
#REDIRECT Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
#REDIRECT Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
#REDIRECT wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
#REDIRECT Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
#REDIRECT Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
#redirectWikipedia talk:Neutral point of view
Wikipedia policy is that all articles should be written from a neutral point of view: without bias, representing all views fairly. According to Wikipedia founder User:Jimbo Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable". [http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-November/008096.html] For guidance on making an article conform to the neutral point of view (NPOV), please see the Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial. ==Introduction== Articles should be written without bias, representing all views fairly. This is the neutral point of view policy. The policy is easily misunderstood: It doesn't assume that writing an article from a single, unbiased, objective point of view is possible. Instead it says to ''fairly represent'' all sides of a dispute by not making articles state, imply, or insinuate that only one side is correct. Crucially, a great merit of Wikipedia is that Wikipedians work together to make articles unbiased. Writing unbiased text requires practice. Contributors who have mastered the art of NPOV are invited to help develop the Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial. ===The basic concept of neutrality=== At Wikipedia, the terms "unbiased" and "neutral point of view" are used in a precise way that is different from the common understanding: :Articles without bias ''describe'' debates fairly rather than ''advocating'' any side of the debate. Since all articles are edited by people, this is difficult, as people are inherently biased. ====The original formulation of NPOV==== ''A general purpose encyclopedia is a collection of synthesized knowledge presented from a neutral point of view. To whatever extent possible, encyclopedic writing should steer clear of taking any particular stance other than the stance of the neutral point of view.'' ''The neutral point of view attempts to present ideas and facts in such a fashion that both supporters and opponents can agree. Of course, 100% agreement is not possible; there are ideologues in the world who will not concede to any presentation other than a forceful statement of their own point of view. We can only seek a type of writing that is agreeable to essentially rational people who may differ on particular points.'' ''Some examples may help to drive home the point I am trying to make. '' ''1. An encyclopedic article should not argue that corporations are criminals, even if the author believes it to be so. It should instead present the fact that ''some people'' believe it, and what their reasons are, and then as well it should present what the other side says.'' ''2. An encyclopedia article should not argue that laissez-faire capitalism is the best social system. [...] It should instead present the arguments of the advocates of that point of view, and the arguments of the people who disagree with that point of view.'' ''Perhaps the easiest way to make your writing more encyclopedic is to write about ''what people believe'', rather than ''what is so''. If this strikes you as somehow subjectivist or collectivist or imperialist, then ask me about it, because I think that you are just mistaken. What people believe is a matter of objective fact, and we can present ''that'' quite easily from the neutral point of view.'' ''--Jimbo Wales, Wikipedia founder'' ===Why should Wikipedia be unbiased?=== Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, which means it is a representation of human knowledge at some level of generality. But human beings disagree about specific cases; for any topic on which there are competing views, each view represents a different idea of what the truth is, and insofar as that view contradicts other views, its adherents believe that the other views are ''false'' and therefore not ''knowledge''. Where there is disagreement about what is true, there's disagreement about what constitutes knowledge. Wikipedia works because it's a collaborative effort; but, while collaborating, how can we solve the problem of endless "edit wars" in which one person asserts that ''p,'' whereupon the next person changes the text so that it asserts ''not-p''? A solution is that we accept, for the purposes of working on Wikipedia, that "human knowledge" includes ''all different'' significant theories on all different topics. So we're committed to the goal of representing human knowledge in ''that'' sense. Something like this is surely a well-established sense of the word "knowledge"; in this sense, what is "known" changes constantly with the passage of time, and when we use the word "know", we often use so-called Quotation mark#Emphasis and ironic quotes. In the Middle Ages, we "knew" that demons caused diseases. We now "know" otherwise. We could sum up human knowledge (in this sense) in a biased way: we'd state a series of theories about topic T, and then claim that the truth about T is such-and-such. But again, consider that Wikipedia is an international, collaborative project. Nearly every view on every subject will be found among our authors and readers. To avoid endless edit wars, we can agree to present each of the significant views fairly, and not assert any one of them as correct. That is what makes an article "unbiased" or "neutral" in the sense we are presenting here. To write from a neutral point of view, one presents controversial views without asserting them; to do ''that,'' it generally suffices to present competing views in a way that is more or less acceptable to their adherents, and also to ''attribute'' the views to their adherents. Disputes are characterized in Wikipedia. They are not re-enacted. To sum up the primary reason for this policy: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a compilation of human knowledge. But because Wikipedia is a community-built, international resource, we cannot expect collaborators to agree in all cases, or even in many cases, on what constitutes knowledge in a strict sense. We can, therefore, adopt the looser sense of "human knowledge" according to which a wide variety of conflicting theories constitute what we call "knowledge." We should, both individually and collectively, make an effort to present these conflicting views fairly, without advocating any one of them, with the qualification that views held only by a tiny minority of people should not be represented as though they are significant minority views, and perhaps should not be represented at all. There is another reason to commit ourselves to this policy. Namely, when it is clear to readers that we do not expect them to adopt any particular opinion, this leaves them free to make up their minds for themselves, thus encouraging ''intellectual independence''. Totalitarian governments and dogmatic institutions everywhere might find reason to be opposed to Wikipedia, if we succeed in adhering to our non-bias policy: the presentation of many competing theories on a wide variety of subjects suggests that we, the creators of Wikipedia, trust readers' competence to form their own opinions themselves. Texts that present multiple viewpoints fairly, without demanding that the reader accept any one of them, are liberating. Neutrality subverts dogmatism, and nearly everyone working on Wikipedia can agree this is a good thing. ==What is the neutral point of view?== What we mean isn't obvious, and is easily misunderstood. There are many other valid interpretations of "unbiased," and "neutral". The notion of "unbiased writing" that informs Wikipedia's policy is "presenting conflicting views without asserting them." This needs further clarification, as follows. First, and most importantly, consider what it means to say that unbiased writing presents conflicting views without asserting them. Unbiased writing does not present only the most popular view; it does not ''assert'' the most popular view is correct after presenting all views; it does not assert that some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Presenting all points of view says, more or less, that ''p''-ists believe that ''p,'' and ''q''-ists believe that ''q,'' and that's where the debate stands at present. Ideally, presenting all points of view also gives a great deal of background on who believes that ''p'' and ''q'' and why, and which view is more popular (being careful not to associate ''popularity'' with ''correctness''). Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of the ''p''-ists and the ''q''-ists, allowing each side to give its "best shot" at the other, but studiously refraining from saying who won the exchange. A point here bears elaboration. We said that the neutral point of view is not, contrary to the seeming implication of the phrase, some actual ''point of view'' that is "neutral," or "intermediate," among the different positions. That represents a particular understanding of what "neutral point of view" means. The prevailing Wikipedia understanding is that the neutral point of view is not a ''point of view'' at all; according to our understanding, when one writes neutrally, one is very careful not to state (or imply or insinuate or subtly massage the reader into believing) that ''any particular view at all'' is correct. Another point bears elaboration as well. Writing unbiasedly can be conceived very well as ''representing'' disputes, ''characterizing'' them, rather than engaging in them. One can think of unbiased writing as the cold, fair, analytical description of debates. Of course, one might well doubt that this can be done at all without somehow subtly implying or insinuating that one position is correct. But experienced academics, polemical writers, and rhetoricians are well-attuned to bias, both their own and others', so that they can usually spot a description of a debate that tends to favor one side. If they so choose, with some creativity, they can usually remove that bias. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views need not give minority views ''as much'' or as detailed a description as more popular views. We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by only a small minority of people deserved as much attention as a majority view. That may be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. If we are to represent the dispute fairly, we should present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. None of this, however, is to say that minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can possibly give them on pages specifically devoted to those views. There is no size limit to Wikipedia. But even on such pages, though a view is spelled out possibly in great detail, we still make sure that the view is not represented as ''the truth.'' :From Jimbo Wales, September 2003, on the mailing list: ::* If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts; ::* If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name ''prominent'' adherents; ::* If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not. Bias need not be conscious. For example, beginners in a field often fail to realize that what sounds like common sense is actually biased in favor of one particular view. (So we not infrequently need an expert in order to render the article entirely unbiased.) To take another example, writers can, without intent, propagate "geographical" bias, by for example describing a dispute ''as it is conducted in one country'' without knowing that the dispute is framed differently elsewhere. The policy of having a neutral point of view is not to ''hide'' different points of view, but to show the diversity of viewpoints. In case of controversy, the strong points and weak points will be shown according to each point of view, without taking a side. The neutral point of view is not a "separate but equal" policy. The facts, in themselves, are neutral, but the simple accumulation of them cannot be the neutral point of view. If only the favorable (or the unfavorable) facts of a point of view are shown in an article, the article will still be non-neutral. ==The vital component: good research== Many POV battles would be made much easier through the practice of good research. Facts are not points of view in and of themselves. So an easy way to avoid making a statement that promotes a point of view is to find a reputable source for a fact and Wikipedia:Cite sources. This is an easy way to characterize a side of a debate without promoting a view. The trick is to find the best and most reputable source you can. Try the library for good books and journal articles, and look for the most reliable online resources. A little bit of ground work can save a lot of time in trying to justify a point later. The only other important consideration is that while a fact is not POV in and of itself, adding facts, no matter how well cited, from only one side of a debate is a POV problem. So work for balance. Find facts that aren't from one side or the other and cite the source. ==A simple formulation== We sometimes give an alternative formulation of the non-bias policy: assert facts, including facts about opinions — but don't assert opinions themselves. There is a difference between facts and values, or opinions. By "fact," we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." In this sense, that a survey produced a certain published result is a fact. That Mars is a planet is a fact. That Socrates was a philosopher is a fact. No one seriously disputes any of these things. So we can feel free to ''assert'' as many of them as we can. By value or opinion, on the other hand, we mean "a piece of information about which there is some dispute." There are bound to be meta:borderline case where we're not sure if we should take a particular dispute seriously; but there are many propositions that very clearly express values or opinions. That stealing is wrong is a value or opinion. That the Beatles was the greatest band is a value or opinion. That the United States was wrong to drop the atomic bomb over Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a value or opinion. That God exists ... this can be a troublesome one. Whether God exists or not is a question of fact, not a question of value. But as the fact is essentially undiscoverable, so far as anyone knows, whether God exists will usually be couched in terms of opinion or value. To state as a fact that "the existence of God is an opinion", while seeming to be sensitive to the issue, implies that there is no fact being discussed (postmodernism or strong agnosticism), or that it is relatively unimportant (secular bias). Wikipedia is devoted to stating facts and only facts. Where we might want to state an opinion, we convert that opinion into a fact by ''attributing'' the opinion to someone. So, rather than asserting, "The Beatles were the greatest band", we can say, "Most Americans believe that the Beatles were the greatest band," which is a fact verifiable by survey results, or "The Beatles had many songs that made the Billboard Hot 100," which is also fact. In the first instance we assert an opinion; in the second and third instances we "convert" that opinion into fact by attributing it to someone. It's important to note this formulation is substantially different from the "some people believe ..." formulation popular in political debates. The reference requires an identifiable and subjectively quantifiable population or, better still, a name. In presenting an opinion, moreover, it is important to bear in mind that there are disagreements about how opinions are best stated; sometimes, it will be necessary to qualify the description of an opinion or to present several formulations, simply to arrive at a solution that fairly represents all the leading views of the situation. (Theological and philosophical debates are particularly hard to frame in a non-biased way; this very page bears that out, as it posed in a previous incarnation as an example of an opinion, "God exists".) But it's not ''enough,'' to express the Wikipedia non-bias policy, just to say that we should state facts and not opinions. When asserting a fact ''about an opinion,'' it is important ''also'' to assert facts ''about competing opinions,'' and to do so without implying that any one of the opinions is correct. It's also generally important to give the facts about the reasons behind the views, and to make it clear who holds them. (It's often best to cite a prominent representative of the view.) ==Fairness and sympathetic tone== If we're going to characterize disputes fairly, we should present competing views with a consistently positive, sympathetic tone. Many articles end up as partisan commentary ''even while'' presenting both points of view. Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization — for instance, refuting opposing views as one goes along makes them look a lot worse than collecting them in an opinions-of-opponents section. We should, instead, write articles with the tone that ''all'' positions presented are at least plausible, bearing in mind the important qualification about extreme minority views. Let's present all significant, competing views sympathetically. We can write with the attitude that such-and-such is a good idea, except that, in the view of some detractors, the supporters of said view overlooked such-and-such a detail. ==Characterizing opinions of people's work== A special case is the expression of aesthetic opinions. Wikipedia articles about art, artists, and other creative topics (e.g., musicians, actors, books, etc.) have tended toward the effusive. This is out of place in an encyclopedia. We might not be able to agree that so-and-so is the greatest guitar player in history, but it may be important to describe how some artist or some work has been received by the general public or by prominent experts. Providing an overview of the common interpretations of a creative work, preferably with citations or references to notable individuals holding that interpretation, is appropriate. For instance, that Shakespeare is [http://absoluteshakespeare.com/william_shakespeare.htm widely acknowledged] as one of the greatest playwrights of the English language is a bit of knowledge that one should learn from an encyclopedia. However, in the interests of neutrality, one should also learn that a number of reputable scholars argue that there is a [http://www2.localaccess.com/marlowe/pamphlet/pamphlet.htm strong case] to make that the author of much of the work still attributed to Shakespeare was his contemporary Christopher Marlowe. Notice, determining how some artist or work has been received publicly or critically might require research; but that reception, unlike the idiosyncratic opinion of the Wikipedia article writer, is an opinion that really matters. ==A consequence: writing for the enemy== Those who constantly attempt to advocate their views on politically charged topics, and who seem not to care about whether other points of view are represented fairly, are violating the non-bias policy ("write unbiasedly"). But the policy also entails that it is our job to speak for the other side, and not just avoid advocating our own views. If we don't commit ourselves to doing that, Wikipedia will be weaker for it. We should all be engaged in explaining each other's points of view as sympathetically as possible. In saying this, we are spelling out what might have been obvious from an initial reading of the policy. If each of us is permitted to contribute biased stuff, then how is it possible that the policy is ever ''violated''? The policy ''says'', "Go thou and write unbiasedly". If that ''doesn't'' entail that each of us should fairly represent views with which we disagree, then what ''does'' it mean? Maybe you think it means, "Represent your own view fairly, and let others have a say." But consider, if we each take responsibility for ''the entire'' article when we hit "save", then when we make a change that represents ''our own'' views but not contrary views, or represents contrary views unfairly or incompletely, surely we are adding bias to Wikipedia. Does it make sense ''not'' to take responsibility for the entire article? Does it make sense to take sentences and say, "These are mine"? Perhaps, but in a project that is so strongly and explicitly committed to neutrality, that attitude seems out of place. The other side might very well find your attempts to characterize their views substandard, but it's the thought that counts. In resolving disputes over neutrality issues, it's far better that we acknowledge that all sides must be presented fairly, and make at least a college try at presenting the other sides fairly. That will be appreciated much more than not trying at all. "Writing for the enemy" might make it seem as if we were adding ''deliberately'' flawed arguments to Wikipedia, which would be a very strange thing to do. But it's better to view this (otherwise puzzling) behavior as adding the ''best'' (published) arguments of the opposition, citing some prominent person who has actually made the argument in the form in which you present it, and stating them as sympathetically as possible. Academics, e.g., philosophers, do this all the time. Always Wikipedia:Cite sources, and make sure your sources are reputable, and you won't go far wrong. ==An example== It might help to consider an example of a biased text and how Wikipedians have rendered it at least relatively unbiased. On the abortion page, early in 2001, some advocates had used the page to exchange barbs, being unable to agree about what arguments should be on the page and how the competing positions should be represented. What was needed — and what was added — was an in-depth discussion of the different positions about the moral and legal aspects of abortion at different times. This discussion of the positions was carefully crafted so as not to favor any one of the positions outlined. This made it easier to organize and understand the arguments surrounding the topic of abortion, which were then presented sympathetically, each with its strengths and weaknesses. There are numerous other success stories of articles that began life as virtual partisan screeds but were nicely cleaned up by people who concerned themselves with representing all views clearly and sympathetically. ===Another example=== User:Karada offered the following advice in the context of the Saddam Hussein article: :You won't even ''need'' to say he was evil. That's why the article on Hitler does not start with "Hitler was a bad man" — we don't need to, his deeds convict him a thousand times over. We just list the facts of the Holocaust dispassionately, and the voices of the dead cry out afresh in a way that makes name-calling both pointless and unnecessary. Please do the same: list Saddam's crimes, and Wikipedia:Cite sources. ==Objections and clarifications== What follows is a list of common objections, or questions, regarding Wikipedia's non-bias policy, followed by replies. ===There's no such thing as objectivity=== ''Everybody with any philosophical sophistication knows that. So how can we take the "neutrality" policy seriously? Neutrality, lack of bias, isn't possible.'' This is probably the most common objection to the neutrality policy. It also reflects the most common ''misunderstanding'' of the policy. The misunderstanding is that the policy says something about the possibility of ''objectivity.'' It simply does not. In particular, the policy does ''not'' say that there even ''is'' such a thing as objectivity, a "view from nowhere" (in Thomas Nagel's phrase)--such that articles written from ''that'' point of view are consequently objectively true. That isn't the policy and it is not our aim! Rather, we employ a different understanding of "neutral" and "unbiased" than many might be used to. The policy is simply that we should characterize disputes rather than engage in them. To say ''this'' is not to say anything contentious, from a philosophical point of view; indeed, this is something that philosophers are doing all the time. Sophisticated relativists will immediately recognize that the policy is perfectly consistent with their relativism. If there's ''anything'' possibly contentious about the policy along these lines, it is the implication that it is ''possible'' to characterize disputes fairly, so that all the major participants will be able to look at the resulting text, agreeing that their views are presented sympathetically and as completely as possible (within the context of the discussion). It is an empirical question, not a philosophical one, whether this is possible; and that such a thing ''is'' indeed possible is evident simply by observing that such texts are being written daily by the most capable academics, encyclopedists, textbook writers, and journalists. This should not be construed to mean that there can be no objective truth in an encyclopedia, in the sense that easily obtainable documents should be quoted or referenced correctly when first-hand sources are available, even if there are second-hand sources which quote them incorrectly. Neutrality does not compel us to introduce inaccuracy when something can be directly verified. Neutrality dictates that there can be multiple prominent interpretations to the meaning or validity of a work, but often the contents can be objectively verified, especially in the case of modern documents. === Pseudoscience === ''How are we to write articles about pseudoscientific topics, about which majority scientific opinion is that the pseudoscientific opinion is not credible and doesn't even really deserve serious mention?'' If we're going to represent the sum total of human knowledge, then we must concede that we will be describing views repugnant to us without asserting that they are false. Things are not, however, as bad as that sounds. The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of ''describing a dispute fairly.'' Pseudoscience can be seen as a social phenomenon and therefore significant. However, pseudoscience should not obfuscate the description of the main views, and any mention should be proportional to the rest of the article. There is a minority of Wikipedians who feel so strongly about this problem that they believe Wikipedia should adopt a "Wikipedia:scientific point of view" rather than a "neutral point of view." However, it has not been established that there is really a need for such a policy, given that the scientists' view of pseudoscience can be clearly, fully, and fairly explained to believers of pseudoscience. === Religion === NPOV policy often means presenting multiple points of view. This means providing not only the points of view of different groups today, but also different groups in the past. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. One important task for encyclopedias is to explain things. In the case of human beliefs and practices, explanation encompasses not only what motivates individuals who hold these beliefs and practices, but an account of how such beliefs and practices came to be and took shape. Wikipedia articles on history and religion draw from a religion's sacred texts. But Wikipedia articles on history and religion also draw from modern archaeological, historical and scientific sources. Many adherents of a religion will object to a critical historical treatment of their own faith, claiming that this somehow discriminates against their religious beliefs. They would prefer that the articles describe their faith as they see it, which is often from a non-historical perspective (e.g. the way things are is the way things have always been; any differences are from heretical sects that don't represent the real religion.) Their point of view must be mentioned, yet note that there is no contradiction. NPOV policy means that we say something like this: Many adherents of this faith believe X, which they believe that members of this group have always believed; however, due to the acceptance of some findings (say which) by modern historians and archaeologists (say which), other adherents (say which) of this faith now believe Z. An important note on using the term "fundamentalism". Please see the article on fundamentalism for the technical definition of this term. This word is often used in articles on religion, but should only be used in one of its technical senses. We should take care to explain what we mean by this term in order to avoid: (a) causing unnecessary offense, and (b) misleading the reader (most people being unaware of how this word should be used.) We should not use this term as a pejorative phrase. As religion is a controversial topic, be prepared to see some of these articles edited due to what may seem minor quibbles. === 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 can certainly include long discussions that present our moral repugnance to such things; in doing so, we can maintain a healthy, consistent support for the neutral point of view by attributing the view to prominent representatives or to some group of people. Others will be able to make up their own minds and, being reasonable, surely come around to our view. Those who harbor racism, sexism, etc., will not be convinced to change their views based on a biased article, which only puts them on the defensive; on the other hand, if we make a concerted effort to apply our non-bias policy consistently, we might give those with morally repugnant beliefs insight that will change those views. === Giving "equal validity" === ''But wait. I find the optimism about science vs. pseudo-science to be baseless. History has shown that pseudo-science can beat out facts, as those who rely on pseudo-science use lies, slander, innuendo and numerical majorities of followers to force their views on anyone they can. If this project gives equal validity to those who literally claim that the Earth is flat, or those who claim that the Holocaust never occurred, the result is that it will (inadvertently) legitimize and help promote that which only can be termed evil.'' Please be clear on one thing: the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly ''does not'' state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views. It does state that we must not take a stand on them ''qua'' encyclopedia writers; but that does not stop us from describing the majority views ''as such''; from fairly explaining the strong arguments against the pseudoscientific theory; from describing the strong moral repugnance that many people feel toward some morally repugnant views; and so forth. See this [http://www.idrewthis.org/2004/bothsides.gif humorous illustration] of the "equal validity" issue. === Anglo-American focus === ''Wikipedia seems to have an Anglo-American focus. Is this contrary to the neutral point of view?'' Yes, it is, especially when dealing with articles that require an international perspective. The presence of articles written from a United States or British perspective is simply a reflection of the fact that there are many U.S. and British citizens working on the project, which in turn is a reflection of the fact that so many of them are online. This is an ongoing problem that should be corrected by active collaboration from people from other countries. But rather than introducing their own cultural bias, they should seek to improve articles by removing any examples of cultural bias that they encounter. This is not only a problem in the English Wikipedia. The French Language Wikipedia may reflect a French bias, the Japanese Wikipedia may reflect a Japanese bias, and so on. ===Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete=== ''The neutrality policy is used sometimes as an excuse to delete texts that are perceived as biased. Isn't this a problem?'' In many cases, yes. Many of us believe that the fact that some text is biased is not enough, in itself, to delete it outright. If it contains valid information, the text should simply be edited accordingly. There's sometimes trouble determining whether some claim is true or useful, particularly when there are few people on board who know about the topic. In such a case, it's a good idea to raise objections on a talk page; if one has some reason to believe that the author of the biased material will not be induced to change it, we have sometimes taken to removing the text to the talk page itself (but not deleting it entirely). But the latter should be done more or less as a last resort, never as a way of punishing people who have written something biased. === Dealing with biased contributors === ''I agree with the nonbias policy but there are some here who seem completely, irremediably biased. I have to go around and clean up after them. What do I do?'' Unless the case is really egregious, maybe the best thing is to call attention to the problem publicly, pointing the perpetrators to this page (but Wikipedia:Wikipetiquette — one gets more flies with honey) and asking others to help. See Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution for more ideas. There must surely be a point beyond which our very strong interest in being a ''completely'' open project is trumped by the interest the vast majority of our writers have, in being able to get work done without constantly having to fix the intrusions of people who do not respect our policy. === Avoiding constant disputes === ''How can we avoid constant and endless warfare over neutrality issues?'' The best way to avoid warfare over bias is to remember that most of us are reasonably intelligent, articulate people here, or we wouldn't be working on this and caring so much about it. We have to make it our goal to understand each others' perspectives and to work hard to make sure that those other perspectives are fairly represented. When any dispute arises as to what the article should say, or what is true, we must not adopt an adversarial stance; we must do our best to step back and ask ourselves, "How can this dispute be fairly characterized?" This has to be asked repeatedly as each new controversial point is stated. It is not our job to edit Wikipedia so that it reflects our own idiosyncratic views and then defend those edits against all-comers; it is our job to work together, mainly adding new content, but also, when necessary, coming to a compromise about how a controversy should be described, so that it is fair to all sides. === Making necessary assumptions === ''What about the case where, in order to write any of a long series of articles on some general subject, we must make some controversial assumptions? That's the case, e.g., in writing about evolution. Surely we won't have to hash out the evolution-vs.-creationism debate on every such page?'' No, surely not. There are virtually no topics that could proceed without making some assumptions that ''someone'' would find controversial. This is true not only in evolutionary biology, but also philosophy, history, physics, etc. It is difficult to draw up general principles on which to rule in specific cases, but the following might help: there is probably not a good reason to discuss some assumption on a given page, if an assumption is best discussed in depth on some ''other'' page. Some brief, unobtrusive pointer might be apropos, however. E.g., in an article about the evolutionary development of horses, we might have one brief sentence to the effect that some creationists do not believe that horses (or any other animals) underwent any evolution, and point the reader to the relevant article. If there is much specific argumentation on some particular point, it might be placed on a special page of its own. === Writing for the "enemy" POV === ''I'm not convinced by what you say about "writing for the enemy." I don't want to write for the enemy. Most of them rely on stating as fact many things which are demonstrably false. Are you saying that, to be neutral in writing an article, I must ''lie,'' in order to represent the view I disagree with?'' This is a misunderstanding of what the neutrality policy says. ''You'' aren't claiming anything, except to say, "So-and-so argues that ____________, and therefore, ___________." This can be done with a straight face, with no moral compunctions, because you are attributing the claim to ''someone else.'' It's worth observing that scholars are trained so that, even when trying to prove a point, counter-arguments are included, so that they can explain why the counter-arguments fail. This can be a particularly touchy subject, and a large number of people can honestly fail to see the bias inherent in a popular term, simply because its the one commonly used. But it shouldn't take long to understand that the English wikipedia is a ''highly international project'', and its editors reflect many different points of view. Its important to note that this level of objectivity is rather new to most people, and disputes over the proper terms may simply depend on the balance of points of view. === Other objections === ''I have some other objection. Where should I ask it?'' Before asking it, please review the links below. Many issues surrounding the neutrality policy have been covered before very extensively. If you have some new contribution to make to the debate, you could try Talk:Neutral point of view, or bring it up on the Wikipedia:Mailing lists mailing list. == Other resources == * Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial * Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Examples * Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Examples Debate * m:Responses to How to Build Wikipedia, Understand Bias * Wikipedia:List of controversial issues * Wikipedia:Words to avoid * Talk:Creationism * meta:Positive tone * Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles * God's Eye View * consensus reality * Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms * Template:NPOV -
Since this talk page has grown too long for some users' browers to edit, the discussions are being archived oldest first: * Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view/Archive_001 Discussions before October 2004 ---- ==Anti-American point of view== I have noticed that articles that are critical of the US are almost always kept. Articles critical of anti-American attitudes are as a rule deleted as "POV". Examples: Arab dictatorships - deleted Ameriphobia - deleted Islamophilia - deleted Islamophobia - kept 911 conspiracy theories - kept So it seems that anything too critical of anti-American terorrism or bigotry is immediately deleted, because it is "POV", while POV articles whose very titles imply a position (Islamophobia, History of US Imperialism, etc) are rigorously defended. Even editing such articles brings a swarm of RVs. The funny part is that arguments made for deleting one article are the dismissed out of hand in the case of keeping another. The most important matter seems to be whether the admin agrees with the article or not politically, ie. fringe Leftwing. == Americo-centric point of view == To quote the article: "The presence of articles written from an exclusively United States point of view is merely a reflection of the fact that there are many Americans working on the project, which in turn is merely a reflection of the fact that so many Americans are online and working on the English project." Many articles do reflect the "Americo-centric" attitude of contributors by leaving out the fact that the article is about the US. This is common in US place names. Many of us do know that Illinois is in the United States but, forexample, Naperville, Illinois requires further research to establish the fact that it is in the US. User:Alan Liefting 22:07, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC) : It doesn't now, since I've added that information! User:Loganberry 02:16, 29 May 2005 (UTC) Just a question -- if Wikipedia is supposedly Americo-centric, why do I notice Commonwealth English ("British English") spellings in the majority of articles I read? Sometimes, I see both used in one article... We need some form of consistency, methinks. User:Thorns among our leaves 17:30, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC) :I don't think Wikipedia is Americo-centric, nor that the majority of articles are British English. Anyway, inconsistency ''within'' articles should be fixed. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Usage and spelling for details. User:Angelauser talk:Angela 19:28, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC) :I notice geography stubs without any national context all over, from Japan to Serbia. When I can, I just fill them in. This is a ''context'' problem, akin to leaving out "In Christian mythology..." or whatever contextual disambiguation is called for. --User:Wetman 10:26, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC) ::I guess the lesson is that all Wikipedia editors should be aware of geographical, political religious, social (etc) context. The problem is a norrow worldview I guess. User:Alan Liefting 09:34, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC) I spend some of my editing time putting in a geographical context on articles about the United States. One problem area is lists. Quite often lists of countries are in order of population in OECD countries rather than in alphabelical order! User:Alan Liefting 09:29, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC) I had put in a request to have Environmental movement in the United States moved back to Environmentalism since the Environmentalism article is on an international issue rather than a national issue. The request was not actioned. The article had a US slant but this was no reason to move it to a country specific article. As I have stated elsewhere it is a rather geographically blinkered approach to move an article on an international issue to one that is for the United States. I have since cut'n'pasted relevent info from one article to the other. User:Alan Liefting 09:29, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC) == Northern Hemisphere bias == A widespread problem in Wikipedia is Northern hemisphere bias. This manifests itself in places like referring to the Vernal equinox to refer specifically to the equinox that occurs in March, assuming that Spring begins in March, and other assumptions that are only true for the northern hemisphere. People also live south of the Equator, and the seasons there are at different times of the year. Where possible, recast the text to remove all seasonal ambiguity. Adding a sentence near the top of the text stating that the seasons refer to the Northern hemisphere should only be considered as a short-term fix. Such a sentence can easily be overlooked by someone who is casually browsing the text, and anyone who is quoting the Wikipedia for any purpose is likely to miss quoting this text.--User:B.d.mills 06:27, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC) :I think chauvinism is a fairly strong word for northern hemisphere bias. It's simply that most of the population lives north of the equator, and most of them are used to thinking of seasons in those terms. Perhaps you could come up with a set of suggestions for common areas of hemisphere bias, and how to compensate for those without excessive verbosity. User:Cortonin — User:Cortonin | User talk:Cortonin 09:14, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC) ::The original title of this section was "Northern Hemisphere chauvinism". I have altered the title as suggested by User:Cortonin. ::To fix the problem, we need to agree on a Wikipedia style that removes this ambiguity without excessive verbosity. Some ideas: ::* When referring to a specific time, avoid expressions like "Summer 2002". Use other expressions instead. (Imagine if it said "Winter 2002" or "Rainy season 2002" - both of which are also valid descriptions for the month of June, depending on where you live. Seasons are ''local'' phenomena. Don't refer to local phenomena when speaking to a global audience.) An exception to this would be when the article or context is explicitly regional. For example, when discussing the tourist industry in Italy, it would be acceptable to discuss the revenues for the Summer of 2002. ::* Don't name the equinoxes and solstices after the seasons unless the specific season is important. It is reasonable to refer to the Winter Solstice if you are discussing the timing of a Wheel of the Year, but not if your intent is to refer to the solstice that occurs in December. Instead, name the equinox or solstice after the month in which they occur. ::* Expressions like "Northern hemisphere spring" are acceptable if no other substitute is possible. Such expressions should only be used if the northern hemisphere seasons are relevant to the discussion. For example, "northern hemisphere Spring" is important when discussing the ancient Roman calendar because that calendar began with the ''local'' Spring which happens to be in the northern hemisphere, but it is not correct to describe March as the month in which Spring begins, unless you also mention that autumn begins in March in the Southern hemisphere, that the dry season begins in the southern tropics, that the wet season begins in the northern tropics, and so forth. ------------ I added the "An exception" sentence to your list, in the style of other similar Wikipedia policies about regionality. The solstice one I'm curious about. I've only ever heard the solstices referenced seasonally. Is there any precedent for other naming schemes, such as "December Solstice"? Do people from the southern hemisphere most commonly call the solstice in December "Summer Solstice", or do they use another term? User:Cortonin — User:Cortonin | User talk:Cortonin 08:07, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC) :The exception is acceptable, as long as it is also acceptable for discussions on local events in the Southern hemisphere to be worded similarly. (Australian rules football is played in winter in Australia, would it be clear enough from context that Australian football is played in June?) I did imply a similar exception in my third point; I guess the list is a work in progress that we must all revise as we go along. :In the various articles on solstices and equinoxes, some mention is made on how the northern hemisphere bias for the names of the equinoxes causes confusion in the Southern hemisphere; I have heard the March equinox referred to as the vernal equinox, the autumnal equinox and the March equinox! "Northward equinox" is another term, but I have not encountered it personally, only online. To help eliminate such confusion, I proposed my second point. We need distinct terms for an equinox or solstice that occurs in a particular month of the year and an equinox or solstice that occurs in a particular season. --User:B.d.mills (Added manually; I forgot to add it before) ::(By the way, you should all of your talk page comments with four tildas,~~~~ , so we can tell later who wrote them.) User:Cortonin — User:Cortonin | User talk:Cortonin 00:53, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
::: Mea culpa (my fault). --User:B.d.mills 06:22, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
::However, the word [http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=vernal vernal] still means spring. I think it's probably okay to call a solstice or equinox by its month, but we should probably avoid creating new terms in the process if they don't exist elsewhere. There are also plenty of times when one does want to refer to the solstices by season, for example as the winter solstice is the shortest day of the year (since it is this in both hemispheres). User:Cortonin — User:Cortonin | User talk:Cortonin 00:53, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
::: As long as the main goal is met, of not using "vernal Equinox" to mean the Equinox in March, and other like constructions, then there should not be any confusion.
::: The point of this is to make people stop and think about the words they use with regards to hemisphere-specific language, and to choose such words with more care. The feminist movement did the same thing to make language more gender-neutral. Am I being politically correct here? Perhaps I am — but don't hold that against me. Political correctness can go too far at times, but when the goal is to remove ambiguity and no-one is offended, it must be political correctness in its noblest form. --User:B.d.mills 06:20, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
::Does anyone else reading along have input on this? User:Cortonin — User:Cortonin | User talk:Cortonin 00:53, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:...well, we could just use common sense, according to the ''context'' and avoiding torturing our readers. "Northern Hemisphere bias" is only an issue when we are discussing ''global climate'' ''monsoons'' etc. In such cases, one simply writes "In October-February" or whatever. New Yorkers aren't offended when an article on Borneo mentions the "wet season". There's never a problem when common sense allies with generosity, flexibility and breadth of vision. --User:Wetman 19:55, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
== Questions about NPOV ==
I ask you some questions. Does NPOV mean majority decision? For example, in Christianity, many people insist that believing trinity is Christianity. Jehovah's Witnesses and Jesus Christ Church of Latter Day Saints are called non-Christians or alternates by this definition. I think this is slander to JW and LDS, because both groups insist Christianity groups definately. Then can Wikipedia's NPOV ignore slanders and accept only majority opinions? Please teach me. User:Rantaro 14:24, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
:No, NPOV means stating this is the majority opionion, this is the minority opinion (or so and so say this). If it's usually just some crank or conspiracy theory then it may be omitted. User:Dori | User talk:Dori 20:39, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)
::Thank you for your answer. If your answer is right, I think trinitarians can't say that Christianity is trinity. User:Rantaro 11:17, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:There is a "mainstream" to most traditions. It's a useful adjective. --User:Wetman 19:55, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
::However. the 'Mainstream' isnt always right. is it? Therfore, in the interests of not excluding information that may potentially be proven correct at some point in the future, minority views have to be included. The worsts offenders for the 'mainstream' bullshit are the pages about extra terrestrial intelligence. Ive given up try to add views to THAT page. Unless you can PROVE there's aliens and UFO's any attempt to add such views gets immediately wiped.
User:Lincspoacher 08:09, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
::Another question about NPOV: You (Jimmy Wales) on the September 2003 mailing list used the words "extremely small (or vastly limited) minority" without quantifying the value of a "extremely small (or vastly limited) minority." I think that you (Jimmy Wales) should quantify it lest it be interpreted with bias. User:Ross Jacobs 13:38, 10 June 2005 PST
== Dictionary definitions surely are NPOV ==
Cited definitions from dictionaries such as the American Heritage Dictionary have been cut repeatedly from several Wikipedia pages. The reason given is that the "dictionary definition is POV." I cite you to the recent [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Evolutionism_%28disambiguation%29&action=history history] of a disambiguation page and its Talk:Evolutionism_%28disambiguation%29.
I suggest part of the solution to this problem is to insert a new paragraph into the Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view page to state explicitly, "Dictionary definitions are always NPOV if the contrasting definitions of experts are also quoted and cited." The most appropriate position would be following the "Religion" paragraph of the NPOV page. ;)
"Surely such an explicit paragraph would be redundant!" you may reply. Here is an analogy to explain.
* The traffic cop stopped the man in the red convertible who had just run the red light. "You are supposed to stop dead still at red lights!" "EVEN ON SUNDAY???" the man in the red convertible asked with genuine surprise in his eyes. The cop laughed this time. But it happened repeatedly. Every driver she stopped that day asked with genuine indignation, "EVEN ON SUNDAY???" So the cop went to the city council and said,
** "You need a law that says 'You have to stop at red lights EVEN ON SUNDAY.' It does not matter that the law says 'Always stop at a red light.' And because there is such a wide-spread impression that Sunday is an exception, I suggest that you should organize a wide-open forum to discuss and vote on the question: Does the law require you to stop at the red light EVEN ON SUNDAY?"
Accordingly, I suggest that the fix to this NPOV problem requires two elements
# Running a formal Wikipedia Wikipedia:Current_surveys on the underlying question and
# Inserting a new paragraph in the NPOV page that states explicitly that citing dictionary definitions together with opposing definitions of experts is always NPOV.
Any thoughts or suggestions? ---User:Rednblu | User talk:Rednblu 21:18, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
----
"Neutrality" is a stance and the choice of "neutrality" is NOT neutral! Trying to be "unbiased" is itself a bias.
Orthodoxy is often assumed to be neutral because people take it for granted and fail to realize orthodoxy and the conventional view is not neutral, because people fail to notice the subjectivity of conventions.
It's impossible to be truly neutral, so we might as well drop the pretense of neutrality. How hypocritical and manipulative and misleading it is to enforce a nonneutral point of view upon others all the while insisting and proclaiming that it is neutral.
I'll try to make myself more clear: There are MANY nonneutral articles on Wikipedia which are NOT noticed as being nonneutral because most readers share the same biases as the contributors. On top of that, because the bias is so pervasive, people can say honestly that the article is truly NPOV when it's not. How authoritarian it is to tell the readers what we think is neutral when we ourselves aren't neutral instead of letting the reader think for him/herself.
"Sticking to the facts" assumes "facts" are "objective" but most of what counts as "facts" are highly processed information by subjective individuals within a nonneutral intellectual framework and not "raw uninterpreted data". ---User:128.175.112.225
---
: <<''"Sticking to the facts" assumes "facts" are "objective" but most of what counts as "facts" are highly processed information by subjective individuals within a nonneutral intellectual framework''>>
You may be right. But who could disagree with the following statement? "The Oxford English Dictionary said what it said." That is, quoting and citing to dictionary definitions would always be NPOV if accompanied by the opposing definitions of experts! :) ---User:Rednblu | User talk:Rednblu 22:29, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
::Let me point out an implicit assumption. You're assuming, like most people, that the OED is objective and neutral. We're trying to intimidate people into accepting a "fact" based upon an appeal to authority. It's the same thing with "experts". It's yet another appeal to "authority". It's like people who try to mislead while still telling the "truth" by only making "truthful" statements but who keep presenting them in such a way as to be delibrately misleading. Are they telling the truth or are they lying?
::Another thing -- most people are highly selective in their choice of "facts" and out of the huge range of "facts" out there will pick those which supports their thesis while neglecting those which don't. ---User:128.175.112.225
---
: <<''We're trying to intimidate people into accepting a "fact" based upon . . . ''>>
Not at all. Quoting the OED definition merely states the OED POV that should be reported with the other cited expert POVs to make an overall NPOV report. :) ---User:Rednblu | User talk:Rednblu 00:55, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
---
This is the main problem with NPOV. Not the policy itself, but the fact that people expect it to mean what it looks like it means. The truth of the matter is that what Wikipedia calls "Neutral point of view" is not really a "point of view", especially not the neutral one. It's the absence of bias, the lack of preference for a point of view. There's nothing wrong with that. It doesn't mean taking a majority stance, or supporting the middle road, or presenting every imaginable counterargument, but it's easy for people to be misled into thinking it does.
User:132.170.42.25
== --- Begin Container for discussion copied from Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28policy%29 ==
== Reporting the POVs in dictionary definitions together with the POVs of opposing experts is always NPOV ==
Cited definitions from dictionaries such as the American Heritage Dictionary have been cut repeatedly from several Wikipedia pages. The reason given is that the "dictionary definition is POV." I cite you to the recent [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Evolutionism_%28disambiguation%29&action=history history] of a disambiguation page and its Talk:Evolutionism_%28disambiguation%29.
I suggest part of the solution to this problem is to insert a new paragraph into the Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view page to state explicitly, "Dictionary definitions are always NPOV if the contrasting definitions of experts are also quoted and cited." The most appropriate position would be following the "Religion" paragraph of the NPOV page. ;)
Any suggestions? ---User:Rednblu | User talk:Rednblu 08:59, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
*I'm not sure if we could assume that dictionary definitions from a real dictionary are always NPOV -- there may be some bad dictionaries out there, and dictionaries don't always reflect actual usage of a word. Personally, I don't think citing dictionaries ever adds anything to an encyclopedia, and imagine it might be a bad practice to get into. --User:Improv 14:47, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
**Further note -- older dictionaries were often not even remotely POV -- I've looked at some older ones from the early 1900s, and they're hilariously POV. Even newer ones, for reason of historical conservativism or lack of agreement with us about what NPOV is about, are often not POV. I therefore don't think being part of a dictionary necessarily contributes ''at all'' to NPOV, and therefore think your proposal, while well-intentioned, is based on bad premises. --User:Improv 17:36, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
*** But wouldn't those older dictionaries validate for sure that those old hilarious POVs actually ''were'' part of history? :) ---User:Rednblu | User talk:Rednblu 17:44, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
****It might be notable that some people thought that, but wouldn't necessarily be notable as to what other points of view were common at the time. We might expect, say, French dictionaries during colonial times to be very much for reporting the French government POV, and we might intuit a nationalist POV to oppose them, but that wouldn't necessarily tell us about the differing tribal POVs, the Communist POV, the early liberal POVs, the ... Basically I'm saying is that it can't be a very good rule of thumb. I don't see the utility in quoting dictionaries at all on Wikipedia. --User:Improv 20:09, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
*****I agree totally--no utility in quoting dictionaries. However, if a POV is expressed in a dictionary, then that POV is ''per se'' and necessarily a valid POV to document on Wikipedia, is it not? There would be no rational justification for cutting one dictionary definition among others from a Wikipedia page simply because of the POV in the dictionary definition that was cut, would you agree? ---User:Rednblu | User talk:Rednblu 21:23, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
*A dictionary definition is an opinion, though often an expert opinion. So it should be fine to quote it as long as you attribute it and as long as it's relevant to the article. In an article about a word you might quote the OED to show what scholars believe about the etymology or use of that word. But in a dispute about ''ownership of a word'' (e.g. "Is America a democracy or a republic?" "Is atheism a religion?" "Is communism the same as totalitarianism?") quoting the dictionary doesn't help. Both sides of the dispute know that the word has more than one meaning. User:Gdr 15:56, 2004 Nov 6 (UTC)
** Those examples are helpful. I am folding your comment and everybody's else comments into the following "Digesting the suggestions" section. ---User:Rednblu | User talk:Rednblu 21:45, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
=== Digesting the suggestions: I plan to edit this section as we go along :) ===
:: Thanks for helping me clarify the "algebra" of NPOV. For example, I changed the heading on this section to clarify the idea here. After thinking about your comments, I find the following.
::# Likely the final page should not cite dictionaries. That is, artful editing generally would make the page flow better than just quoting dictionary definitions.
::# Many times a particular dictionary definition may not provide encyclopedic interest. In that case, editors would agree readily that the particular POV in that dictionary definition was non-interesting.
::# Dictionary definitions will not resolve ''which'' POV is right--merely validate that the POVs in the dictionary definitions are appropriate POVs to detail in Wikipedia somewhere. For example, dictionary definitions will not resolve whether "America is a republic or a democracy"--merely validate at most that there are two opposing POVs that are both appropriate POVs to detail in Wikipedia somewhere.
::#* Older dictionaries illustrate the point. Older dictionaries serve to validate that the hilariously old-fashioned ideas in them were actual POVs back in time. And hence, those POVs in older dictionaries serve to validate those old-fashioned ideas as appropriate for detailing in Wikipedia pages as part of the history of ideas. But neither the older or the newer dictionaries can settle which POV is right.
::# However, in constructing pages, including associated disambiguation pages, for a controversial area, dictionary definitions always would serve one important function, namely validating that the POVs in the dictionary would NPOV qualify for representation in some page. This would apply in any situation where there was disagreement among editors whether the POV in the dictionary definition was to be allowed "print space" on the page. (Typos are readily identified by the publisher.)
::# Hypothesis. Hence, NPOV could always be achieved by detailing the POVs in the dictionary definitions together with detailing the opposing POVs of experts.
:: It appears to me that the above states a falsifiable hypothesis on all dictionary definitions. That is, one counter-example that would falsify the above hypothesis would be from the following:
::* Find a word W in a dictionary D such that the D definitions for W together with opposing expert opinions would NOT make a NPOV page.
:: An example in ''support'' of the above hypothesis would be the word ''work'' for which the dictionary definitions state the following two POVs together with others.
::# POV 1. ''Work'' is the transfer of energy from one physical system to another, especially the transfer of energy to a body by the application of a force that moves the body in the direction of the force. (There would be several alternative statements of this POV.)
::# POV 2. ''Work'' is one's place of employment.
:: According to the hypothesis, an NPOV report on the concept of ''work'' could always be achieved by constructing a set of pages, together with appropriate disambiguation pages, of the POVs in the dictionary definitions of ''work'' surrounded by the POVs of the experts on ''work'' that differ from the POVs in the dictionary definitions of ''work.''
::* In particular, NPOV would require that the non-scientific POV 2 on ''work'' would not get cut from a disambiguation page on ''work.'' ---User:Rednblu | User talk:Rednblu 17:27, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
*Reputable dictionaries are exactly as citable as any other reputable sources, no more, no less. -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 19:10, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)
** I would have thought so ''a priori''--before encountering a real situation. :( But then, when in an actual situation of having an exact quote from the American Heritage Dictionary cut by an editor as at this Talk:Evolutionism_%28disambiguation%29, when I thought about it, there seems to be a lack of general understanding--including my own--about how citable a dictionary really should be. For example, I would have reverted the cut and argued much more strongly if the cited quotation had been from Darwin's ''Origin of Species''--because I could say "Darwin said that." But who knows who wrote the dictionary definition? Thanks for helping me think this through--because I think a section in the NPOV documentation is required. ---User:Rednblu | User talk:Rednblu 20:04, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
*** To put it briefly: dictionary definitions are not special, nor is any particular source. Any text exhibiting a point of view is POV, without exception, although you could certainly contend whether a piece of text is POV or not. I can't help but see this whole argument as a way of drawing attention to and justifying a single tiny edit. I'd seriously consider just moving on. User:Dcoetzee 21:46, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
**** Thanks for the advice. :)) ---User:Rednblu | User talk:Rednblu 22:07, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
== ---End container for discussion copied from VillagePumpPolicy ==
== POV and edit wars ==
I have just been struck by a thought: - sometimes the nature of an article makes it a subjective issue, based on points of view. The fact that these points of view exist, in my view is factual in itself. Now POV goes against WikiPolicy, I know, but the exclusion of POV can mean the omission of facts, leading to an incomprehensive or incorrect dataset. Take World War II: neutral POV in its basic form would not make any destinction between who was right and wrong - after all Hitler was convinced he was right. Same with the current situation in Iraq - everyone thinks they are right there - so who is to say? Unless the POVs are noted (and noted as such) then the reader will end up with, if you like, a "neutral bias".
How about having articles which are subject to POV having sub-articles which clearly state that they are POV? I know this opens up the way for cranks, nutters and fanatics (and vandals), but it could be said that the fact that such idiosyncrasies exist is in itself fact, and should be included. Suffice to say POV sub-articles should be clearly labeled to indicate that they are POV.
I am still formulating the agruments for and against on this though, however please let me know what you think. --User:JohnArmagh 05:33, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
:There's something to be said for publishing opinions alongside neutral discussion. Newspapers do it with editorials, and sometimes such opinions do give us some insight (or at least are entertaining.) Wikipedia already acts like a newspaper in some respects by publishing articles on current events.
:The main arguments I can think of against it is that it distracts from the main purpose, and the wiki process may not work as well for editorials. There's also the potential for upsetting our readers, editors, and donators quite a bit. Perhaps a better approach is external links to opinion pages. User:Dcoetzee 05:57, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
::It is completely legitimate to cite what differing published authors say about the topic. For a pretty decent example, see Left-right_politics#Meaning_of_the_terms (although it could be improved by having citations for ''all'' of the views mentioned, rather than merely most of them). What is ''not'' acceptable is when Wikipedians state opinions in the narrative voice of the article as if they are matters of fact. -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 08:45, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
:JohnArmagh, I have a problem understanding your point. History is manmade. Man is constantly subjective in his choosing of "objective facts". History is told by the survivors/winners. Someone would consider these thoughts facts, as I do, but they are nothing else than my POV. The only thing I could do in order to enforce them as "objective truths" to a common public (or as a Wiki article), is to give a comprehensive and extensive base of reasons to why this _should be chosen_ as fact above other ''suggested facts''. What we need however, moving away from the philosophical discussion to the practical one, is as balanced POVs as possible, which includes discussion and constant re-editing. Edit-wars is the consequence of non-cooperation. NPOV is more an ideal than a principle in Wikipedia, the principle should be cooperation.
:Blah, blah, blah (lots of words). My point stands: which articles are NOT subject to POV (except those not yet created)? - User:Sigg3.net 09:59, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:In addition, your classic choosing of Hitler as an example should only prove the age of this debate..
I merely point out that History is written by the Winners.
User:Lincspoacher 23:28, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
=="Regime"==
The word "regime", which appears in edits from time to time, has unfavorable connotations. Although it ''can'' be used neutrally, it usually strikes me as conveying disapproval of a particular government. I'm inclined to remove it almost all the time (except, of course, in direct quotations). Is this an overreaction? User:JamesMLane 23:36, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I don't think it's an over-reaction. Regime comes from the word "king" and is only appropriate for monarchies. In my opinion, this is why it is used, branding a government of a country a "regime" is to suggest that the President of that country has the powers of a king over his people, which is often untrue and/or POV. Regardless of that oversimplified line of reasoning, I agree "regime" has negative connotations. "Government" is neutral. — User:Benapgar 23:29, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
:I agree. It's a term used in the process of propaganda, to imply the presence of dictatorial control and to avoid implications of sovereignty that come from a more neutral term like "government". (See the first two example phrases [http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=regime]) Prominent usage of propaganda does belong documented on Wikipedia labelled as such, and this is best done in the form of quotations. But Wikipedia itself should avoid using propaganda within the body of articles, as this is contrary to NPOV. User:Cortonin — User:Cortonin | User talk:Cortonin 23:53, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I also think that "administration" is also inappropriate most of the time--unless one is referencing the political players involved and not the government. For example, the "Bush administration" did not pass the PATRIOT act, the US government as a bureaucratic body did. — User:Benapgar 23:29, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
:"Administration" is an accepted term used to refer to the executive branch of the U.S. government. The example you cite is inappropriate not because of anything to do with NPOV but because it's simply factually incorrect. —User:Christiaan 15:25, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:Forbid enough vocabulary, and the unattractive facts can't be presented at all. That's the idea behind Newspeak too. Authoritarian cultural backgrounds come through vividly in this instinct for censorship. And we all suffer. --User:Wetman 19:55, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:Your last statement is hardly any more correct. A few hundred individual people, acting in the ''name'' of the government of the US, under the titular leadership of Bush, acted to pass the PATRIOT act. To say that an organization takes an action is only a convenient shorthand to say that the members of the organization took some action in the organization's name.
:''regime'' is used in the language of diplomacy. It is only in recent years its we've seen common usage in journalism. See [http://www.oxfordreference.com/views/ENTRY.html?subview=Main&entry=t86.e1143 Charles Jones "regime" The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics. Ed. Iain McLean and Alistair McMillan. Oxford University Press, 2003. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press.] Also has the correct use of the term "change of regime", not the Americanism popularized by journalists "regime change". User:Nobs 20:39, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
:Comparing this with newspeak is hardly fair, I think. It's not like you're talking about suppressing the use of the word at large, and anyhow, there are some ideas that the Wikipedia, by design, doesn't express — that is, that theories, people, nations, etc., are "right" or "wrong". Isn't that the point, more or less, of NPOV? These days the word "regime" has a strong negative connotation — applied to a government, it means that government is "wrong". Thus, IMO, the word shouldn't be used in the Wikipedia. —anonymous(kalthare.dyndns.org) 0:05, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
''Regime'' has been used in the language of diplomacy for centuries. It has gained a popular journalistic used in the recent years, mostly coming out of State Department briefings. To attach some sort of "derisive" meaning to it, however, is short cited. Simple example, during World War II the Comité National Français (or Free French) was a regime that had full diplomatic recognition from Great Britian but not from the United States; converserly the so-called Vichy regime had full diplomatic recognition from the United States, but not from Great Britian. (We recently had a good discussion on the Allies:Talk page, another example is Polish government in exile, which was the recognized government of Poland but derisively called the Sikorski regime by the Soviet Union. Suffice it to say, all governments are indeed regimes; whereas, not all regimes are recognized governments (Palestinian Autrhority PA to use a modern example). User:Nobs 00:32, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
:Your examples support my point. Vichy was called "regime" by people who despised it as a Nazi puppet state, whether or not they extended diplomatic recognition to it, and you yourself point out that "Sikorski regime" was used derisively by its opponents.
:Furthermore, words can change in meaning over the years, and their connotations are especially malleable. The fact is that, in contemporary usage, "regime" is almost always used to convey disapproval, generally suggesting a dictatorial nature. Wade through all of Bush's tirades about "the Saddam regime" and find me one instance where he mentions "the Blair regime". Or try inserting the phrase "the Bush regime" into our article on George W. Bush or into one of the articles about the invasion of Iraq, and see how long it lasts. I just did a Yahoo! search for "Bush regime". The top hits are all hostile uses:
:* First on the list is a set of "[http://uggabugga.blogspot.com/2003_04_20_uggabugga_archive.html#93223761 Bush regime playing cards]", depicting Bush and his henchmen as being "Wanted!" for a variety of crimes, such as "Looting Social Security trust funds".
:* Second is an [http://www.sourcewatch.org/wiki.phtml?title=Bush_regime article] in SourceWatch, titled "Bush regime", which begins, "The regime, or cartel, of George W. Bush has been, since inception, characterized by blatant disregard for fact, and willful deception even of themselves."
:* The third hit is [http://www.reseauvoltaire.net/bushregimedeck.html a different deck] of Bush regime playing cards ("George W. Bush seized power with the complicity of the Supreme Court....").
:*Then comes http://bushregime.org/ ("Are we on the way to despotism?").
:I didn't look at all the hits, but it's obvious that the phrase "Bush regime" is used almost exclusively to express disapproval of Bush.
:In general, contemporary popular usage (regardless of what diplomats or legal scholars might say) is that "regime" is a negative term. Why should we use this term, except in reporting others' usage, or in some other context where the POV is eliminated? I've always heard the term "Vichy government", and that seems quite adequate to me. User:JamesMLane 18:36, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
::I agree in some respects. Frankly, I'm surprised that actual title to the wiki Vichy article is Vichy France, where one would expect an article about a city or geographic region, not an historico-political article. To change the subject somewhat, another diplomatic term that has fallen upon abuse is change of regime (in its Americanization it has become "regime change"). The constitution of the United States is the American regime. The Bush Administration is simply the current administration under the American regime. Hence, to suggest a ''regime change'' (or more accurately ''change of regime'') in Washington is not to advocate replacing the Bush Administration; it is in effect, in diplomatic parlance, suggesting the removal or overturning of the United States Constitution. But then again, lets not let facts, history, and reality get in the way of popular misconceptions and journalistic distortions. Thanks. User:Nobs 19:05, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
==A point that troubles me==
From the current version of the text:
"To state outright that "the existence of God is an opinion", "subjective", or "a personal decision", while seeming to be sensitive to the issue, implies that there is no fact being discussed (postmodernism or strong agnosticism), or that it is relatively unimportant (secular bias), or that God only exists in the human mind (Atheism)."
This seems to me to be saying that if I write in an article: "There is no agreement on whether God exists; it cannot be stated as a fact. A statement as to God's existence or non-existence is an opinion," I am violating the NPOV. If so, what formulation of the statement of the fact of the disagreement among reasonable people on this question would be acceptable? --User:Tony_Sidaway|User_talk:Tony_Sidaway#Page_Footer">User:Tony Sidaway|User:Tony Sidaway|User talk:Tony Sidaway#Page_Footer 01:03, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
--User:Tony_Sidaway|User_talk:Tony_Sidaway#Page_Footer">User:Tony Sidaway|User:Tony Sidaway|User talk:Tony Sidaway#Page_Footer 01:03, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
40 WAYS TO GET A NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW
1. Write a Wikipedia article. These HAVE to be written from a neutral point of view.
2. Touch a non-erogenous zone on your body. Oh, no, wait, that’s how you get a neutral point of you.
3. Have a cup of tea (or, in the interests of this week’s 40 Ways, you can have coffee, juice, or whatever beverage are on offer, or even none at all.)
4. Say you like all sports, even if you hate a few.
5. Go to the drug dealer. Oh, no, wait, that’s how to get a natural joint of Faeces.
6. Run every television show in the world on your station. Different people like different shows.
7. Feed her every way, just in case she prefers one way of being fed over the way you usually feed your kids.
8. Urine in every container available. I do it in bottles.
9. Refer to your excrement under every name available.
10. Watch every episode of Angela Anaconda simultaneously. You’ll need sixty-five televisions, however.
11. Two cents. Oh no wait, that’s zero dollars point oh two.
12. Listen to the song by DB Boulevard. Oh, no, wait, it’s another way from another point of view.
13. Ban said song. It has references to point of view.
14. Vote for everyone in the General Election.
15. Buy [http://www.critic.co.nz ''Critic''] and don’t buy it.
16. Stay out of the war.
17. At a rugby game, support both teams, for example when one’s about to score a try.
18. Speak every language under the sun (or clouds or rain or shelter or wherever.)
19. Listen to every song ever made at the same time. It will be quite hard, however.
20. If there are galaxy beyond the edge of the visible universe, say there is more than one universe AND all universes stretch out into infinite.
21. Shit can happen or be, you can serve wine or grape juice with your shit, you can be sure or unsure about shit, it can be your shit or everyone’s shit, you can buy or sell shit, you can create or destroy shit, etc. Shit is neutral.
22. Use every logo and/or mascot in the competition to symbolize the Olympics or the Commonwealth Games.
23. Order everything on the menu in a restaurant.
24. Whistle when you work and whistle when you eat if you can’t decide which one you like better.
25. Buy and don't buy milk.
26. Only touch things with a pH value of 7. Oh, no, wait, those are neutral solutions.
27. Do not use masculine or feminine nouns. Oh, no, wait, the nouns you use instead are neuter.
28. Wear formal and informal clothes everywhere. This week, we want you to have the best of both worlds.
29. Shop at all supermarkets.
30. Tidy and untidy your room.
31. Get and don’t get your way.
32. Wear and don’t wear a top.
33. Eat inside and outside.
34. Be a circumcision male with a foreskin.
35. Wear clean and dirty undies.
36. Defecate in the toilet and the cistern at the same time.
37. Have and don’t have a G-spot.
38. Be male and female, or just get neutered. They neuter dogs.
39. Spell and say you can’t.
40. Read and don’t read this page again.
41. Say that everyone can and can’t count to 40. I hope you found this list funny. In fact, I hope you actually read it. Or, I hope you read and don't read said list. I hope that both was and wasn't a coan! --User:Tony_Sidaway|User_talk:Tony_Sidaway#Page_Footer">User:Tony Sidaway|User:Tony Sidaway|User talk:Tony Sidaway#Page_Footer 11:09, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
== NPOV regarding unusual claims ==
I'm wondering on what is the proper NPOV with articles that are not really pseudoscience, but something along those lines. With pseudoscience, it's easy to say first that this is pseudoscience, and everything that follows is according to those who believe it. But then there are cases such as Travis Walton abduction, where a person claims he's been abducted by aliens. Obviously, the majority of people, here on Wikipedia and elsewhere, would say that the claims are false. However, saying that on the page would actually be POV - likewise, insisting that he was indeed abudcted would be POV.
The solution used on that and several other articles I've seen is extensive use of words such as "claimed", "allegedly", "reported", etc. I suppose it's good from the NPOV side, but I find it annoying sometimes to read an article where every fact is preceded by "allegedly", etc. Would it be NPOV to state at the beggining something like "the following description of the events is according to X", and then describe the events using "normal" language? - User:Solver
:Well it may be annoying to have allegedly, but sometimes that is necessary. Otherwise Wikipedia is making statements that are not correct, with one proviso at the beginning of the text that it is one POV. In fact, stating that the majority of people disagree with a minor POV is a fact if it is true. That means it is not POV to state that, especially if it can be cited to a reliable source. - User:Taxman 17:09, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
::But that does make it quite hard to state it all properly. The NPOV article says, "The neutral point of view attempts to present ideas and facts in such a fashion that both supporters and opponents can agree." Therefore, we can say that the majority of people disagree (and should say, if that's a fact), but we can not say things like "alien abductions are hoaxes", "extra-sensory perception does not exist", etc., because it's not netural and there are many supporters who would disagree. User:Solver 17:17, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Look at these statements:
#All statements are improved by a phrase limiting their context.
#In Wikipedia, all statements are improved by a phrase limiting their context.
Establish the context, then just follow the material unself-consciously. ''"In Greek mythology"'' blah blah blah. You don't have to keep saying "Athena allegedly was born from Zeus' forehead." You've established at the outset that you are discussing ''within'' the context: "In Christian thought..." "In Marxist economics..." etc. --User:Wetman 19:55, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
==The link to Jimbo's quote==
The link at the top of WP:NPOV ([http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-November/008074.html] as of this writing) doesn't appear to contain any quote from Jimbo, certainly not the phrase "absolute and non-negotiable." Can someone either point out something I've overlooked, or fix the link to point to the correct message? Thanks. -User:Phthoggos 06:01, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC) I see it's been fixed. :) -User:Phthoggos 22:08, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
== Proportion to population ==
I have a question regarding the policy that states "We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by only a small minority of people deserved as much attention as a majority view. That may be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. If we are to represent the dispute fairly, we should present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties." What if the number of people who hold a position is in dispute? User:Q0 19:45, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
== Growth and cruft ==
This page really has grown into a bit of a monster. Points are often duplicated, or not presented clearly. The page is very long. I would be very suprised if any new users take the time to read and learn such a piece. We should cut it down and clean it up. User:Dan100 13:20, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
:Agreed, and I think splitting the article into a main article and a FAQ would be a good way to start. I do think the artcile would benefit from the addition of a short section on how to raise and cope with a POV dispute, though ---- User:Chalst 08:56, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
== Objective truths... sometimes ==
On several instances (French law on secularity and conspicuous religious symbols in schools, French legislation on cult abuses, etc.), I have come across troubling cases where some article content, or some references, contained blatant errors on objective facts. Especially, it contain false assertions on the textual content of the text of laws that were available from authoritative sources on the World Wide Web; in one instance, one "reference" discussed an inexistant article of a law (to be fair, the article existed in the first draft of the law – but the "reference" discussed it as current).
In all cases, what was troubling was that some other contributors had preferred "information" obtained from non-authoritative sources to easily obtainable first-hand information. In some cases, the non-authoritative sources were probably the media; in other cases, publications defending a certain point of view on the question.
The WP:NPOV policies of Wikipedia compel us to attribute opinions to those who hold them. However, in the cases that I delineated above, there was absolutely no room for opinion. Whether an official text, duly referenced on official sites, contains or not a certain paragraph or phrase is not a matter of opinion; it is an objective fact that anybody with an Internet connection can check. There is absolutely no room for appreciation or discussion.
In cases where such objective determination is possible, ''I think that it should be policy that preference should be given to primary sources.''
Note, however, that I do not extend this qualification of objectiveness to the ''interpretations'' that can be made of legal texts. These, often, need the help of people with legal background; and, also, determining the possible future applications of a law is generally a matter of prospective and supposition. User:David.Monniaux 20:13, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:You raise a good point. I don't think that was covered yet, so I added a brief paragraph clarifying the objectivity section's application to referencing or quoting sources. User:Cortonin — User:Cortonin | User talk:Cortonin 22:33, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
==NPOV, article quality & style==
Everyone should try to be as objective as possible, respect other's sensibilities without sacrificing content. That would make neutral & agreeable POV.
== Experts vs. concerned paries ==
It is stated in the NPOV policy that "If we are to represent the dispute fairly, we should present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties." Although this text was given in a section that explains the policy regarding representing views in proportion to the population that holds a view, the fact that "experts on the subject" and "concerned parties" was used leads me to believe that both opinions from experts in a field as well as "concerned parties" (who are not necessarily "experts") are to be included in Wikipedia. Am I correct? User:Q0 18:15, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:I think many issues don't really have "experts", and for those I think NPOV would simply mean including all the prominent views of concerned parties. And for the issues that have experts, the experts themselves usually have a strong POV. For example, most eugenics experts in the early 20th century would have told you that the methods of eugenics were valid, and that eugenics was morally productive. Obviously this was not the only POV at the time, because there were many other concerned parties with a very different POV which would be important to include. Experts will almost always promote the field of their expertise, and groups of experts will often have a certain social or political leaning, so the inclusion of other concerned parties should be presented to balance this toward NPOV. User:Cortonin — User:Cortonin | User talk:Cortonin 20:08, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
== I know this must have been said before. ==
Isn't a neutral point of view an oxymoron.
It is a point of view in it's self.
--Greyfox
:Read the section of this article titled "What is the neutral point of view?" In particular, pay attention to paragraphs 2 and 3, which describe how "the neutral point of view is not a point of view at all". It's a subtle point, and one often not understood. The neutral point of view is not choosing the most prominent view, nor is it choosing the "correct" view, but it is about characterizing prominent disputes with a careful synergy of the involved views. User:Cortonin — User:Cortonin | User talk:Cortonin 18:17, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Let me put it this way this way.
Wikipedia is the greatest example of man’s struggle to decide who decides what is and isn’t fact or not fact. Basically define what things are as opposed to aren’t. Also who has the authority to decide what is right or wrong. In other who has the right to say it is neutral the founder, writer, viewer, majority or outside power (I.E. God or scientific process). All of these could be wrong. Who has the authority to say what the neutral point of view is?
Hence it is not really possible to have a neutral point of view ever unless something is declared a neutral authority on the matter. Which is nearly impossible because all sides of an argument could say the authority is against them.
To dumb this back down, who has the authority to say what the truth is Absolute or Relative?
Or to say what the NPOV is.--User:Greyfox 20:28, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
After thought maybe it is more of a logic fallacy a kind of married bachelor?
:: I agree. The problem is that different people havent a NPOV about having an NPOV. Some people use the NPOV stance merely to exclude things that they either don't agree with or thatcant be absolutely proved. There is numerous references in wikipedia to God, but there is no proof of such an entity existing, but no one seems to object, yet if anyone starts to introduce paranormal POV's into any scientific article such as the Pyramids or SETI then all hell breaks loose and the conventional POV apologists start to scream 'NPOV' before the ink's dry on the page (metaphorically speaking), and it makes me want to scream sometimes and throttle them..............
User:Lincspoacher 23:23, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
== Logical fallacy ==
''Always cite your sources, and make sure your sources are reputable, and you won't go far wrong.''
Just becuase they are not credible or reputalbe doesn't mean they are wrong.
Just means no one believes them.
Example in point 2000 years ago any one that thought the earth was round had no proof.
In fact the evidence to most people and wise men of the day was to the contrary. It was flat to them.
:They were well aware that if you went north, the sun was lower at noon, and that the angle was proportional to the distance you went north. They had geometry figured out pretty well. The observations were consistent with the sun being far away and the earth being round. In a small area the observations could also be explained by assuming the earth was flat and the sun was very close. But if you went a hundred kilometres north or south and made accurate measurements the flat earth theory could not be reconciled with observations. The "wise men of the day" understood basic geometry just as well as the wise men of today.User:24.64.166.191 06:36, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::Indeed, look at the stick Immanuel Vilikovsky got for 50 years for 'Worlds in Collision' and 'ages in Chaos'', and still does, yet slowly bit by bit, all his main points are approximately correct, even though his detial may be out.
User:Lincspoacher 23:26, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
==Criticism==
See: Wikipedia:Criticism. Thanks. User:Hyacinth 05:23, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
==Proposed change==
There is currently a proposal at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)/NPOV/Taiwan vs. ROC to amend this policy so that Wikipedia officially takes a pro-Taipei and anti-Beijing approach to naming conventions. Anyone interested in discussing this change to the NPOV policy should go there, User:Jguk 21:04, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:Everybody who is familiar with East Asian politics can tell this is neither pro-Taipei nor pro-Beijing. — User:InstantnoodUser_talk:Instantnood 20:49, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
:*The NPOV is that it doesn't matter as long as it's explained. Which isn't your position at all. User:SchmuckyTheCat 23:11, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
::Thank you very much!User:222.20.211.236 12:06, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
==What is the meaning of UVO? ==
My ID is Uvo, when I found Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is redirected from UVO, I felt too surprise and happy!User:Uvo 08:06, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
:I don't know the answer, so I asked the author of this redirection : User_talk:Francis_Schonken#UVO--User:Theo F 15:01, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
::UVO was meant as a tentative alternative for POV: "POV" can mean "the opposite of NPOV"; or can mean the abbreviation of "point of view", which to some extent is included in wikipedia (while the "NPOV" concept, as explained in NPOV tutorial, "Space and Balance" section means not excluding any ''reasonable'' approach to a topic, while "neutrality" is reached by balancing these approaches/viewpoints). So I didn't tell yet what the acronym UVO was meant to mean: UnVerifiable Opinion (so, linking to the idea of wikipedia:verifiability too). That was explained in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view article itself (that's when I created the UVO redirect page); the UVO clarification remained there for several months last year; then someone in the end changed the text of that article, and the explanation went lost. Hope this helped you a bit: no danger using this word/acronym for something else; I don't suppose UVO as an acronym for "opposite of NPOV" will ever catch, but it was worth a try. Maybe best to delete the UVO page though, because it became senseless. Note that my initial remark about the "opposite of NPOV"/"point of view" ambiguity has been handled otherwise and in a way I don't think I have to restate that remark. --User:Francis Schonken 15:11, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:::This clarification makes sense, at least to me. It's a pity it didn't catch. User:Theo F 16:05, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
== Cutting a good question from User:Gabrielsimon to the talk page for discussion ==
what about beliefs? why not just say if that's what they believe they are, just say that's what they are? according to them it's the truth, so why not state it as such, for each case. also, why is science given such leeway, when science is a point of view in itself?
User:Gabrielsimon
* Yes. Why should the findings of science have preference over other POVs? Is there an important statement of NPOV policy that we have not yet discovered here? ---User:Rednblu | User talk:Rednblu 01:48, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:If X believes Y, the article on X just needs to say "X believes Y". For controversial beliefs, the way to do it is to say "Some believe X because , others believe Y because ".
:As to science getting leeway, I think this is an article-to-article matter - articles on strictly scientific subjects should be written from a scientific POV, articles on strictly religious subjects should be written from a religious POV (meaning although you should mention what's a belief, there's no need to put mention of criticism or controversy in every paragraph), and controversial subjects should be written as "X says A, Y says B". Or at least, this is what I've come to observe on Wikipedia.
:WP:NPOV#Religion has good commentary on this subject.
:User:Nickptar 02:33, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:* Sounds reasonable to me. :)) Does it actually work that way? ---User:Rednblu | User talk:Rednblu 02:48, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
::Well, here's a good question for you. In your proposal, how do you determine when an article is a "strictly scientific subject" and when it is a "controversial subject"? User:Cortonin — User:Cortonin | User talk:Cortonin 04:17, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:::Wikipedia:Consensus. :-P User:Nickptar 04:22, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
::::Which states ''Note that consensus can only work among reasonable editors who are making a good faith effort to work together to accurately and appropriately describe the different views on the subject.'' and ''Consensus should not trump NPOV. A group of editors advocating a viewpoint do not, in theory, overcome the policy expressed in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not concerning advocacy and propaganda.'' But in actual practice, if you allow consensus to choose a single view and call it scientific to the exclusion of other views (as you suggested), then you permit consensus to establish advocacy and label that advocacy "science". This is a problem on Wikipedia, and it would be nice if it had a more codified solution. But I don't think your proposal has quite captured the solution yet. User:Cortonin — User:Cortonin | User talk:Cortonin 22:08, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:::::It's not a "proposal", it's how, to my observation, Wikipedia works. I'm not saying there's an excuse for POV (scientific or religious) anywhere, but that things are and should be presented as "Some people believe X because A, but (most people)/(mainstream scientists)/(whatever) believe otherwise because B." To be honest, I'm not sure what I was on when I wrote what I did up there. User:Nickptar 22:16, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Um, science is most certainly ''not'' a point if view. Science is merely a ''method'' for how one can answer questions that are asked about the physical world in which we live. How else would one answer such questions? By waiting for a revelation from some deity or god? Also, can you give us a specific example of science being given leeway in a Wikipedia article, over some equally reliable method of determining facts about the physical world in which we live? Finally, be careful about using the word "believe". adherents of many religions, and adherents of far left-wing and far right-wing ideologies have set "beliefs". Scientists ask questions, and see what the results of experiments are. User:RK 18:35, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
sceince is used all to often to call other paths of thinking ridiculous. it is definatly a POV, for people sayt "from a scientiic point of view" or " sceontifically speaking" etc. if not, then they shouldnt say it, but it seems so ot me.
User:Gabrielsimon 20:25, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
== NPOV. absolutism and totalitarism ==
NPOV is being invoked in Wikipedia for the most intolerant reasons.
This should gives birth to a reflexion on the abuses commonly met.
For a start, I believe one should state clearly that the contrary of NPOV, is never POV -- a contribution should never be criticized on the argument that it displays a point of view, only that it infringes the overall ''neutrality''.
An argument which would ''not'' display any point of view would be absolutist -- pretend that it is objective and universal, without consideration for the opinions of other people but its author. It would thus only be ''implicitly'' a point of view itself.
Neutrality is thus not achieved by stating pseudo-universal truths, but by offering a fair balance between the various points of view in presence, making them ''explicit''. Modern science and philosophy do not offer official truth anymore, but theories and paradigms, defeasible and consistent, as far as possible.
Relativism used to be an insult -- it is clear now that its opposite is absolutism, which is far more dangerous. Relativism doesn't mean that all opinions all equally valid, but only that they are so ''a-priori'' -- that one should be allowed to defend them, and thus first to express them.
The philosophy on Enlightment (which gaves birth to the ''Encyclopedia'') was indeed absolutist. It did state that some truths were universal. It led to totalitarism, and my own opinion is
Neutral Point Of View
#REDIRECT Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
Neutral Point Of View
#REDIRECT Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
Neutral Point of View
#REDIRECT wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
Neutral Point of View
#REDIRECT Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
Neutral point of view
#REDIRECT Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
Neutral point of view
#redirectWikipedia talk:Neutral point of view
Neutral point of view
Wikipedia policy is that all articles should be written from a neutral point of view: without bias, representing all views fairly. According to Wikipedia founder User:Jimbo Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable". [http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-November/008096.html] For guidance on making an article conform to the neutral point of view (NPOV), please see the Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial. ==Introduction== Articles should be written without bias, representing all views fairly. This is the neutral point of view policy. The policy is easily misunderstood: It doesn't assume that writing an article from a single, unbiased, objective point of view is possible. Instead it says to ''fairly represent'' all sides of a dispute by not making articles state, imply, or insinuate that only one side is correct. Crucially, a great merit of Wikipedia is that Wikipedians work together to make articles unbiased. Writing unbiased text requires practice. Contributors who have mastered the art of NPOV are invited to help develop the Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial. ===The basic concept of neutrality=== At Wikipedia, the terms "unbiased" and "neutral point of view" are used in a precise way that is different from the common understanding: :Articles without bias ''describe'' debates fairly rather than ''advocating'' any side of the debate. Since all articles are edited by people, this is difficult, as people are inherently biased. ====The original formulation of NPOV==== ''A general purpose encyclopedia is a collection of synthesized knowledge presented from a neutral point of view. To whatever extent possible, encyclopedic writing should steer clear of taking any particular stance other than the stance of the neutral point of view.'' ''The neutral point of view attempts to present ideas and facts in such a fashion that both supporters and opponents can agree. Of course, 100% agreement is not possible; there are ideologues in the world who will not concede to any presentation other than a forceful statement of their own point of view. We can only seek a type of writing that is agreeable to essentially rational people who may differ on particular points.'' ''Some examples may help to drive home the point I am trying to make. '' ''1. An encyclopedic article should not argue that corporations are criminals, even if the author believes it to be so. It should instead present the fact that ''some people'' believe it, and what their reasons are, and then as well it should present what the other side says.'' ''2. An encyclopedia article should not argue that laissez-faire capitalism is the best social system. [...] It should instead present the arguments of the advocates of that point of view, and the arguments of the people who disagree with that point of view.'' ''Perhaps the easiest way to make your writing more encyclopedic is to write about ''what people believe'', rather than ''what is so''. If this strikes you as somehow subjectivist or collectivist or imperialist, then ask me about it, because I think that you are just mistaken. What people believe is a matter of objective fact, and we can present ''that'' quite easily from the neutral point of view.'' ''--Jimbo Wales, Wikipedia founder'' ===Why should Wikipedia be unbiased?=== Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, which means it is a representation of human knowledge at some level of generality. But human beings disagree about specific cases; for any topic on which there are competing views, each view represents a different idea of what the truth is, and insofar as that view contradicts other views, its adherents believe that the other views are ''false'' and therefore not ''knowledge''. Where there is disagreement about what is true, there's disagreement about what constitutes knowledge. Wikipedia works because it's a collaborative effort; but, while collaborating, how can we solve the problem of endless "edit wars" in which one person asserts that ''p,'' whereupon the next person changes the text so that it asserts ''not-p''? A solution is that we accept, for the purposes of working on Wikipedia, that "human knowledge" includes ''all different'' significant theories on all different topics. So we're committed to the goal of representing human knowledge in ''that'' sense. Something like this is surely a well-established sense of the word "knowledge"; in this sense, what is "known" changes constantly with the passage of time, and when we use the word "know", we often use so-called Quotation mark#Emphasis and ironic quotes. In the Middle Ages, we "knew" that demons caused diseases. We now "know" otherwise. We could sum up human knowledge (in this sense) in a biased way: we'd state a series of theories about topic T, and then claim that the truth about T is such-and-such. But again, consider that Wikipedia is an international, collaborative project. Nearly every view on every subject will be found among our authors and readers. To avoid endless edit wars, we can agree to present each of the significant views fairly, and not assert any one of them as correct. That is what makes an article "unbiased" or "neutral" in the sense we are presenting here. To write from a neutral point of view, one presents controversial views without asserting them; to do ''that,'' it generally suffices to present competing views in a way that is more or less acceptable to their adherents, and also to ''attribute'' the views to their adherents. Disputes are characterized in Wikipedia. They are not re-enacted. To sum up the primary reason for this policy: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a compilation of human knowledge. But because Wikipedia is a community-built, international resource, we cannot expect collaborators to agree in all cases, or even in many cases, on what constitutes knowledge in a strict sense. We can, therefore, adopt the looser sense of "human knowledge" according to which a wide variety of conflicting theories constitute what we call "knowledge." We should, both individually and collectively, make an effort to present these conflicting views fairly, without advocating any one of them, with the qualification that views held only by a tiny minority of people should not be represented as though they are significant minority views, and perhaps should not be represented at all. There is another reason to commit ourselves to this policy. Namely, when it is clear to readers that we do not expect them to adopt any particular opinion, this leaves them free to make up their minds for themselves, thus encouraging ''intellectual independence''. Totalitarian governments and dogmatic institutions everywhere might find reason to be opposed to Wikipedia, if we succeed in adhering to our non-bias policy: the presentation of many competing theories on a wide variety of subjects suggests that we, the creators of Wikipedia, trust readers' competence to form their own opinions themselves. Texts that present multiple viewpoints fairly, without demanding that the reader accept any one of them, are liberating. Neutrality subverts dogmatism, and nearly everyone working on Wikipedia can agree this is a good thing. ==What is the neutral point of view?== What we mean isn't obvious, and is easily misunderstood. There are many other valid interpretations of "unbiased," and "neutral". The notion of "unbiased writing" that informs Wikipedia's policy is "presenting conflicting views without asserting them." This needs further clarification, as follows. First, and most importantly, consider what it means to say that unbiased writing presents conflicting views without asserting them. Unbiased writing does not present only the most popular view; it does not ''assert'' the most popular view is correct after presenting all views; it does not assert that some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Presenting all points of view says, more or less, that ''p''-ists believe that ''p,'' and ''q''-ists believe that ''q,'' and that's where the debate stands at present. Ideally, presenting all points of view also gives a great deal of background on who believes that ''p'' and ''q'' and why, and which view is more popular (being careful not to associate ''popularity'' with ''correctness''). Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of the ''p''-ists and the ''q''-ists, allowing each side to give its "best shot" at the other, but studiously refraining from saying who won the exchange. A point here bears elaboration. We said that the neutral point of view is not, contrary to the seeming implication of the phrase, some actual ''point of view'' that is "neutral," or "intermediate," among the different positions. That represents a particular understanding of what "neutral point of view" means. The prevailing Wikipedia understanding is that the neutral point of view is not a ''point of view'' at all; according to our understanding, when one writes neutrally, one is very careful not to state (or imply or insinuate or subtly massage the reader into believing) that ''any particular view at all'' is correct. Another point bears elaboration as well. Writing unbiasedly can be conceived very well as ''representing'' disputes, ''characterizing'' them, rather than engaging in them. One can think of unbiased writing as the cold, fair, analytical description of debates. Of course, one might well doubt that this can be done at all without somehow subtly implying or insinuating that one position is correct. But experienced academics, polemical writers, and rhetoricians are well-attuned to bias, both their own and others', so that they can usually spot a description of a debate that tends to favor one side. If they so choose, with some creativity, they can usually remove that bias. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views need not give minority views ''as much'' or as detailed a description as more popular views. We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by only a small minority of people deserved as much attention as a majority view. That may be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. If we are to represent the dispute fairly, we should present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. None of this, however, is to say that minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can possibly give them on pages specifically devoted to those views. There is no size limit to Wikipedia. But even on such pages, though a view is spelled out possibly in great detail, we still make sure that the view is not represented as ''the truth.'' :From Jimbo Wales, September 2003, on the mailing list: ::* If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts; ::* If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name ''prominent'' adherents; ::* If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not. Bias need not be conscious. For example, beginners in a field often fail to realize that what sounds like common sense is actually biased in favor of one particular view. (So we not infrequently need an expert in order to render the article entirely unbiased.) To take another example, writers can, without intent, propagate "geographical" bias, by for example describing a dispute ''as it is conducted in one country'' without knowing that the dispute is framed differently elsewhere. The policy of having a neutral point of view is not to ''hide'' different points of view, but to show the diversity of viewpoints. In case of controversy, the strong points and weak points will be shown according to each point of view, without taking a side. The neutral point of view is not a "separate but equal" policy. The facts, in themselves, are neutral, but the simple accumulation of them cannot be the neutral point of view. If only the favorable (or the unfavorable) facts of a point of view are shown in an article, the article will still be non-neutral. ==The vital component: good research== Many POV battles would be made much easier through the practice of good research. Facts are not points of view in and of themselves. So an easy way to avoid making a statement that promotes a point of view is to find a reputable source for a fact and Wikipedia:Cite sources. This is an easy way to characterize a side of a debate without promoting a view. The trick is to find the best and most reputable source you can. Try the library for good books and journal articles, and look for the most reliable online resources. A little bit of ground work can save a lot of time in trying to justify a point later. The only other important consideration is that while a fact is not POV in and of itself, adding facts, no matter how well cited, from only one side of a debate is a POV problem. So work for balance. Find facts that aren't from one side or the other and cite the source. ==A simple formulation== We sometimes give an alternative formulation of the non-bias policy: assert facts, including facts about opinions — but don't assert opinions themselves. There is a difference between facts and values, or opinions. By "fact," we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." In this sense, that a survey produced a certain published result is a fact. That Mars is a planet is a fact. That Socrates was a philosopher is a fact. No one seriously disputes any of these things. So we can feel free to ''assert'' as many of them as we can. By value or opinion, on the other hand, we mean "a piece of information about which there is some dispute." There are bound to be meta:borderline case where we're not sure if we should take a particular dispute seriously; but there are many propositions that very clearly express values or opinions. That stealing is wrong is a value or opinion. That the Beatles was the greatest band is a value or opinion. That the United States was wrong to drop the atomic bomb over Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a value or opinion. That God exists ... this can be a troublesome one. Whether God exists or not is a question of fact, not a question of value. But as the fact is essentially undiscoverable, so far as anyone knows, whether God exists will usually be couched in terms of opinion or value. To state as a fact that "the existence of God is an opinion", while seeming to be sensitive to the issue, implies that there is no fact being discussed (postmodernism or strong agnosticism), or that it is relatively unimportant (secular bias). Wikipedia is devoted to stating facts and only facts. Where we might want to state an opinion, we convert that opinion into a fact by ''attributing'' the opinion to someone. So, rather than asserting, "The Beatles were the greatest band", we can say, "Most Americans believe that the Beatles were the greatest band," which is a fact verifiable by survey results, or "The Beatles had many songs that made the Billboard Hot 100," which is also fact. In the first instance we assert an opinion; in the second and third instances we "convert" that opinion into fact by attributing it to someone. It's important to note this formulation is substantially different from the "some people believe ..." formulation popular in political debates. The reference requires an identifiable and subjectively quantifiable population or, better still, a name. In presenting an opinion, moreover, it is important to bear in mind that there are disagreements about how opinions are best stated; sometimes, it will be necessary to qualify the description of an opinion or to present several formulations, simply to arrive at a solution that fairly represents all the leading views of the situation. (Theological and philosophical debates are particularly hard to frame in a non-biased way; this very page bears that out, as it posed in a previous incarnation as an example of an opinion, "God exists".) But it's not ''enough,'' to express the Wikipedia non-bias policy, just to say that we should state facts and not opinions. When asserting a fact ''about an opinion,'' it is important ''also'' to assert facts ''about competing opinions,'' and to do so without implying that any one of the opinions is correct. It's also generally important to give the facts about the reasons behind the views, and to make it clear who holds them. (It's often best to cite a prominent representative of the view.) ==Fairness and sympathetic tone== If we're going to characterize disputes fairly, we should present competing views with a consistently positive, sympathetic tone. Many articles end up as partisan commentary ''even while'' presenting both points of view. Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization — for instance, refuting opposing views as one goes along makes them look a lot worse than collecting them in an opinions-of-opponents section. We should, instead, write articles with the tone that ''all'' positions presented are at least plausible, bearing in mind the important qualification about extreme minority views. Let's present all significant, competing views sympathetically. We can write with the attitude that such-and-such is a good idea, except that, in the view of some detractors, the supporters of said view overlooked such-and-such a detail. ==Characterizing opinions of people's work== A special case is the expression of aesthetic opinions. Wikipedia articles about art, artists, and other creative topics (e.g., musicians, actors, books, etc.) have tended toward the effusive. This is out of place in an encyclopedia. We might not be able to agree that so-and-so is the greatest guitar player in history, but it may be important to describe how some artist or some work has been received by the general public or by prominent experts. Providing an overview of the common interpretations of a creative work, preferably with citations or references to notable individuals holding that interpretation, is appropriate. For instance, that Shakespeare is [http://absoluteshakespeare.com/william_shakespeare.htm widely acknowledged] as one of the greatest playwrights of the English language is a bit of knowledge that one should learn from an encyclopedia. However, in the interests of neutrality, one should also learn that a number of reputable scholars argue that there is a [http://www2.localaccess.com/marlowe/pamphlet/pamphlet.htm strong case] to make that the author of much of the work still attributed to Shakespeare was his contemporary Christopher Marlowe. Notice, determining how some artist or work has been received publicly or critically might require research; but that reception, unlike the idiosyncratic opinion of the Wikipedia article writer, is an opinion that really matters. ==A consequence: writing for the enemy== Those who constantly attempt to advocate their views on politically charged topics, and who seem not to care about whether other points of view are represented fairly, are violating the non-bias policy ("write unbiasedly"). But the policy also entails that it is our job to speak for the other side, and not just avoid advocating our own views. If we don't commit ourselves to doing that, Wikipedia will be weaker for it. We should all be engaged in explaining each other's points of view as sympathetically as possible. In saying this, we are spelling out what might have been obvious from an initial reading of the policy. If each of us is permitted to contribute biased stuff, then how is it possible that the policy is ever ''violated''? The policy ''says'', "Go thou and write unbiasedly". If that ''doesn't'' entail that each of us should fairly represent views with which we disagree, then what ''does'' it mean? Maybe you think it means, "Represent your own view fairly, and let others have a say." But consider, if we each take responsibility for ''the entire'' article when we hit "save", then when we make a change that represents ''our own'' views but not contrary views, or represents contrary views unfairly or incompletely, surely we are adding bias to Wikipedia. Does it make sense ''not'' to take responsibility for the entire article? Does it make sense to take sentences and say, "These are mine"? Perhaps, but in a project that is so strongly and explicitly committed to neutrality, that attitude seems out of place. The other side might very well find your attempts to characterize their views substandard, but it's the thought that counts. In resolving disputes over neutrality issues, it's far better that we acknowledge that all sides must be presented fairly, and make at least a college try at presenting the other sides fairly. That will be appreciated much more than not trying at all. "Writing for the enemy" might make it seem as if we were adding ''deliberately'' flawed arguments to Wikipedia, which would be a very strange thing to do. But it's better to view this (otherwise puzzling) behavior as adding the ''best'' (published) arguments of the opposition, citing some prominent person who has actually made the argument in the form in which you present it, and stating them as sympathetically as possible. Academics, e.g., philosophers, do this all the time. Always Wikipedia:Cite sources, and make sure your sources are reputable, and you won't go far wrong. ==An example== It might help to consider an example of a biased text and how Wikipedians have rendered it at least relatively unbiased. On the abortion page, early in 2001, some advocates had used the page to exchange barbs, being unable to agree about what arguments should be on the page and how the competing positions should be represented. What was needed — and what was added — was an in-depth discussion of the different positions about the moral and legal aspects of abortion at different times. This discussion of the positions was carefully crafted so as not to favor any one of the positions outlined. This made it easier to organize and understand the arguments surrounding the topic of abortion, which were then presented sympathetically, each with its strengths and weaknesses. There are numerous other success stories of articles that began life as virtual partisan screeds but were nicely cleaned up by people who concerned themselves with representing all views clearly and sympathetically. ===Another example=== User:Karada offered the following advice in the context of the Saddam Hussein article: :You won't even ''need'' to say he was evil. That's why the article on Hitler does not start with "Hitler was a bad man" — we don't need to, his deeds convict him a thousand times over. We just list the facts of the Holocaust dispassionately, and the voices of the dead cry out afresh in a way that makes name-calling both pointless and unnecessary. Please do the same: list Saddam's crimes, and Wikipedia:Cite sources. ==Objections and clarifications== What follows is a list of common objections, or questions, regarding Wikipedia's non-bias policy, followed by replies. ===There's no such thing as objectivity=== ''Everybody with any philosophical sophistication knows that. So how can we take the "neutrality" policy seriously? Neutrality, lack of bias, isn't possible.'' This is probably the most common objection to the neutrality policy. It also reflects the most common ''misunderstanding'' of the policy. The misunderstanding is that the policy says something about the possibility of ''objectivity.'' It simply does not. In particular, the policy does ''not'' say that there even ''is'' such a thing as objectivity, a "view from nowhere" (in Thomas Nagel's phrase)--such that articles written from ''that'' point of view are consequently objectively true. That isn't the policy and it is not our aim! Rather, we employ a different understanding of "neutral" and "unbiased" than many might be used to. The policy is simply that we should characterize disputes rather than engage in them. To say ''this'' is not to say anything contentious, from a philosophical point of view; indeed, this is something that philosophers are doing all the time. Sophisticated relativists will immediately recognize that the policy is perfectly consistent with their relativism. If there's ''anything'' possibly contentious about the policy along these lines, it is the implication that it is ''possible'' to characterize disputes fairly, so that all the major participants will be able to look at the resulting text, agreeing that their views are presented sympathetically and as completely as possible (within the context of the discussion). It is an empirical question, not a philosophical one, whether this is possible; and that such a thing ''is'' indeed possible is evident simply by observing that such texts are being written daily by the most capable academics, encyclopedists, textbook writers, and journalists. This should not be construed to mean that there can be no objective truth in an encyclopedia, in the sense that easily obtainable documents should be quoted or referenced correctly when first-hand sources are available, even if there are second-hand sources which quote them incorrectly. Neutrality does not compel us to introduce inaccuracy when something can be directly verified. Neutrality dictates that there can be multiple prominent interpretations to the meaning or validity of a work, but often the contents can be objectively verified, especially in the case of modern documents. === Pseudoscience === ''How are we to write articles about pseudoscientific topics, about which majority scientific opinion is that the pseudoscientific opinion is not credible and doesn't even really deserve serious mention?'' If we're going to represent the sum total of human knowledge, then we must concede that we will be describing views repugnant to us without asserting that they are false. Things are not, however, as bad as that sounds. The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of ''describing a dispute fairly.'' Pseudoscience can be seen as a social phenomenon and therefore significant. However, pseudoscience should not obfuscate the description of the main views, and any mention should be proportional to the rest of the article. There is a minority of Wikipedians who feel so strongly about this problem that they believe Wikipedia should adopt a "Wikipedia:scientific point of view" rather than a "neutral point of view." However, it has not been established that there is really a need for such a policy, given that the scientists' view of pseudoscience can be clearly, fully, and fairly explained to believers of pseudoscience. === Religion === NPOV policy often means presenting multiple points of view. This means providing not only the points of view of different groups today, but also different groups in the past. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. One important task for encyclopedias is to explain things. In the case of human beliefs and practices, explanation encompasses not only what motivates individuals who hold these beliefs and practices, but an account of how such beliefs and practices came to be and took shape. Wikipedia articles on history and religion draw from a religion's sacred texts. But Wikipedia articles on history and religion also draw from modern archaeological, historical and scientific sources. Many adherents of a religion will object to a critical historical treatment of their own faith, claiming that this somehow discriminates against their religious beliefs. They would prefer that the articles describe their faith as they see it, which is often from a non-historical perspective (e.g. the way things are is the way things have always been; any differences are from heretical sects that don't represent the real religion.) Their point of view must be mentioned, yet note that there is no contradiction. NPOV policy means that we say something like this: Many adherents of this faith believe X, which they believe that members of this group have always believed; however, due to the acceptance of some findings (say which) by modern historians and archaeologists (say which), other adherents (say which) of this faith now believe Z. An important note on using the term "fundamentalism". Please see the article on fundamentalism for the technical definition of this term. This word is often used in articles on religion, but should only be used in one of its technical senses. We should take care to explain what we mean by this term in order to avoid: (a) causing unnecessary offense, and (b) misleading the reader (most people being unaware of how this word should be used.) We should not use this term as a pejorative phrase. As religion is a controversial topic, be prepared to see some of these articles edited due to what may seem minor quibbles. === 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 can certainly include long discussions that present our moral repugnance to such things; in doing so, we can maintain a healthy, consistent support for the neutral point of view by attributing the view to prominent representatives or to some group of people. Others will be able to make up their own minds and, being reasonable, surely come around to our view. Those who harbor racism, sexism, etc., will not be convinced to change their views based on a biased article, which only puts them on the defensive; on the other hand, if we make a concerted effort to apply our non-bias policy consistently, we might give those with morally repugnant beliefs insight that will change those views. === Giving "equal validity" === ''But wait. I find the optimism about science vs. pseudo-science to be baseless. History has shown that pseudo-science can beat out facts, as those who rely on pseudo-science use lies, slander, innuendo and numerical majorities of followers to force their views on anyone they can. If this project gives equal validity to those who literally claim that the Earth is flat, or those who claim that the Holocaust never occurred, the result is that it will (inadvertently) legitimize and help promote that which only can be termed evil.'' Please be clear on one thing: the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly ''does not'' state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views. It does state that we must not take a stand on them ''qua'' encyclopedia writers; but that does not stop us from describing the majority views ''as such''; from fairly explaining the strong arguments against the pseudoscientific theory; from describing the strong moral repugnance that many people feel toward some morally repugnant views; and so forth. See this [http://www.idrewthis.org/2004/bothsides.gif humorous illustration] of the "equal validity" issue. === Anglo-American focus === ''Wikipedia seems to have an Anglo-American focus. Is this contrary to the neutral point of view?'' Yes, it is, especially when dealing with articles that require an international perspective. The presence of articles written from a United States or British perspective is simply a reflection of the fact that there are many U.S. and British citizens working on the project, which in turn is a reflection of the fact that so many of them are online. This is an ongoing problem that should be corrected by active collaboration from people from other countries. But rather than introducing their own cultural bias, they should seek to improve articles by removing any examples of cultural bias that they encounter. This is not only a problem in the English Wikipedia. The French Language Wikipedia may reflect a French bias, the Japanese Wikipedia may reflect a Japanese bias, and so on. ===Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete=== ''The neutrality policy is used sometimes as an excuse to delete texts that are perceived as biased. Isn't this a problem?'' In many cases, yes. Many of us believe that the fact that some text is biased is not enough, in itself, to delete it outright. If it contains valid information, the text should simply be edited accordingly. There's sometimes trouble determining whether some claim is true or useful, particularly when there are few people on board who know about the topic. In such a case, it's a good idea to raise objections on a talk page; if one has some reason to believe that the author of the biased material will not be induced to change it, we have sometimes taken to removing the text to the talk page itself (but not deleting it entirely). But the latter should be done more or less as a last resort, never as a way of punishing people who have written something biased. === Dealing with biased contributors === ''I agree with the nonbias policy but there are some here who seem completely, irremediably biased. I have to go around and clean up after them. What do I do?'' Unless the case is really egregious, maybe the best thing is to call attention to the problem publicly, pointing the perpetrators to this page (but Wikipedia:Wikipetiquette — one gets more flies with honey) and asking others to help. See Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution for more ideas. There must surely be a point beyond which our very strong interest in being a ''completely'' open project is trumped by the interest the vast majority of our writers have, in being able to get work done without constantly having to fix the intrusions of people who do not respect our policy. === Avoiding constant disputes === ''How can we avoid constant and endless warfare over neutrality issues?'' The best way to avoid warfare over bias is to remember that most of us are reasonably intelligent, articulate people here, or we wouldn't be working on this and caring so much about it. We have to make it our goal to understand each others' perspectives and to work hard to make sure that those other perspectives are fairly represented. When any dispute arises as to what the article should say, or what is true, we must not adopt an adversarial stance; we must do our best to step back and ask ourselves, "How can this dispute be fairly characterized?" This has to be asked repeatedly as each new controversial point is stated. It is not our job to edit Wikipedia so that it reflects our own idiosyncratic views and then defend those edits against all-comers; it is our job to work together, mainly adding new content, but also, when necessary, coming to a compromise about how a controversy should be described, so that it is fair to all sides. === Making necessary assumptions === ''What about the case where, in order to write any of a long series of articles on some general subject, we must make some controversial assumptions? That's the case, e.g., in writing about evolution. Surely we won't have to hash out the evolution-vs.-creationism debate on every such page?'' No, surely not. There are virtually no topics that could proceed without making some assumptions that ''someone'' would find controversial. This is true not only in evolutionary biology, but also philosophy, history, physics, etc. It is difficult to draw up general principles on which to rule in specific cases, but the following might help: there is probably not a good reason to discuss some assumption on a given page, if an assumption is best discussed in depth on some ''other'' page. Some brief, unobtrusive pointer might be apropos, however. E.g., in an article about the evolutionary development of horses, we might have one brief sentence to the effect that some creationists do not believe that horses (or any other animals) underwent any evolution, and point the reader to the relevant article. If there is much specific argumentation on some particular point, it might be placed on a special page of its own. === Writing for the "enemy" POV === ''I'm not convinced by what you say about "writing for the enemy." I don't want to write for the enemy. Most of them rely on stating as fact many things which are demonstrably false. Are you saying that, to be neutral in writing an article, I must ''lie,'' in order to represent the view I disagree with?'' This is a misunderstanding of what the neutrality policy says. ''You'' aren't claiming anything, except to say, "So-and-so argues that ____________, and therefore, ___________." This can be done with a straight face, with no moral compunctions, because you are attributing the claim to ''someone else.'' It's worth observing that scholars are trained so that, even when trying to prove a point, counter-arguments are included, so that they can explain why the counter-arguments fail. This can be a particularly touchy subject, and a large number of people can honestly fail to see the bias inherent in a popular term, simply because its the one commonly used. But it shouldn't take long to understand that the English wikipedia is a ''highly international project'', and its editors reflect many different points of view. Its important to note that this level of objectivity is rather new to most people, and disputes over the proper terms may simply depend on the balance of points of view. === Other objections === ''I have some other objection. Where should I ask it?'' Before asking it, please review the links below. Many issues surrounding the neutrality policy have been covered before very extensively. If you have some new contribution to make to the debate, you could try Talk:Neutral point of view, or bring it up on the Wikipedia:Mailing lists mailing list. == Other resources == * Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial * Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Examples * Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Examples Debate * m:Responses to How to Build Wikipedia, Understand Bias * Wikipedia:List of controversial issues * Wikipedia:Words to avoid * Talk:Creationism * meta:Positive tone * Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles * God's Eye View * consensus reality * Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms * Template:NPOV -
Neutral point of view
Since this talk page has grown too long for some users' browers to edit, the discussions are being archived oldest first: * Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view/Archive_001 Discussions before October 2004 ---- ==Anti-American point of view== I have noticed that articles that are critical of the US are almost always kept. Articles critical of anti-American attitudes are as a rule deleted as "POV". Examples: Arab dictatorships - deleted Ameriphobia - deleted Islamophilia - deleted Islamophobia - kept 911 conspiracy theories - kept So it seems that anything too critical of anti-American terorrism or bigotry is immediately deleted, because it is "POV", while POV articles whose very titles imply a position (Islamophobia, History of US Imperialism, etc) are rigorously defended. Even editing such articles brings a swarm of RVs. The funny part is that arguments made for deleting one article are the dismissed out of hand in the case of keeping another. The most important matter seems to be whether the admin agrees with the article or not politically, ie. fringe Leftwing. == Americo-centric point of view == To quote the article: "The presence of articles written from an exclusively United States point of view is merely a reflection of the fact that there are many Americans working on the project, which in turn is merely a reflection of the fact that so many Americans are online and working on the English project." Many articles do reflect the "Americo-centric" attitude of contributors by leaving out the fact that the article is about the US. This is common in US place names. Many of us do know that Illinois is in the United States but, forexample, Naperville, Illinois requires further research to establish the fact that it is in the US. User:Alan Liefting 22:07, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC) : It doesn't now, since I've added that information! User:Loganberry 02:16, 29 May 2005 (UTC) Just a question -- if Wikipedia is supposedly Americo-centric, why do I notice Commonwealth English ("British English") spellings in the majority of articles I read? Sometimes, I see both used in one article... We need some form of consistency, methinks. User:Thorns among our leaves 17:30, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC) :I don't think Wikipedia is Americo-centric, nor that the majority of articles are British English. Anyway, inconsistency ''within'' articles should be fixed. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Usage and spelling for details. User:Angelauser talk:Angela 19:28, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC) :I notice geography stubs without any national context all over, from Japan to Serbia. When I can, I just fill them in. This is a ''context'' problem, akin to leaving out "In Christian mythology..." or whatever contextual disambiguation is called for. --User:Wetman 10:26, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC) ::I guess the lesson is that all Wikipedia editors should be aware of geographical, political religious, social (etc) context. The problem is a norrow worldview I guess. User:Alan Liefting 09:34, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC) I spend some of my editing time putting in a geographical context on articles about the United States. One problem area is lists. Quite often lists of countries are in order of population in OECD countries rather than in alphabelical order! User:Alan Liefting 09:29, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC) I had put in a request to have Environmental movement in the United States moved back to Environmentalism since the Environmentalism article is on an international issue rather than a national issue. The request was not actioned. The article had a US slant but this was no reason to move it to a country specific article. As I have stated elsewhere it is a rather geographically blinkered approach to move an article on an international issue to one that is for the United States. I have since cut'n'pasted relevent info from one article to the other. User:Alan Liefting 09:29, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC) == Northern Hemisphere bias == A widespread problem in Wikipedia is Northern hemisphere bias. This manifests itself in places like referring to the Vernal equinox to refer specifically to the equinox that occurs in March, assuming that Spring begins in March, and other assumptions that are only true for the northern hemisphere. People also live south of the Equator, and the seasons there are at different times of the year. Where possible, recast the text to remove all seasonal ambiguity. Adding a sentence near the top of the text stating that the seasons refer to the Northern hemisphere should only be considered as a short-term fix. Such a sentence can easily be overlooked by someone who is casually browsing the text, and anyone who is quoting the Wikipedia for any purpose is likely to miss quoting this text.--User:B.d.mills 06:27, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC) :I think chauvinism is a fairly strong word for northern hemisphere bias. It's simply that most of the population lives north of the equator, and most of them are used to thinking of seasons in those terms. Perhaps you could come up with a set of suggestions for common areas of hemisphere bias, and how to compensate for those without excessive verbosity. User:Cortonin — User:Cortonin | User talk:Cortonin 09:14, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC) ::The original title of this section was "Northern Hemisphere chauvinism". I have altered the title as suggested by User:Cortonin. ::To fix the problem, we need to agree on a Wikipedia style that removes this ambiguity without excessive verbosity. Some ideas: ::* When referring to a specific time, avoid expressions like "Summer 2002". Use other expressions instead. (Imagine if it said "Winter 2002" or "Rainy season 2002" - both of which are also valid descriptions for the month of June, depending on where you live. Seasons are ''local'' phenomena. Don't refer to local phenomena when speaking to a global audience.) An exception to this would be when the article or context is explicitly regional. For example, when discussing the tourist industry in Italy, it would be acceptable to discuss the revenues for the Summer of 2002. ::* Don't name the equinoxes and solstices after the seasons unless the specific season is important. It is reasonable to refer to the Winter Solstice if you are discussing the timing of a Wheel of the Year, but not if your intent is to refer to the solstice that occurs in December. Instead, name the equinox or solstice after the month in which they occur. ::* Expressions like "Northern hemisphere spring" are acceptable if no other substitute is possible. Such expressions should only be used if the northern hemisphere seasons are relevant to the discussion. For example, "northern hemisphere Spring" is important when discussing the ancient Roman calendar because that calendar began with the ''local'' Spring which happens to be in the northern hemisphere, but it is not correct to describe March as the month in which Spring begins, unless you also mention that autumn begins in March in the Southern hemisphere, that the dry season begins in the southern tropics, that the wet season begins in the northern tropics, and so forth. ------------ I added the "An exception" sentence to your list, in the style of other similar Wikipedia policies about regionality. The solstice one I'm curious about. I've only ever heard the solstices referenced seasonally. Is there any precedent for other naming schemes, such as "December Solstice"? Do people from the southern hemisphere most commonly call the solstice in December "Summer Solstice", or do they use another term? User:Cortonin — User:Cortonin | User talk:Cortonin 08:07, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC) :The exception is acceptable, as long as it is also acceptable for discussions on local events in the Southern hemisphere to be worded similarly. (Australian rules football is played in winter in Australia, would it be clear enough from context that Australian football is played in June?) I did imply a similar exception in my third point; I guess the list is a work in progress that we must all revise as we go along. :In the various articles on solstices and equinoxes, some mention is made on how the northern hemisphere bias for the names of the equinoxes causes confusion in the Southern hemisphere; I have heard the March equinox referred to as the vernal equinox, the autumnal equinox and the March equinox! "Northward equinox" is another term, but I have not encountered it personally, only online. To help eliminate such confusion, I proposed my second point. We need distinct terms for an equinox or solstice that occurs in a particular month of the year and an equinox or solstice that occurs in a particular season. --User:B.d.mills (Added manually; I forgot to add it before) ::(By the way, you should all of your talk page comments with four tildas,
2. Touch a non-erogenous zone on your body. Oh, no, wait, that’s how you get a neutral point of you.
3. Have a cup of tea (or, in the interests of this week’s 40 Ways, you can have coffee, juice, or whatever beverage are on offer, or even none at all.)
4. Say you like all sports, even if you hate a few.
5. Go to the drug dealer. Oh, no, wait, that’s how to get a natural joint of Faeces.
6. Run every television show in the world on your station. Different people like different shows.
7. Feed her every way, just in case she prefers one way of being fed over the way you usually feed your kids.
8. Urine in every container available. I do it in bottles.
9. Refer to your excrement under every name available.
10. Watch every episode of Angela Anaconda simultaneously. You’ll need sixty-five televisions, however.
11. Two cents. Oh no wait, that’s zero dollars point oh two.
12. Listen to the song by DB Boulevard. Oh, no, wait, it’s another way from another point of view.
13. Ban said song. It has references to point of view.
14. Vote for everyone in the General Election.
15. Buy [http://www.critic.co.nz ''Critic''] and don’t buy it.
16. Stay out of the war.
17. At a rugby game, support both teams, for example when one’s about to score a try.
18. Speak every language under the sun (or clouds or rain or shelter or wherever.)
19. Listen to every song ever made at the same time. It will be quite hard, however.
20. If there are galaxy beyond the edge of the visible universe, say there is more than one universe AND all universes stretch out into infinite.
21. Shit can happen or be, you can serve wine or grape juice with your shit, you can be sure or unsure about shit, it can be your shit or everyone’s shit, you can buy or sell shit, you can create or destroy shit, etc. Shit is neutral.
22. Use every logo and/or mascot in the competition to symbolize the Olympics or the Commonwealth Games.
23. Order everything on the menu in a restaurant.
24. Whistle when you work and whistle when you eat if you can’t decide which one you like better.
25. Buy and don't buy milk.
26. Only touch things with a pH value of 7. Oh, no, wait, those are neutral solutions.
27. Do not use masculine or feminine nouns. Oh, no, wait, the nouns you use instead are neuter.
28. Wear formal and informal clothes everywhere. This week, we want you to have the best of both worlds.
29. Shop at all supermarkets.
30. Tidy and untidy your room.
31. Get and don’t get your way.
32. Wear and don’t wear a top.
33. Eat inside and outside.
34. Be a circumcision male with a foreskin.
35. Wear clean and dirty undies.
36. Defecate in the toilet and the cistern at the same time.
37. Have and don’t have a G-spot.
38. Be male and female, or just get neutered. They neuter dogs.
39. Spell and say you can’t.
40. Read and don’t read this page again.
41. Say that everyone can and can’t count to 40. I hope you found this list funny. In fact, I hope you actually read it. Or, I hope you read and don't read said list. I hope that both was and wasn't a coan! --User:Tony_Sidaway|