{see}} template under the header. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the beginning of Where inanimate entities such as geographical features are concerned, the most common name used in English-language publications is generally used; I do not believe we should distinguish between animate and inanimate objects;WP:NCCN does not. Without that, I think the sentence redundant, but that tweak can wait. If any one objects, please explain here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Lead

Please don't change the lead without strong consensus. The recent edits removed some important points. [3] SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree entirely. I certainly would be against such a change. Dougweller (talk) 06:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I am 'strongly opposed' to people demanding "must get consensus first", if such a thing was possible, because it's such a meaningless phrase. I can't really oppose it, because there's nothing there to oppose.

Let's get some ground under our feet.

Slimvirgin, can you explain point by point which important points were left out?

--Kim Bruning (talk) 09:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I entirely agree with Slimvirgin's decision to revert my changes -- we had come nowhere close to consensus yet -- but since we really can't achieve consensus until we hear arguments from people who are opposed to these changes, I'd really appreciate if SlimVirgin and Dougweller can give specific feedback. Some changes do need to be made, because the text is ambiguous and wordy. Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 20:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Andrew, can you explain which parts of the lead are (a) ambiguous and (b) wordy? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)that being said, since you started a new thread, I don't know if you're aware that there's already a thread about this above, which could help keep the conversation all in one placeAndrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 20:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Would you mind explaining here? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Just for example, trying to say that a policy is "expected of all articles and editors" is redundant. Just ten minutes ago I wrote a post explaining why this thread above. I don't blame you for not noticing it, since this thread is outrageously disorganized and lengthy. I only am directing you to the thread because it's so recent. I do owe a simple explanation for why the other text is wordy and ambiguous, and must apologize because I don't have time to do it now ... but you're right, it's my burden to defend teh changes, not yours to criticize them Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 20:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Rather than repeating the confusion of other sections, would you mind saying succinctly what is (a) ambiguous and (b) wordy about the current lead? Then we look at proposed replacements. But could we first deal with the current problems? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Examples of ambiguity in the current lead:

Examples of wordiness in the current lead:

Proposal

The proposed new nutshell is a good precis of how we do NPOV, which is entirely different from the what - the method is less important than what we get from it. That first sentence "Neutral point of view (NPOV) is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia." has to stay. This policy in and of itself has inspired third-party projects, and the statement itself is true. It's not wrong to say it's a cornerstone, because it is one. I also don't buy into the "policy pages cannot link to non-policy pages" argument. The earlier proposal was a good simplification, the one that actually went in not so much. Use of "articles" rather than "content" is no good - we'll only get people saying "I don't have to adhere to this, because this is a talk page/template/sub-page, and NPOV only says articles". It's happened before, it'll happen again. The second paragraph should probably remain as is for the time being. In other words, the first paragraph would be:

81.111.114.131 (talk) 23:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• I appreciate your feedback, but given that 1) I never made a "policy pages cannot link to non-policy pages" argument, and 2) my proposed draft retains the link to WP:5P, I'm having trouble believing that you have given my proposals a fair look. If you would like me to attempt to refactor what I've said above in briefer language, just let me know.
• Again, this is my proposed first sentence:

• 81.111.114.131, I don't like your first sentence because the juxtaposition of "cornerstone of Wikipedia" with a link to 5P misrepresents the nature of 5P: it is just a restatement.
• Also you use "neutral point of view" twice. That's not just a stylistic issue; there's been misguided efforts to distinguish NPOV as "policy" versus NPOV as "transcendental principle." In the text you proposed, the bolded form of NPOV does not appear in the same sentence that explains what it is, so it perpetuates this needless distinction.
• Finally, we should not be saying in two, isolated sentences the "importance" of NPOV. Your version expresses its importance in sentences 1 and 3. If you think the "non-negotiable" language is very important, I would integrate it into my 2nd sentence. I happen to think it's unimportant, since, once again, it tends to create a hierarchy among policies which is suggestive of a policy/principle divide. Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 23:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• PS since another one of your problems with my text is grounded in the editors/articles distinction, I hope you will take a look at the discussion of this issue in the previous thread. Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 00:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Here is a version of your proposal that would not have these weaknesses. Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 00:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I am realizing that there may be an underlying ambiguity about this. We're trying to do multiple things. 1) Put distance between our articles and the opinions in our sources, 2) put distance between our articles and the opinions of our editors. I have tried to discuss that in the thread above, which is why I'm so frustrated that people keep starting new threads. 81.111.114.131, your text says "as far as possible without bias", which contradicts the view that NPOV is neutral, period, with no ambiguity. Many people protest that bias is impossible to suppress, but that's why it's helpful to introduce a distinction between neutral articles and editors who control their biases. Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 00:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

but if you're crazy about "non-negotiable," I'd propose:

Hmm, I wonder if I can tackle Jwales on the non negotiable thing @ wikimania --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• PS 81.111.114.131, I think I violated "don't be a dick" by continually referring to the text you included as "your proposal", since it's almost identical to the pre-existing text.
• PPS, SlimVirgin, before I make further attempts to describe why the existing text is 1) redundant or 2) unclear, I think I will need a better idea of what NPOV actually means. Is there a meaningful reason that Neutral Point of View redirects to Objectivity (journalism)? If not, I think it's high time we create either 1) an independent article for NPOV, or 2) a separate section for it within that article. Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 01:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

It shouldn't have redirected there, and the objectivity in journalism article was an essay anyway, so I've redirected both. Could you please say what you meant about ambiguity and redundancy, so we can move forward? Also, please use the section above, otherwise we get bogged down with long texts. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 03:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

(address change) "My proposal" was an attempt to capture the spirit of the proposed changes without losing too much of the spirit of the original. I have read your arguments, but I don't buy this idea that linking "cornerstone of Wikipedia" to WP:5P is somehow inappropriate or disingenuous. I don't find it inappropriate to refer to NPOV as a "cornerstone of Wikipedia", because it is, and no amount of argument will change this. 5P is a restatement (note the lack of a {{policy}} tag), but nobody is going to argue successfully that NPOV, NOR, V, free content, consensus and IAR aren't "cornerstones of Wikipedia", so I don't find the link to 5P in any way inappropriate, inaccurate, or misleading. "cannot be emphasised enough" suggests it's important, and that we're continually having to remind people of it - it doesn't speak to the fact that NPOV is absolute, immovable, and set in stone, which is why we have historically described it as "non-negotiable". IMO, removal of "non-negotiable" without replacing it with similarly strong language amounts to a weakening. I also consider that a change from "three core policies ... that determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable" to merely something "editors should be familiar with" amounts to a significant downgrading. The reason we consider these three policies as over and above any others is that they are. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 22:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you Andrew Gradman? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Side by Side Comparisons of leads

I was having fun with formatting to try to clear up my own confusion on new vs. old proposals which clarified my own thinking. When I did so I discovered my own main objections which will bring up separately. Maybe those coming up with critiques or other proposals (including above that look pretty confusing to me) should copy this to their own sandbox to clarify your thinking and/or to play with :-) So have fun! But leave this template as is. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

It's causing some formatting problems, so I've changed it a little. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it's less clear. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Why are we comparing August 21 and July 2? They seem virtually identical. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess I should have mentioned that because of recent brouhaha, I thought there had been some massive change from the earlier version, but in fact it was a minor change. Also went back to January 2 which was also virtually identical except for formatting. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Current lead and some proposals

• Slimvirgin, I can support your proposed text. It doesn't do everything I wanted in my proposal, but it's a fine compromise, and it makes sense. Support. [that being said, there is always room for improvement, and I reserve the right to side with the next person who pokes a stick at it.  :) ] Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 08:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• (I mean, for example, "these policies jointly determine the scope of acceptable Wikipedia content" would be nice. If that text could get picked up, I'd be very happy. "Nature and quality" is pretty vague.) Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 08:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• (actually, if you could sort of explain what it is about my proposed second paragraph that doesn't work right. That would help. I really like my proposed second paragraph and I was sort of surprised it didn't meet with universal acclaim.) Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 08:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Is "scope" not even broader than "nature and quality." The latter I can understand, but the former - when I read it, I have to ask myself what it means exactly. The ideal thing would be if every word and every sentence in this policy were both clear and necessary. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Your second paragraph was fine, but it didn't emphasize enough that the three policies have to be read together, because each is meaningless (or not quite right) without the other two. Ideally, they should be combined into one policy, and I've long thought of trying to do that. But yes, your second para was fine too. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Thinking about it some more, I think I'm doing what I criticize others for, namely hanging on to long-winded text just because I'm used to it. I could therefore support your second paragraph, perhaps with a tweak or two, i.e.

(a) "Editors should also be familiar with Verifiability and No original research, as these three policies help define one another and determine the scope of acceptable Wikipedia content." or

(b) "Neutral point of view is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies, along with Verifiability and No original research. These policies jointly determine the scope of Wikipedia's content, and should therefore not be interpreted in isolation from one another." SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I spliced our suggestions. [4] "Scope" survived. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Just for historical purposes, here it is below. I like the fact it removes that troublesome language about editors. Though it feels rather bare :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

One of the founding principles of Wikipedia is that its articles be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all majority- and significant-minority views that have been published by reliable sources.

NPOV is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies, along with "Verifiability" and "No original research." These policies jointly determine the scope of acceptable Wikipedia content, and should not be interpreted in isolation from one another.

• This is very elegant. I have new faith in the power of writing by committee! now, who wants to start a pool: how long before someone gets upset that "non-negotiable" is gone? (on a serious note, this version does lack the urgency of the original, but since I stay far and clear of POV pushers, I'm not qualified to say whether that's a bad thing]).
• PS I suppose that the new "second paragraph" text here ought to be reproduced at Verifiability and No original research? Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 04:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I think a lot of the frantic language stems from the period when Wikipedia got popular and was overwhelmed by new editors -- 2005-2006-ish. We were suddenly having to explain to people that, no, even if dozens of you agree on a talk page, you can't ignore NPOV, V, and NOR! So all kinds of language crept into the policies to reflect that panic: "Founding principle, non-negotiable, a policy that will last for a thousand years!" :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SlimVirgin (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia policy is generally malleable. It needs to be made explicit in the lead that the core content policies are absolute. It need not be worded in an urgent manner, but it needs to be there. A glance through a day's action on AfD reveals that all too many people don't understand this (especially in relation to WP:V). "non-negotiable" at least had the advantage of conveying in just two words that the three are effectively set in stone, and are likely to stay that way for some time to come. "These policies, which are [preferred term here], jointly determine ..." 81.110.104.91 (talk) 15:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, I agree that a small tweak should be made to convey this. I am pretty much satisfied with SlimVirgin's current proposal, but I will throw out some alternatives that might meet the conditions suggested by 81.110.104.91. (I'll put a bunch of changes in one place, and you can pick and choose what you like.) (What makes the effort awkward is 1) "non-negotiable" was historically applied to NPOV only because it was grounded in a quote by Jimbo: "A few things are absolute and non-negotiable. NPOV, for example." [5] 2) NPOV is the only one of the three that is listed as a meta:Foundation issue.) Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 21:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

All articles must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all majority- and significant-minority views that have been published by reliable sources. This is a founding principle and is non-negotiable.

Also be familiar with "Verifiability" and "No original research", as these three core policies jointly determine the scope of acceptable Wikipedia content and cannot be interpreted in isolation.

• I have used the phrase "core policies" rather than "core content policies" because 1) we use "content" later in the sentence and 2) it seems to convey the importance better (?). Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 21:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Writing

The writing in this policy is very unclear -- at best, wordy, but often in such a way as to introduce confusion. I just moved one example out of the policy:

A common dispute occurs when an editor insists that material must be included in an article because it is properly sourced. asserts that a fact is both verifiable and cited, and should therefore be included.
In these types of disputes, it is important to note that verifiability lives alongside neutrality: it does not override it. A matter that is both verifiable and supported by reliable sources might nonetheless be used in a way that is not neutral. For example, it might be:

• cited selectively
• painted by words more favorably or negatively than is appropriate
• made to look more important or more dubious than a neutral view would present
• subject to other factors suggestive of bias
  

Verifiability is only one content criterion. Neutral point of view is a core policy of Wikipedia, mandatory, non-negotiable, and to be followed in all articles. Concerns related to undue weight, non-neutral fact selection and wording, and advancing a personal view, are not addressed even slightly by asserting that the matter is verifiable and cited. The two are different questions, and both must be considered in full, in deciding how the matter should be presented in an article.
Facts are always preferable to opinions. The article on Hitler does not start with "Hitler was a bad man" and it does not need to; his deeds convict him. We just list the facts dispassionately and let the reader see. Show, don't tell. Resist the temptation to apply labels or moralize.

This could and should be said in one sentence. By making it so wordy, it starts to become unclear what it's trying to say. The whole policy would benefit from a rewrite/copy edit to tighten it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

It is not clear what "this policy" refers to or if this whole section was written by SlimVirgin or she is replying to something some unsigned editor wrote. From Carol who also finds herself having to clarify her posts :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

"This policy" refers to this NPOV policy. The section above was not written by me, but moved by me to talk, because it's not written clearly. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, wasn't clear it was from the main page cause I missed the diff about it. Put a little box around which helps too. And I agree it was problematic. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The text removed says much the same thing about four times: assertions can be sourced, and accurate, without being neutral. (Presumably four different editors' favorite ways of putting it.) Would anybody object to saying it once, and restoring the vivid Hitler example? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

That is the problem throughout the whole page. The same points are repeated over and over. Also, the Hitler example above is an entirely different thought from the rest of the section that seems just to have been tacked on at the end. We also agreed in the RfC not to advise editors not to moralize, in case they take it to mean don't add the opinions of sources. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

There's a common thread. One point here is pejorative language is non-neutral, even if (correctly) sourced; I think that sound policy. The Hitler instance supports the policy by showing that pejorative language is unnecessary.

• What RfC? There's an abyss on either side here, and if editors are not warned they will bring in the opinions of their high school textbooks. In some areas of the world, it is perfectly possible to source both X is a national hero and X committed genocide, even without material disagreement on the facts. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

for and against sections

Some policy articles have for and against sections... is there a better style because I think that this can cause problems. i.e. imagine if there is a reasonably fringe view (there is a prominent adherent, but they are pretty much alone), stating their view and then waiting paragraphs to state the mainstream response seems damaging to the readers understanding of the topic to me. Could this page suggest an alternative, or perhaps this style should be forbidden outright. PDBailey (talk) 04:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

That style does tend to be a cruft magnet, emphasizing (both) extreme views at the expense of the mainstream. I don't think it should be banned - there are doubtless articles where it is useful and wisely employed. Some sort of warning seems indicated. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I think not banning it is the same as saying all rules can be broken, but maybe you can point to a place where it benefits an article? Currently I am dealign with right-to-work law where there is a debunked argument in the for section and the debunking was just moved to 4 (long) paragraphs later because it was considered to be an argument against. I think this sort of though is right on the face of it, but does not add to the Wikipedia looking or feeling very encyclopedic.

In my mind the worst part about the for/against is that there is a feeling that those who find more for/against points should get to edit their part and those who find more against/for should not be allowed to play in their section. PDBailey (talk) 15:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

How about saying that such sections are rarely useful, and referring to WP:SOAP? Where they exist, they should be based on a secondary survey of the literature, not on the polemics of the two sides, which are primary sources. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you proposing that some sort of "rarely useful" text be added to this page? If so, I'd support that. I think your points on the topic are insightful (or they were to me) and they illuminate what can go wrong. I agree that if what you said is not happening, it could be okay, but I'd have to see it to believe it. PDBailey (talk) 19:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Somewhere, some time, Wikipedians will do things right. Let's not give the vandals an excuse to claim policy violation when it happens. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• One example, not quite for and against, is in Macedonia_(terminology)#Politics. Instead of letting the Greek and Macedonian viewpoints shout at each other, we quote a neutral scholar, the Australian Loring Danforth, who desribes both sides. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you just made my point--there is one section and not two and the text reads like an encyclopedia, not a bunch of people arguing until they agree to draw a line in the sand and not cross the lines. I can understand not wanting to have too many rules, but there is also value in setting out best pratices. Again, your arguments against the for and against helped me see very clearly what is wrong with this in most cases, and having them in at least a guideline or even essay would be worth something to other editors like me. Maybe you can also tell me more precisely what you were thinking when you wrote, "How about saying that such sections are rarely useful, and referring to WP:SOAP?" PDBailey (talk) 03:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I completely disagree that "criticism" sections and the like are "rarely useful". On the contrary, I think that on a project like Wikipedia, which anyone can edit and which frequently has articles edited by partisans from both sides, it is probably essential to retain such a structure. The alternative is to have an endless succession of tit-for-tat "but on the other hand" statements throughout the article that make articles completely incomprehensible to read and which only end up demonstrating a critical weakness of this project. Gatoclass (talk) 09:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The question is whether such sections make a bad situation worse or better. Generally I think they make it worse, leading to WP:Coatracking as people bung in any old criticism or negative content (rarely happens with praise, in my experience...) and over time the thing becomes a hideous Godzilla of Assorted Reasons Why This Thing Is Crap And Assorted People Who Think It's Crap And Assorted (OR?) Evidence Why It's Crap, but there may be exceptions. Rd232 ^talk 10:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• Look more closely at the Macedonia example; I linked to a main section, but there are two subsections, one on the Greek PoV, one on the Macedonian. Both quote the same neutral source. That will work, if done in good faith. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Septentrionalis, again, you are right that this part of the article is of incredibly high quality, an excellent example. Even if you can't use one review article, I think using review articles is probably best. However, given the extensive length of the reference to the one article, is there a copyright issue? I know abstracts are legit derivative works, but this is paragraph upon paragraph of summarizing and quoting, when have you taken too much for the source? PDBailey (talk) 19:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Not my pidgin. I didn't do this section of the article - and don't do WP:COPYVIO; but it passed through FAR recently, and those quotes were discussed (and reduced). Less than a paragraph all told of Danforth's text, out of a quite long paper, seems to me like fair use. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Copy edit of lead

Wolfkeeper reverted. [6] WK, would you mind saying what you felt was wrong with the copy edit? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

}

I like the copy edit. I do (for what it is worth) think that in the body, maybe immediately after the lead we need to say that the principle itself is non-negotiable, although we often discuss how best to apply it. I also think that we need to say somewhere in the body that in effect we are not making any claims about th truth, only that a view is significant and verifiable. I also think we need to state explicitly in the body that editors should not be guided by their personal views. I am calling attention to what I consider VERY important points, but that can be made in the body, not the lead. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I like the original text. For all its elegance, the proposal is watering down the wording. Why? Is there an error in the original? I find the original to be totally refreshing as a no-nonsense guide, while even the start of the proposal ("One of the founding principles...") suggests that another founding principle may very well override NPOV. I can't put my finger on it, but there is also something wrong about the way "significant views" is treated in the proposal. Perhaps it is the suggestion that a minority (if significant) can have any crazy idea and it must be in Wikipedia because the minority is significant (yes, I know the "reliable sources" should cover it, but I am concerned about the extreme wikilawyers). Johnuniq (talk) 23:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I find the original too wordy and a bit club-like, as though it's bashing us over the head with the idea. "[E]xpected of all articles" is repetitious; we already say it's a policy, so clearly it wouldn't only apply to some articles. It's false to say that NPOV is expected of all editors. I wish it were, but we have lots of SPAs who do nothing but push strong POVs in specific areas, and there's usually nothing we can do about them. If someone would like to start a drive to change that, I'd be 100 percent behind it, but it's been tried before and has failed. "Type and quality" of material = scope. And so on. Lots of unnecessary words. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with SlimVirgin and Slrubenstein (i.e. in favor of the copyedit).
• Johnuniq, one of your major concerns is its treatment of "significant views." Since this is probably one of the most difficult elements of NPOV to articulate, I think the best we can do is to elaborate this in the body of the policy; the header can at best present a skeleton -- and I think the revision does this effectively. Andrew Gradman 05:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Slrubenstein, you mentioned that you wanted to see "non-negotiable" in the text. Another user proposed that above and I proposed a further reversion that meets this requirement. Andrew Gradman

This is the edit I suggested in order to accommodate people who want the word "non-negotiable" in the text. I'm not trying to make this more complicated than it is; but I do think it's a valid option. Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 05:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• Hand surgery so can't type much, but I do want "non-negotiable" in. Dougweller (talk) 15:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The shorter version is better. The severe wording is detrimental to our policy. Wikipedians don't need to fear POV when editing, in fact some people think POV is unavoidable. They just need to be aware of what to do when they are accused of bias.  ;). Bensaccount (talk) 23:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

nothing is actually non-negotiable, per IAR anything can be modified if necessary--I can't immediately see why we would use it here or think of a possible instance, but the principle remains that we make the rules,and we can always modify them. Agreed that the short version is better. DGG ( talk ) 16:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you envisage a scenario in which Wikipedia relaxes to allow biased, unverifiable synthesis? IAR is a cure for legalism, nothing more. It's there to close loopholes, thereby justifying actions that aren't entirely in line with policy but are otherwise sound (speedy closure of a debate before the usual timescale, an "involved" editor at a contested page rolling back blatant vandalism, etc.). It's an understanding that we can ignore the rules, not a licence to break them. In this case, the wording of the page can change, the underlying policy cannot (I'd love to see someone try sometime, and I'm surprised it's not in WP:PEREN). 81.110.104.91 (talk) 00:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

RFC at WT:NOR regarding examples

FYI there is a request for comments on a proposal to replace the examples in [[WP:SYNTH] with a link to the same examples on another page. See RFC - Replace examples in WP:SYNTH with link to examples. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)