Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Archive 021

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

(moved from here)

Checking the three content-guiding policy pages, I realized that some of what I've said above is not in line with the text. Yet I feel that what I'm saying is entirely consistent with Wikipedia practice: we can change these policies using the consensus process, but we cannot change the three "principles" themselves. These three policies have changed a lot over time, demonstrating that the consensus process does "supersede" these policies. Jimbo has declared the NPOV principle non-negotiable, but not the policy text. He summarized the basic points of NOR. Both the Verifiability and NOR policies have been declared non-negotiable by editors, apparently based on consensus. In short, Aquirata has a point when arguing that policies being both subject to the consensus process and non-negotiable constitute a contradictio in terminis. So I think there is some repair work that needs to be done here. Would it be feasible to update the policy language to reflect that Wikipedia has three non-negotiable principles that are explained on their respective policy pages (which are negotiable)?

More concretely, this would mean some indiviidual changes and one that would apply to all three policies, along the following lines: "The three policies are also non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus." would become: "The three content-guiding policies are based on non-negotiable principles that cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. These policies override all other policies and guidelines, which must be kept consistent with them."

Or am I missing something here? AvB ÷ talk 14:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The policy is non-negotiable, it's application and explanation is often subject to debate. Perhaps you can point where consensus has actually superseded the three. Intensitive and explanatory changes have been made, undone, and re-tried but the bedrock has been the same (of course I haven't been here five years). "All other policies must be kept consistent with them" is a fair enough addition, but there's no contradiction in terms that I see. Marskell 15:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I certainly do not see a contradiction myself. I'm arguing Aqui had a point there, the point being that it looks like a contradiction. Consensus superseding the policy text (what you're calling "application and explanation") is evident in spades - simply call up the relevant diffs or compare the oldest and newest versions available in the history. The principles, what you call "the policy", have never been superseded as far as I can see. In other words, I think you're saying the same thing as I am. I'm trying to make it explicit by labeling which aspects are negotiable and which are non-negotiable. What exactly is non-negotiable here? Where are the non-negotiable issues (the bedrock) summarized/stated/explained/discussed? Can a new editor see the difference between policy and policy text? Why do we get all these newbies claiming that there's a contradiction, tying up other editors in endless discussions and explanations, which newbies then don't accept because they haven't been around for long enough to understand how things are done, and others don't accept because they're trying some wikilawyering in order to change what is non-negotiable? AvB ÷ talk 19:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that AvB is pointing out a contradiction, rather that the distinction between the policy text and the policy could be stated explicitly instead of implicitly (as it is now). That they are distinct both conceptually and practically is long established, I believe, so I don't see a problem with spelling it out. It might help avoid a lot of the confusion that has motivated inexperienced editors to try to rewrite the policy pages in the past. — Saxifrage ✎ 15:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Spelling it out would not change practice but at least in theory might prevent some of those rewrite attempts and time lost explaining the distinction again and again.

My solution may or may not be a practical one though. I do like the disctinction between "principle" and "policy" as already implemented, at least halfway, in WP:NPOV. But expanding the use of these terms may not be easy or even possible. There may well be too many (important) instances of "the NPOV policy is non-negotiable" both internally (policies, ArbCom cases, talk pages, etc) and externally (e.g. lawsuits, media info) and pretty much carved in granite by now. It may also depend on whether Jimbo has ever said that the policy is non-negotiable or simply talked about NPOV, or about the NPOV principle. AvB ÷ talk 19:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem is there is so much energy expended around this issue that is not helping move the project forward. It's just a few people that try to interpret everything so literally instead of just going and working on articles. Unless there can be demonstrated a serious problem with the policies and how they are used, I propose we all get back to our regularly scheduled programming of working on articles. - Taxman ^Talk 18:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's certainly a solution regarding editors that end up here on this talk page but won't accept the answers (including a number of editors who do understand but try to use the perceived contradiction to fool people into a consensus that would violate the principles if implemented). But it's possible that for every one of them a hundred others end up disrupting Wikipedia where spelling things out might have been helpful. I'm sure it's a problem, but I have no idea if it's worth the trouble and have to defer to the opinion of more experienced editors here. AvB ÷ talk 19:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I've just found out what some of you already know: my proposal does not change longstanding policy language. Jimbo's quote was inserted in in 2003, but the text I'm more or less disputing is a relatively recent addition to these three policies. In fact it hasn't even been added to one of them. As far as I can see without investing too much of my time, it went through with very little opposition. This probably means that its spirit was in line with consensus and its text expected to work. I think its intention is OK, but we now have some new information indicating that the text is problematic. We have seen that it may lead to confusion between policy (spirit) and policy (text). This confusion has now been used in an attempt to change bedrock policy principles. In the light of this experience, seeing that the text leads to misunderstandings and lots of time going to waste on explanations here (and I assume also to more newbie edit warring in article space), I'll come up with a new proposal.

When working on a replacement text I realized that the current text has the advantage of declaring the three policies completely non-negotiable when it comes to editing in article space, while they are partly ("textually") negotiable in project space. We don't want to lose that distinction. Nothing is as easy as it seems at first sight. I reached consensus with myself on a compromise. AvB ÷ talk 13:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

(See rationale in previous talk page section)

I propose that we change paragraph #2 of the lead section to:

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is one of Wikipedia's three content-guiding policy pages. The other two are Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. Because the three policies are complementary, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one other, and editors should therefore try to familiarize themselves with all three. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main namespace (article space), taking precedence over any other guidelines as well as over editors' consensus.

These policies are non-negotiable and their policy pages may only be edited to better reflect practical explanation and application of each policy's principles.

Thanks. AvB ÷ talk 13:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd support this. We could also add something like "Anyone wishing to make a substantive change to a policy may do so through our formal procedure for proposing new policies, see Category:Wikipedia proposals." or something like this. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Aye, this looks good. — Saxifrage ✎ 16:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Support. --Iantresman 18:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Support, and the same should be done to the other two policies. It should, however, be spelled out that it is the principle which is non-negotiable, not the wording itself. --tjstrf 18:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I would just say, then "The principles expressed by these policies..." I would not add "not the wording itself" because I think that is already conveyed by "may only be edited to better reflect practical explanation and application of each policy's principles" unless you think this can be worded more clearly. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I think a consensus for the proposed change is in the cards. I agree that this does not necessarily have to be the last change towards spelling out what is non-negotiable. I still think the word non-negotiable should ultimately disappear from the definition. However, as you may have seen, there's probably wide support for the notion that the NPOV policy text presents more non-negotiable principles than just the NPOV principle. Explicitly removing the word non-negotiable from the policy text and principles and attaching it to the policy principles alone at this point (i.e. without clarifying which parts of the policy (text) are currently seen as principles, de facto sacrosanct and already canonized in the hearts of true believers) will have the same effect as declaring open season on e.g. the (perceived) special treatment for science vs. pseudoscience. Which, believe me, is not in the cards.

Wikipedia policies develop and become more elaborate over time following practice. They rarely, if ever, are pruned. It certainly looks like there is wide support for the concept that changes (read: explanations and additions) to policies, or at least the principles behind those changes, are set in stone once they have stood the test of time - say a couple of months.

Probably superfluously: I think the word non-negotiable is an excellent choice to emphasize to the world at large that wikipedia describes its subjects from a (the) neutral point of view. However, it seems to me that it's an extremely poor choice of words to emphasize to editors that the concepts or principles detailed on these three policy pages have been sort of canonized. In fact I don't believe they are. I do believe that if a consensus arises (which is, to be sure, extremely unlikely) to change or scrap the (perceived) special position of information gathered using the scientific method, it can and will happen. These things do not need to be protected by the words "non-negotiable" (which, I admit, is a nice soundbite to throw at newbies). All you need is consensus ()to paraphrase some notable Liverpudlians). (Yes, I know, this paragraph rambles quite a bit but it's just reiterating some snapshots of my current thinking on the matter, i.e. rather unimportant.) AvB ÷ talk 08:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I've implemented a (hopefully improved) version of this proposal. AvB ÷ talk 05:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm moving the latest version of this proposal here for further discussion since it's being disputed by Francis and was reverted as not having reached consensus (see diff of my edits):

Francis is also disputing this edit, see below [1]. AvB ÷ talk 12:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Updating proposal to reflect criticism by Francis (I thought I had staged my edits to avoid this):

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is one of Wikipedia's three content-guiding policy pages. The other two are Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in article space, taking precedence over any other guidelines as well as over editors' consensus. Because the three policies are complementary, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should therefore try to familiarize themselves with all three. The three policies are also non-negotiable and their policy pages may only be edited to better reflect their practical explanation and application.

AvB ÷ talk 09:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be support from Jossi[2] and FeloniousMonk[3] for the last sentence of the first proposal amended by a WP:Bold edit [4] I made separate from this discussion:

The principles of the three policies are also non-negotiable and their policy pages may only be edited to better reflect their practical explanation and application.

Francis remained opposed to this sentence and reverted Jossi's addition with the edit summary "Remove declaration about non-negotiability of other policies/principles (not needed here). The non-negotiability of NPOV is defined elsewhere on this page, shouldn't be defined differently in 2nd para"

Recaputilation

I think this calls for some attention to this proposal section. Recap:

Current version:

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is one of Wikipedia's three content-guiding policy pages. The other two are Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in article space, taking precedence over any other guidelines as well as over editors' consensus. Because the three policies are complementary, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should therefore try to familiarize themselves with all three. The three policies are also non-negotiable and their policy pages may only be edited to better reflect their practical explanation and application.

Support/opposition:

• Francis opposes the entire proposal as well as my addition
• Saxifrage, Tjstrf, Iantresman, Slrubinstein and Avb support the original proposal
• Tjstrf, Slrubinstein, Jossi, FM and Avb support the closing sentence "The principles (...) application"[5]

The most important aspects discussed in detail above are (summarizing from memory, please correct any mistakes):

• Policy text has two audiences: editors editing articles (article space), and editors editing policy text (project space)
• In article space, these three policies (text, principles, anything) always have the last word, period. Nothing about them can be "superseded" or overridden by the consensus process or any other policies or guidelines. The proposed edit intends to make this explicit. Addition by Avb: In fact, this applies to all policies as stated in the standard policy header: "a standard that all users should follow". However, explaining this as clearly as possible will prevent a lot of unnecessary discussion and edit warring between newer editors in article space. Perhaps this should be added to the standard policy header?
• In project space, the text "non-negotiable policy" is proving to be a source of confusion (and even disruption) since it is taken by some as saying that the policy text cannot be changed (hence a contradiction and source of much unneeded discussion on policy talk pages). The proposed edit intends to make explicit what can and cannot be changed, improving the new language, which has opened the door to new misunderstandings and a new type of criticism from editors not sufficiently familiar with policy development based on practical use throughout the community. Addition by AvB: this aspect of the proposal does not necessarily belong in the lead section and may be placed (after some rewriting) in the article body.
• This proposal intends to retain the text "non-negotiable policy" and explain it rather than removing or changing it. The latter can be discussed separately if editors so choose (e.g. contending that the policies are always non-negotiable, proposing a change to "non-negotiable principles", with sufficient coverage of the principles in question.)

I would really appreciate some more input from experienced editors here. I have no problem to see my edits reverted, but I think this is a well-reasoned and useful proposal that should be discussed and implemented as is or after improvement. The proposal has received support from five editors but no opposition on the talk page in the six days it has been sitting here. One editor opposes it, reverting all related edits and commenting elsewhere on this talk page. Two additional editors support part of the proposal, re-inserting a reverted sentence.

AvB ÷ talk 09:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

In the unlikely case someone shows up here: I'll be offline for the next five days or so. AvB ÷ talk 20:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

There are some who incorrectly consider a "point of view" to be (a) bad (b) the opposite of "Neutral point of view". I wonder whether it worth modifying the first sentence to clarify this:

NPOV (Neutral Point Of View) is a fundamental Wikipedia writing style in which various points of views are written fairly and without bias (ie. in a neutral style, as described below).

--Iantresman 18:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

You are correct that a POV in and of itself is not bad - the point is to frame the POV as such and provide the context, and provide other points of view. BUT this is not just a matter of writing style. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

How about the following which excludes the "writing style", and betters the self-referential definition in the first sentence (NPOV .. must be written from a NPOV..):

NPOV (Neutral Point Of View) is fundamental to Wikipedia, in which various points of views are written fairly and without bias (ie. in a neutral style, as described below).

--Iantresman 21:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I would say that "written" is the wrong word, and it also fails to make the very necessary distinction between the FoxNews meaning of "fair and unbiased" and Wikipedia's meaning. Making it explicit that "fair and unbiased" includes not giving undue weight, maybe "are reported fairly, without bias or undue weight" would be more accurate. — Saxifrage ✎ 21:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

All the suggestion does is remove the word "principle." Why do you want it removed? No object noun means less clarity.

Here's a suggestion: "NPOV (Neutral Point Of View) is a fundamental Wikipedia principle which states that all articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly and without bias." That is, the page as it stands. Why are we wasting time with this? Marskell 22:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

No objection. See, here's an object lesson in why I should compare the before-and-after text before commenting on a proposal... — Saxifrage ✎ 22:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I had wondered why you responded as if it were new ;). It's just the lead section as it stands, but less clear. Marskell 22:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

We're "wasting time on this" because you're a polite and helpful editor, who has to deal with other editors who are less sure than yourself. To answer your question, the original sentence is (a) self-referential: "NPOV .. states that all articles must be written from a NPOV" (b) It doesn't clarify the misunderstanding that NPOV is a type of POV, rather than the opposite. --Iantresman 22:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

(a) "Self-referential". Actually a tautology as you present it (have had me fill of those on this page, which I don't want to pretend is perfect). This is fair criticism if the clause "representing views fairly and without bias" were not there. But it is there, unpacking the self-reference, and there isn't a real problem.

(b) "It doesn't clarify the misunderstanding that NPOV is a type of POV". But the second section after the history (the one actually titled "the neutral point of view") does: "as the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints." Marskell 22:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

(a) The tautology may ultimately unravel, but why have it in the first place? (b) And yes, NPOV and POV is explained further on. Why make it difficult for readers? There is NO disadvantage in improving a poorly-worded first sentence, and everything to gain. --Iantresman 23:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not a tautology because the two terms have different referents. The first NPOV refers to the NPOV policy, while the second NPOV refers to the stand-alone concept of neutral point-of-view. We could rename it the Monkey policy, and it would then read, "Monkey... states that all articles must be written from a NPOV". Yes, that's arguably a bit unclear, but there's no logical problem. — Saxifrage ✎ 04:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I would like to know whether a consensus between editors can ever carve entire policies (text and/or principles) in stone, in effect forbidding ANY later consensus changes that are more than explanatory or additional. Prohibiting later consensus is not allowed in article space. But by what authority (other than that of Jimbo et al.) can it be done to policies in project space? And if the consensus process has the "authority" to declare elements of policy sacrosanct, shouldn't it at least make explicit which elements are so canonized? (Instead of some wholesale elevation of three entire policies, or at least the principles presented by the language at that point.) And if wholesale canonization is allowed, shouldn't at least the timestamp and the version be mentioned in the canonizing edit? If there is no time-stamp, doesn't the language carve in stone all subsequent changes to these three policies as soon as they have reached consensus (a bizarre consequence of recursion without base case)?

Please note that this is not an attempt to change or delete widely accepted Wikipedia principles. See also this discussion. I think that such principles, if they need more protection than the consensus process has to offer, have to be identified and discusssed and some protection has to be implemented before we revert or rewrite "these policies are (also) non-negotiable". I'm simply trying to determine whether a consensus that inserts this or similar language has the "authority" to do so. It looks too much like Papal infallibility to me. Which is not something to be attempted without divine guidance.

(I'll probably post an adapted version of the question to the mailing list.)

AvB ÷ talk 09:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

You raise a good point. However, the difference between this and Papal infallibility is that provided a rule cannot reflexively protect itself, then the rule about non-negotiability is a negotiable one. So I guess that you would first need a consensus that the rules were no longer non-negotiable, and then a consensus to change the NPOV policy. Alternately, this may fall under the "Jimbo Wales is a super-majority" clause. --tjstrf 09:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, this is more or less one of the views I'd like to test.AvB ÷ talk 10:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Just a note that Jimbo is referring to the neutral point of view principle, not the NPOV policy, when stating that "NPOV is non-negotiable". The 2006 quote at the top of the article is in the context of leeway for different language wikis. FWIW, the German language Wikipedia recognizes four "immutable fundamental principles", referring to them as such at the top of its NPOV policy page (see Wikipedia:Five_pillars). NPOV is one of them. Nowhere does it say that policies are immutable, as far as I know. AvB ÷ talk 10:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

It's my understanding that consensus can't "canonise" anything. In practice, some consensus-derived policy has so much momentum that it seems effectively canonised, but these things are still, theoretically, able to be overturned given a sufficiently large sea-change in the community's position on the policy in question. — Saxifrage ✎ 16:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Are there other experienced Wikipedians around who could give their opinion on consensus declaring policies "non-negotiable"? I guess my main point is that this precludes future consensus and goes against well-established Wikipedia practice. AvB ÷ talk 18:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you actually suggesting that we at some point might decide against writing in NPOV as policy, or are you just trying to start a dispute over the wording? I wasn't here at the beginning so I'm not sure, but I don't think NPOV is a consensus-derived policy in the first place, rather being a fundamental one. --tjstrf 20:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Summary for you: NPOV as a fundamental principle of Wikipedia is absolute and non-negotiable as detailed at the top of the article. The NPOV policy describes the set of practices that developed over the years while Wikipedia was growing. The policy is not entirely community-generated since its core was developed, as far as I've been able to discern, by Larry Sanger based on views he shared with Jimmy Wales. A couple of months ago someone stuck in new language to the effect of "these three policies are also non-negotiable". I am asking experienced editors whether this use of the term non-negotiable goes against practice, setting in stone things that can never be set in stone. If the responses show sufficient support, I will post - for discussion - an adapted version of the proposal I formulated above. For the rest please read the above, it's quite detailed actually. AvB ÷ talk 22:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I did read the above. To me it makes perfect sense that the non-negotiability would apply to the core idea, not the precise wording, but I can see how someone might become confused. So I guess you do have a point. --tjstrf 23:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I've updated the three articles, limiting "non-negotiable" to the "fundamental principles" of each policy. Rationale:

IMHO Wikipedia practices and the related policy language are sufficiently protected by the consensus process and, where necessary, by Jimbo et al. This application of the term "non-negotiable" offers an unnecessary level of protection in project space. It has already led to misunderstandings. It also has the potential of stifling consensus-based changes. (Admittedly, I've seen it used in this context only once, regarding a proposal that was a case of WP:SNOW anyway.) AvB ÷ talk 05:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, no:

• It is not possible to separate the "NPOV principle" from "the way it is formulated on the NPOV policy page";
• "better reflect [...] application of these principles": that's what guidelines are for. No need to rewrite the page about the "principle" for that. --Francis Schonken 07:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it is possible to seperate the principle from the wording. As he has accurately pointed out, application of a law will change with time, and this page can change to reflect that, so this page, the wording, is most definitely semi-negotiable. The principle is not. --tjstrf 08:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Whatever way you turn it, the *policy* is non-negotiable. That's what the page said, and there's no reason to change that. Your addition is redundant & confusing.

Well, a basic problem is that too many people tried to *negotiate* the content of the policy page. Better keep it clear: there's no such procedure as changing wikipedia's NPOV policy by negotiation. As said, there's no separation between the NPOV policy and the way it is formulated on the NPOV policy page, or, if there would be, that separation would be different per person, so that's not a workable distinction. It's the policy that's non-negotiable. If that would be limited to the "principle", you'd give way to attempts to change the content of the policy under the cloak of "I'm not changing the principle". Not workable. --Francis Schonken 09:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm surprised to see that the separation of principle and wording can be argued. They are clearly two different things, just as idea and manifestation are. Aquirata 10:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

What I hear you saying is that this is a semantic disagreement, and a concern about how the semantics will be interpreted by the reader. Since, I believe, clarifying the semantics was exactly the intent of this proposal, do you have anything to contribute that might bring us to a consensus as to how to best convey the distinction between the policy and the raw text that represents it on this page, to the reader? — Saxifrage ✎ 23:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm moving my bold edit here since it's being disputed and has not reached consensus:

"The three policies are also non-negotiable" changed to "The fundamental principles of the three policies are non-negotiable"

Wikipedia has done without an officially non-negotiable policy for five years. All it had was an officially non-negotiable principle. Three months ago a tiny consensus with very little discussion made three policies officially non-negotiable. According to Francis, this was hoped to help reign in reform attempts not supported by the wider community. I don't think we have seen any successes so far. I do think we're just beginning to see the disadvantages of this new language. And it's probably radically new - I've participated here for only six months, so I don't know this for a fact, but somehow I don't see a community here that is conservative to the extent that it wants to curb its own consensus processes and apparently no longer wants its policies to be consensus-based. "Sorry, move on now, this consensus-based policy is non-negotiable" where all we used to have was "this principle is non-negotiable". It looks like painting oneself into a corner to me. I think this really needs input from the wider community.

However, I think I'd better concentrate on another dispute regarding these edits, see above [6]. I'd like to postpone the discussion on this meta-question (perhaps indefinitely). As I've argued before, I do not think it's in the cards to address the principles/wording dichotomy at this point, although I do think testing the waters on this question can be informative and in the end I expect the meaning of what I'm saying to slowly dawn on others. This is towards formulating policies in a way that does not invite unwanted reforms like at least the current WP:NPOV does. I actually believe there are a number of items we must declare non-negotiable. I just happen to think the current text overshoots this aim by a wide margin. AvB ÷ talk 13:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

FYI, I posted this on the WP:V and WP:NOR talk pages. Please add your view there if you don't agree. AvB ÷ talk 14:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of whether these changes are accepted, it would be good, I think, to list our fundamental principles, perhaps along the lines of the German Wikipedia which has adapted its version of Wikipedia:Five pillars to that end. See the German language NPOV policy page and the German language central/fundamental principles. Any thoughts? Thanks. AvB ÷ talk 06:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:List of policies. This copies the content of the "policy in a nutshell" templates on the various policy pages. --Francis Schonken 07:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I mean a list of non-negotiable principles; The German page has four immutable principles. AvB ÷ talk 10:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

There's a list of principles "[...] at some ultimate, fundamental level, [...] how Wikipedia will be run, period." In fact I think you already found them ([7]): User:Jimbo Wales/Statement of principles. --Francis Schonken 12:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think I know them by heart by now. FWIW, I (and quite probably the majority of current Wikipedians) would not be editing here without the NPOV. It's the ideal of together creating a gift for the world that has kept me here far longer than I would have thought possible. And it can't be a gift if it's biased. NPOV (the principle) made sense to me straight away. It's why I believe this project can succeed and is succeeding. Regardless, I am in favor of a slight limitation of the authority of the consensus process. But I think the current "non-negotiable policies" attempt is bound to backfire. I'm thinking more along the lines of declaring (or asking Jimbo to declare) certain principles non-negotiable. But I'm having a terrible déjà vu right now. I've played Cassandra roles before so I'd probably better shut up about it and wait for time to tell... AvB ÷ talk 13:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia, like all wikimedia projects, has 5 principles that are practically non negotiable. These are the m:Foundation issues.

Kim Bruning 14:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't know about this list, but it says what I thought such a list would say. It makes for a pretty strong case for my point that policies should never be deemed "non-negotiable". If certain newer principles need more protection than consensus has to offer, they should be added to this list. Note that (1) "Non-negotiable" is even stronger than "essentially beyond debate" and (2) the "wiki process" is the final authority on content.

But I'm not pursuing this point now. I'm still waiting for additional responses to my other proposal. I have updated it to reflect comments made here by Francis. AvB ÷ talk 03:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Concerning topics such as a particular religious group...

I believe that the NPOV policy should clearly state that the primary subject matter of a topics title should first be represented factually and accurately as the main body of the topic. Outside or opposing POV's should not preclude or control a topics theme!

75.8.41.193 22:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

---

The way policy stands now, either editors feel they have to make a muddy mix of various views in a topic or they misuse policy to willfully preculude the proper represenation of the subject.

There is a loophole in NPOV policy.

There needs to be a priority statement included in the NPOV.

1, First of all NPOV should mean that a subject or people that a topic (title) represents are fairly and accurately represented in their beliefs and practices etc. This should be the main focalpoint and body of an article.

2. Outside or opposing POV's should not preclude or replace what or who the topic represents.

Summary: Outside or opposing views should be treated generally as secondary to the actual subjects POV.

75.8.41.193 23:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

See the Undue weight section, which covers Wikipedia's policy on this. — Saxifrage ✎ 23:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you provide a quote from Undue weight which clarifies whether "... opposing POV's should preclude .. what the topic represents".

I am aware of articles where editors have criticised a topic BEFORE the topic has even been defined. --Iantresman 00:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not aware of anything in the section that instructs editors to do so, no. I only said that the section covers Wikipedia's policy on this, not that it matches what the anon suggested. — Saxifrage ✎ 00:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• Unfortunately I can see nothing in the section that helps this specific issue. In which case, case it would seem worthy of further discussion.
• I does seem to me, that any subject, must define the subject before any criticism is offered. Otherwise the reader doesn't know what is being criticized. --Iantresman 08:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

  I'm not inclined to revisit this particular can of worms beyond the necessary action of pointing out to the anon what the governing policy currently is. — Saxifrage ✎ 18:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Facts precede opinions and Wikipedia:Define and describe. Bensaccount

Please help improve/implement/demolish this 6-day-old proposal. It could really use some more input. AvB ÷ talk 09:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

"The three policies are also non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus." This is what it said, but is being removed. 204.56.7.1 16:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

What is the problem with having statement such as "The fundamental principles of the three policies are non-negotiable and their policy pages may only be edited to better reflect practical explanation and application of these principles."

I believe that statement to be accurate. Rather than editwarring, please discuss. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

It's probably my fault for prematurely inserting as a WP:Bold edit language which turns out to have solid support in the wake of an edit that seemed a run-of-the-mill common-sense improvement that was supported by consensus from the moment it was proposed - but was reverted straight away as not having reached consensus. I really mean it: this was truly bad timing on my part. But IMHO the way out of this is very simple: keep this version and discuss this proposal. AvB ÷ talk 17:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Let's restore that wording and make a proposal on the suggested wording. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can see these are relevant parts of User:Jimbo Wales/Statement of principles (important note: on this talk page of the NPOV policy I'm not discussing WP:V, nor WP:NOR - Jimbo's Statement of principles page has probably less bearing on these other two policies that, as far as I know, only got prominence some time after Jimbo wrote his original Statement of principles):

[...] at some ultimate fundamental level, this is how wikipedia will be run, period.

(But have no fear, as you will see, below.)

1. Wikipedia's success to date is 100% a function of our open community. This community will continue to live and breathe and grow only so long as those of us who participate in it continue to Do The Right Thing. Doing The Right Thing takes many forms, but perhaps most central is the preservation of our shared vision for the NPOV and for a culture of thoughtful diplomatic honesty.

[...]

6. The mailing list will remain open, well-advertised, and will be regarded as the place for meta-discussions about the nature of Wikipedia. Very limited meta-discussion of the nature of the Wikipedia should be placed on the site itself. [...]

([8] - my bolding)

Returning to the proposed text ("The fundamental principles of the three policies are non-negotiable and their policy pages may only be edited to better reflect practical explanation and application of these principles."):

1. Jimbo does not pre-emptively restrict editing of policy pages to merely changes that "better reflect practical explanation and application of these principles" and nothing else. On the contrary, if some change regarding the "nature of Wikipedia" would be decided via the mailing list (there are several mailing lists now, choose the appropriate one at Wikipedia:Mailing lists), then it would be Doing The Right Thing to bring policy pages in line with such decision.
2. Please move meta-discussions regarding the nature of the non-negotiability of NPOV to the appropriate Mailing list. Above (#Infallibility - a meta-question re non-negotiable) I said some things about NPOV. This was spread to some talk pages of other policies. I consider that quite inappropriate: I wasn't talking about these other policies. The only place where this could be taken outside this talk page (if this is more than a "very limited meta-discussion" regarding the NPOV policy) is the appropriate mailing list. But then again, when quoting what I wrote above no confusion should be spread that I would have been talking about anything else than the NPOV policy. tx. --Francis Schonken 08:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Jossi, you may want to review the (currently stalled) discussion here. It's about a revised version of an edit you made a couple of months ago. My summary of the status of that discussion: The proposed text has not been added to these three policies (except for one sentence in WP:V) because one editor believes there is no consensus and argues that the new text would change and confuse a consensus version of the policy. All others who have commented or (re)inserted (parts of) the proposed text at least partially agree that the proposed text simply clarifies existing text as intended, representing years of consensus.

Francis:

1. You're clearly defending the "non-negotiable policy" language but seem to have a much more relaxed interpretation of these words than most other editors (including Jossi and FeloniousMonk). I think the consensus interpretation is much stricter and while this particular consensus is not a good thing in my book, it's a fact of life and we'd better make this aspect of the policy as clear as possible. In the end, you and I seem to agree that a later consensus may well strike these words. Which would make them a pretty funny non sequitur indeed.

2a. Regarding meta-discussion: Yes and no. There are three questions here:

• Can the community make an entire policy non-negotiable?

(This is a meta-question, one I also posted to the WikiEN-L mailing list. It attracted very little attention, which I took as an indication that my point was well taken: the NPOV principle is non-negotiable, policies are negotiable unless declared non-negotiable from up high. The only response came from someone who was not taking part in the discussion here. Also note that no-one argued that Jossi's edit should have been discussed on the mailing list three months ago.)

• Is the community aware of, do all involved editors understand, and is there a real consensus regarding, Jossi's "these policies are also non-negotiable" edit?

(This is not a meta-question. We seem to have a consensus on Jossi's edit but we've also seen indications that at least one editor has a different interpretation of what a "non-negotiable policy" entails.)

• Can we improve the policy text introduced by Jossi?

(This is not a meta-question. It currently is, and should remain, under discussion here on the talk page.)

2b. You're probably referring to my notification alerting others to the discussion here on the NPOV talk page which obviously also affects the other two policies. Regarding the propagating of arguments to other places on the wiki: I can see why you would feel uncomfortable here - please know that this was not my intention and accept my apologies. From my side of the screen, this looked fully relevant and rather innocuous; links to the relevant context were provided, and the quote was part of a clarification to editors on talk pages of the other two policies that have or should have the same or similar language. AvB ÷ talk 21:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

PS Francis, does the above mean you'd like to limit the "non-negotiable policy" language (which currently applies to three policies) to just the WP:NPOV policy? AvB ÷ talk 21:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The article states

"the implication that it is possible to characterize disputes fairly ... 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.

There is an implicit assumption in this that the academic/educated/journalistic groups in society are in fact NPOV, or otherwise are able to reach some standard of NPOV or objectivity or what-have-you. This, in and of itself, is a particular bias, a particular point of view. The process of education itself, particularly as understood in the Western sense, works out of and attempts to form worldviews and ways of thinking. The discourses of the educated class (of which I am a part, by the way) are no less laiden with specific POVs than are the discourses of ethnically or religiously specific groupings. Furthermore, unfortunate examples in history are evident where the academic/encyclopedic/journalistic sources of society were in fact "wrong": for instance, eugenics was an academically supported field for much of the early 20th century, and the educated classes in Europe and America were no less racist through the 17th, 18th, and into the 19th century than were slaveholders themselves.

Anyway, I'm not sure there really is a solution to this dilemma. But I wish to close with a poignant quote from Bishop Desmond Tutu: "If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality.” May those with ears, hear...

Emerymat 00:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

You're trying to refute an argument that we don't really make. We're not aiming for abstract neutrality and conflating that with mainstream scholarship. We attempt to pass on to our readers what the majority (and significant minority) positions are. If mainstream scholarship gets something wrong (or the terms of the discourse are prejudicial), we're just going to get it wrong too. You may, nevertheless, be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias which looks at bias in Wikipedia coverage overall. Jkelly 00:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Er, you seem to have us mixed up with some group of people attempting to write/create/evangalize perfect, unchaging, entirely objective Truth with a capital T. We arn't. We don't. We realize that everyone is biased. We realize that everything is biased. We realize that the winners write the history books, and that the winners write Wikipedia, too. We try to compensate for this. We fail, partly. NPOV means nothing more (and nothing less) than our statement that we attempt, in our writing for Wikipedia, to do as well as "most capable academics, encyclopedists, textbook writers, and journalists" do in getting at fair, unbiased truth. We know they arn't perfect, and we know we arn't perfect. You seem to consider this imperfection to be some kind of astonishing news. It's not. But thanks anyway, and please do help us to compensate for the biases we, and you, have. JesseW, the juggling janitor 01:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

In an ongoing dispute between myself and User:Iantresman over the subjects of redshift, redshift quantization and other related subjects, Ian has made this rather cogent point distilling the essence of the conflict:

You are applying double standards; You are quite happy to provide citations to Web sites for "alternative theories", but are not happy with critisms to "mainstream theories", even if they are from peer reviewed journals.

I agree with everything except the idea that this represents a "double standard". In my mind, there are two major points to consider when editting articles that relate to "alternative" vs. "mainstream" theories: 1) how is the subject normally portrayed in, say, other encyclopedias, texts, resources, or articles and 2) who are the major proponents of the idea (as per undue weight, for example).

In this particular case, I included a sentence in the article on redshift quantization regarding the major proponents of the idea [9]. The referenced citations were to websites and books written by the proponents regarding their belief that redshift quantizations represent a major stumbling block for the Big Bang. I get the impression that this association with creationists and geocentrists made Ian uncomfortable because he retaliated almost immediately with this edit: [10] which aside from looking like a gaming of the system was meant to I think "expose" the double standard at work.

Indeed, I do think including the sentence in the first instance was justifiable while the inclusion on the part of Ian was unjustifiable. My rationale? Redshift is a mainstream scientific concept that deserves explication as such primarily because the vast majority of resources on the matter discuss it as the mainstream describe it. To acheive NPOV, we have a sentence in the article which mentions that there are those who disagree with using redshift-distance relations as evidence for the Big Bang. That's the extent to which we accomodate "alternative" viewpoints in the article. This is in proportion to the notability of these proponents since the vast majority of people who inquire about cosmology accept the Big Bang model as a matter of course. Redshift quantization on the other hand is a topic which is of dubious mainstream distinction (I think nearly every peer-reviewed article ever written on the subject is referenced in the article here at Wikipedia), but is discussed quite a bit in the context of opponents to the Big Bang. As such, it deserves contextualization as this.

So, I have decided to open this question up to the watchers of this page: is there a double-standard at work here or is this a justifiable practice I have just outlined?

--ScienceApologist 14:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia surely treats all article with the SAME standard of neutrality, verifiability and quality.--Iantresman 14:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• I can not find ANYTHING verifiable which quantifies the significance that Catastrophists, creationists, and geocentrists, have had on the course of redshift quantization. --Iantresman 15:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

While Wikipedia treats all articles with the same standard of neutrality, I think the operative definition of what exactly constitutes neutrality in terms of what's "in" or "out" will be different for different articles. The operative definition of neutrality for a "mainstream broad science" topic such as redshift will be different from a topic such as "redshift quantization" either due to common sense ideas about what would be included in an article about a broad vs. a specific topic in science or common sense ideas about what would be included in an article about a mainstream vs alternative topic in science or both. I don't think things are as simple as ScienceApologist's two points would suggest and I don't know whether you were "gaming the system," Ian. However, I do think your movement of ScienceApologist's edits from the "redshift quantization" article to the "redshift" article with the edit summary "Thanks to ScienceApologist for supplying verifiable statement" was disruptive and disrespectful to the editing process at Wikipedia in light of the history at Redshift over the past year. Millions of verifiable statements could be included in a broad mainstream science article. Editors who treat each other with respect might be able to work together to decide which should be included and which should not. Editors who do not treat each other with respect shouldn't be attempting to build an encyclopedia. Your second point is not relevant to this forum, I've addressed it here. Flying Jazz 18:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

As it is, there isn't any mention of redshift quantization at all in redshift. While Ian's sentence added to redshift was inappropriate in tone (particularly the "however") and probably too detailed, surely proportional representation of the minority view means more than zero mention in the main article. By the way, which section is the critics sentence in? I don't see it.--ragesoss 23:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• My biggest criticism of Undue weight is that editors have used it inappropriately to ensure that minority views are TOTALLY omitted from articles. That is partly why Redshift quantization gets no mention in the redshift article, the argument being that to add ONE sentences to put it into context, would mean Undue weight. It's not even accepted as a "See also" link.
• I have other examples of other articles where peer-reviewed theories, admittedly minority, are completely removed from an article because its mere mention (including a See also link) is supposedly Undue weight.
• In my opinion, Undue weight was never designed to exclude views, only to ensure that such views did not take up too much of an article.

--Iantresman 00:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

This is my view as well; I don't like conflict editing so I usually stay away from these types of disputes altogether, but I'm repeatedly frustrated by attempts to impose a scientific point of view rather than a neutral point of view.--ragesoss 00:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

You're not meant to find the "critics sentence". It's buried in the section Observations in astronomy (first paragraph, last sentence). Any other article would have a "Critical section", but it seems that several hundred critics [11], and several hundred alternative theories,[12] is still not considered a significant minority view. --Iantresman 00:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't quite do what SA described; it in fact says that such views are implausible, not that anyone holds them or that such views are used to attack Big Bang cosmology. The existence of a hypothesis does not entail supporters. Looking past the (rather mild) incivility, Ian has a perfectly good point that is not just a WP:POINT--ragesoss 00:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

surely proportional representation of the minority view means more than zero mention in the main article. --> when we tried to quantify how much this proportion was, we came up with less than one word on the subject compared to the size of the article. There are also issues of how to exactly contextualize the subject. We don't mention redshift quantization because, according to undue weight, certain fringe subjects don't bear mentioning at all in certain mainstream articles. If you have a way to quantify what proportion redshift quantization deserves in the article, let us know, but it is clear to me it doesn't deserve mention. --ScienceApologist 01:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

If it is so insignificant that it can't even be mentioned in the main article once, then surely it's not notably enough to have its own WP article. As Ian notes, the purpose of the "undue weight" rules is not to exclude minority views altogether. You've added verifiable info to redshift quantization, so you seem to think it's an encyclopedic topic. Since there isn't even a see also section, the addition on one item in such a list wouldn't devalue other more important entries there, and one whole sentence is not at all unreasonable.--ragesoss 01:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

that it can't even be mentioned in the main article once, then surely it's not notably enough to have its own WP article. I respectfully disagree. Not every suggestion of the fringe that warrants an article needs to be explicitly mentioned in articles related to it. For example, created kinds are not listed on the species page. --ScienceApologist 01:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't mean it shouldn't be. Created kinds is a significant enough concept to warrant mention in species. Wikipedia presents information from a neutral point of view, not a scientific point of view. Articles on scientific concepts, of course, present primarily the view of scientists, and make clear that significant non-scientific or discredited views are opposed by most or all scientists, but I would say leaving created kinds out of species is badly off the mark for what a WP article should be.--ragesoss 01:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

A comment on Ian's suggestion that "surely proportional representation of the minority view means more than zero mention in the main article" and his opinion that "Undue weight was never designed to exclude views, only to ensure that such views did not take up too much of an article.": Zero is sometimes exactly how much mention a subject warrants by Undue Weight. An extremal example that demonstrates this is that Time Cube gets exactly zero mention in Time, and I don't think anyone except Gene Ray would see this exclusion as an inappropriate application of Undue Weight. Obviously, less extreme examples will warrant inclusion and some will warrant exclusion, but the view that Undue Weight does not and should not ever exclude a subject from a larger article very obviously leads to an absurdity (Time Cube being significant enough to be in Time) and so is clearly wrong. — Saxifrage ✎ 04:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with your assessment. But Time Cube is not excluded because of Undue Weight, it's excluded because it is a crank internet meme promoted by one person with zero authority. Redshift quantization may be a marginal and discredited idea, but it also is supported by at least one notable scientist and a spectrum of other groups. Undue Weight is often pushed too far, and I think this is one of those cases.--ragesoss 04:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Possibly this is one of those cases, but I was not and wont be commenting on it because it has no bearing on policy, which is what this Talk page is for. For discussions of whether Undue Weight is being properly applied to Redshift quantization and Redshift, there are convenient Talk pages available as well as the Wikipedia:Requests for comment process.

As for the Time Cube, Undue Weight is exactly why it is excluded from Time. What else is the Undue Weight portion of NPOV for, but to say that insignificant views (including crank and fringe views, as well as more respectable views) need not be represented in articles? My pointing out that Undue Weight also is the governing portion of policy relevant to redshift quantization's inclusion or exclusion from Redshift doesn't mean I'm saying that redshift quantization ranks on par with the Time Cube in respectibility—I take no position on it, for the reasons above. — Saxifrage ✎ 05:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. But in the abstract, Undue Weight is simply the combination of the basic principle of NPOV with common sense. The principle question is, would a reader of article A want to know about related marginal idea X? In the case of an internet meme that no scientist takes seriously, no. In the case of a marginal or discredited theory adhered to notable scientists and/or social groups, very likely. And conversely, will a brief mention of marginal topic X lead readers to think it is more significant than it actually is? Except in the most extreme cases, it take minimal effort to contextualize a 1 sentence mention of X to ensure that this does not happen. Undue Weight is not about percentages and number of words; it's about the impression readers come away with. --ragesoss 05:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that is very true, and nicely expressed at that. A longer explanation, but with greater context, can easily give less weight than a shorter but context-free mention for a marginal topic. — Saxifrage ✎ 06:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

(1) Including links to minority ideas is also about easy navigation to related subjects (See Wiki guide on "See also"). If I go to the redshift article, a link to redshift quantization and other related minority subjects give me the opportunity to find out for myself how fringe, minority, credible or discredited such a related subject it. (2) That there are papers published in peer reviwed journals on redshift quantization regularly (even this year), shows that peers consider the subject notable enough to publish and the subject is still an active part of the scientific process; this should not be overruled by anonymous, judgemental and inexperienced editors. --Iantresman 08:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

ragesoss's commentary on undue weight has distilled exactly the problem with what should be its appropriate use. ragesoss believes undue weight is exclusionary under the criteria: "Would a reader of article A want to know about related marginal idea X?". Apparently that is all that is required for him to understand why time cube is excluded from time, but it is clear to him that redshift quantization shouldn't be excluded from redshift nor should created kinds be excluded from species. If this is the case, then we must be leaving all of our decisions about how to apply undue weight fairly up to consensus, because I don't see any objective criteria for how he can claim that a reader doesn't want to know about time cube but does want to know about created kinds or redshift quantization. Note the judgemental language ragesoss uses to describe his rationale for excluding time cube. Is it an NPOV-sentiment to declare time cube to be just an "internet meme" (his own POV demarcation of the idea -- not something Gene Ray would agree with) that "no scientist takes seriously" (you have a cite for that? said the devil's advocate). Of course, this is left to his judgement of the matter and I'm pleased that ragesoss isn't so mealy-mouthed as to claim that undue weight cannot ever completely exclude mention of an article. But the issue is that all we have to go on is consensus. My "common sense" tells me for a variety of reasons that redshift quantization does not belong on the redshift page. Are you calling my "common sense" wrong, ragesoss? Or are you just appealing this judgement to the good will of the community? --ScienceApologist 13:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm just explaining why I disagree with you. It's not very meaningful to talk about whether someone's common sense interpretation of a policy is "wrong"; there is no Platonic form for applying Undue Weight. The very existence of the policy statement, in that form, is the product of other editors' common sense, and its further interpretation is what we are hashing out here. So consensus is of course what it come down to.--ragesoss 14:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Ragesoss, I think the common-sense interpretation of NPOV as it applies to the Redshift article is best discussed in the talk page for the Redshift article, but before doing so, you may want to read this just so you know what you are getting yourself into. Flying Jazz 17:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• Time cube is not given the same consideration as Redshift quantization because as far as I can tell, there are no verifiable peer-reviewed citations on Time cube.
• However, there are peer-reviewed papers on Redshift quantization by Cocke and Tifft [13], Laviolette [14], Holmlid [15], Guthrie and Napier [16] (under redshift periodicity), Narlikar [17], Holba et al [18], Biswas [19], Han [20], Halton Arp [21], Faraoni [22], Tang [23], and a number of recent pre-prints at Arxiv.org published this year [24] [25].
• A minority subject? no argument; Significant? Yes, according to NPOV Undue weight [26] and Jimbo Wales: "If a view is a minority view of some scientists, scientists who are respected by the mainstream that differs with them on this particular matter, then we say so. (my emphasis) "[27]
• And or course, Census has to be made within policy. --Iantresman 14:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I think other editors here should examine my recent mediation against ScienceApologist and Iantresman discussing their exasperating talk-page tactics before continuing this discussion in this forum. Flying Jazz 17:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Here are the problems I see with Undue weight.

NPOV Statement	NPOV Contradiction/Ambiguity
NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints, in proportion to the prominence of each.	How do we represent all significant viewpoints if undue weight means that we end up excluding significant viewpoints? How do we assess prominence?
Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all	In other words, only tiny-minority views may not be included?
To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute.	Excluding a tiny-minority view completely, might also be misleading. How you represent a view might be misleading, but not its mere mention.
Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties.	Most scientists are not experts in specialist fields. The specialists are the experts, ie. the minority themselves.

How can anonymous, non-specialist editors, with their own biases and conflicts of interest, make objective decisions on such views? --Iantresman 15:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that isolated editors (or in this case, two isolated editors, you and ScienceApologist), whether anonymous or not, whether specialists or not, cannot make objective decisions on such views. It is only when a community of editors is assembled that communal decisions about individual edits may be made with some confidence. The process of deciding what is significant (what is prominent, what is a tiny minority view, and so on) should take a lot of time and effort from people who respect the process of discussing specific subtopics. Discussing policy as if policy can lead to objectivity is a wasted effort. A good policy should be ambiguous and even sometimes contradictory in order to encourage people to focus on the nitty-gritty details of an article instead of discussing policy. That is why talk-page behavior that encourages community-building is absolutely vital for Wikipedia. Flying Jazz 17:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• I agree in principle, there are no other editors and articles in which I have such tedious discussions. But there are no other editors who completely exclude peer-reviewed theories based on their own judgements, and apply different editing criteria to majority and minority subjects. I accept that I may react disproportionately, but extreme (and in my opinion unfair) editing decisions elicit that response.
• Nearly every edit I make is based on a veriable citation, whereas his are based on his personal interpretation. That he has categorised subjects like "Plasma Cosmology" as pseudoscience [28] (I accept it's minority), Halton Arp as a "loonball pathological skeptic" [29] (I wonder if the Max Planck Institute know), and that the Wolf effect is "not a redshift" [30] (despite it being demonstrated in the laboratory)[31], sums it up. --Iantresman 18:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:Requests for comment is your friend. Be friendly with it. — Saxifrage ✎ 22:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Not this nonsense yet once again. Give it a rest. This continual resurrection of this topic by this small contingent of a particular POV is disruptive and needs to stop. Now. FeloniousMonk 18:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• The subject of Undue weight was brought up in the previous subsection by two people, who as far as I can tell, have not brought it up before. In other words, by two new people. I think you need to ask yourself, why are different people bringing up the same discussion.
• That you treat the discussion as "nonsense" and a "disruption", is disrespectful to all editors concerned.
• I would suggest that you stop being dismissive and condescending, and read Wiki Policy and "Respect other contributors."[32], and note that "As with guidelines, amendments should generally be discussed on their talk pages,"[33] (my emphasis). --Iantresman 19:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Flying Jazz response above, is an excellent one. I would suggest that you explore it a little bit and then continue the discussion in the talk page of these articles. There is no policy that can help you if there is no collaboration during the editing process. That process is what makes this project work. Policy is there to assist editors in that process, not to supplant them. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

JA: I don't know what the issue is here. I was only trying to bring that paragraph into verbatim conformity across all three content, er, -regulating pages. One page had "content-guiding", which is clearly too weak, and leads to confusion with guidelines. It is very essential for all sorts of reasons to draw a firm line between policies and guidelines. Can anybody explain to me what they have in mind here? Jon Awbrey 21:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

"Content policies" is the shorter and more accurate definition. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I've inlcuded maps in the list of things that need to be NPOVd. Often disputed regions are covered showing only one country's point of view, and to plug this loophole, I've included in policy. =Nichalp «Talk»= 03:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I need further clarifications here: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Han Civilisation Delist. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

What is to be done for articles on parodies or satires which fail to label themselves as such in a way that can be linked or sourced? Over at Talk:Flying Spaghetti Monster, some editors argue that the organization, which fails to identify itself anywhere on its website as a "parody" or "satire", should therefore be treated by Wikipedia as if it were intended to be a religion. I know I'm not alone in finding this farcical; there's such a thing as taking things too literally. FSM is widely understood to be a satire intended to poke fun at the reasoning behind so-called Intelligent Design theory. There are plenty of websites that refer to it as such, but those making this assertion claim that the "beliefs" of the "believers" must be given precedence. For Wikipedia to misportray FSM as an actual religion, rather than a satire, would fundamentally cripple the article's ability to accurately describe the goal and effects of this satire.

It would be as if someone went to the article on Jonathan Swift and accused him of actually intending people to follow his satirical advice and eat Irish children. As can be seen at Jonathan Swift and A Modest Proposal, the editors there are fortunately well-equipped with common sense and correctly identify the work as satire. Likewise, the article on Candide does not shy from noting the widely-understood fact that Voltaire's putting glib optimism in the mouth of Dr. Pangloss was a deliberate satire. In fact, "all is for the best in this best of all possible worlds" is almost exactly the opposite of Voltaire's true beliefs, and it would be the greatest possible misrepresentation of Voltaire if an editor were to do to his article what is being proposed for FSM.

I reread WP:NPOV but could find no reference to how to treat works of satire and parody. Is there a policy on the topic, or at least a set of guidelines? Is there a WP:UCS ("Use Common Sense"), even? Because it's hard to get anything done on Flying Spaghetti Monster amid people who are either too policy-bound or too humorless to recognize a parody when they see one. Is this a case for IAR? Kasreyn 16:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't like to be a nuisance, but I remain puzzled as to what provision is made in Wikipedia policy for recognizing a work of satire. Is a strong majority of reliable sources calling something a "satire" or "parody" sufficient to support the article describing the subject as such? Because in the case of FSM, most sources reporting on FSM seem to recognize its clear satirical intent.

However, the FSM website itself - arguably the principal source - makes no mention of any satirical intent. The argument among those who wish to deny that FSM is satire seems to be that, because FSM itself does not disclaim satirical intent, we can assume its absence. I, obviously, feel that the lack of such disclaimer merely indicates a more thorough intent to deceive, or a greater assumption that the subject matter is too ridiculous to ever be mistaken for genuine. Can anyone clear this up? Kasreyn 10:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The reason you didn't get an answer here (yet) is probably partially due to the fact that the problem you present is rather handled by wikipedia:verifiability and wikipedia:reliable sources.

As can be seen from these policies and guidelines, in general self-published primary sources are held in lower esteem as reference source, than secondary sources under editorial control. So, quote the most reliable secondary sources you can find regarding the "parody/satire" POV, note down in the FSM article that the "religion" POV basicly can be reduced to self-declarations of the initiator of the website.

Maybe also have a look at Wikipedia:Notability (web)#Criteria for web content, if you can't find "multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself" nor any proof of the other suggested criteria, maybe the FSM doesn't even qualify as a viable topic for a separate wikipedia article (see also: WP:NOT). --Francis Schonken 11:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, Francis. Sorry if I've wasted space here, as you point out this is a matter rightly for WP:V rather than WP:NPOV. As there are plentiful sources describing FSM as a satire or parody, there should be no problem. Kasreyn 11:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

That it is categorized under (at least at this moment) under "joke religions" and "parodies" is not OK? Or are you saying people are forbidding sources calling it a satire? If "FSM is widely understood to be a satire" you should be able to find sources to that effect. With sentences like "The Flying Spaghetti Monster is the deity of a parody religion founded by Bobby Henderson" (the first sentence) and "Many of the beliefs proposed by Henderson were intentionally chosen to parody arguments commonly set forth by proponents of Intelligent Design" I don't think a reader is actually going to take it seriously. Marskell 11:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I have no problem with how the article currently is, I'm trying to prepare myself for a future argument I see looming on the horizon. An editor claiming to be a true believer in FSMism has been attempting to add the FSM "viewpoint" on dinosaurs to the article Religious perspectives on dinosaurs, based on his assertion that FSM is a real religion. I have a suspicion that he might soon argue that FSM should not be portrayed as a parody, as (or so he claims) he is a true believer, there must be others and it would be "POV" of us to call it anything less. So far his viewpoints have not been represented in these articles because other editors revert him under WP:POINT. Some of his talk page comments suggest that his "belief" in FSM is as cynical as Henderson was in founding it, and his only purpose is, as he admits on the talk pages, to demonstrate what he believes is fallacy by a reductio ad absurdum (which is exactly what FSM itself is). So I don't really think there's any danger of him succeeding in distorting the viewpoint of these articles. Still, it got me thinking, and I asked simply to know, for future reference, what process I should use to determine when it is NPOV to call something satire, especially when the creator does not acknowledge it as such. Cheers, Kasreyn 11:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't know whether you'd think the comparison useful, but see for instance how self-proclaimed and micronation 'emperors' are treated in the Emperor article: Emperor#Self-proclaimed and micronation 'emperors'. Short paragraph, barely more than mentioning that they exist without much of a real influence on history; and linking to the relevant articles. Something similar could be done re. religions with a limited number of serious adherents. Maybe, in such context, Erik Satie's Eglise Métropolitaine d'Art de Jésus Conducteur could be mentioned too ("one" adherent, existed less than a decade in fin-de-siècle Paris). --Francis Schonken 12:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I said:

1. Quote reliable secondary sources regarding the parody POV, these reliable secondary sources take precedence (and indeed also for the categorisation of the article);
2. If no such reliable secondary sources can be found (I'm no FSM specialist, I have no idea whether such "reliable secondary sources" exist), look into the notability aspect of the FSM. If it's no more than an internet meme, a WP:AfD procedure might be the next step, and then see what comes out of that. --Francis Schonken 11:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't replying to you, sorry. My post was to Kas after conflict. Marskell 11:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, sorry. Anyway Kas got the answers he was asking for I suppose. --Francis Schonken 11:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

In particular, to elaborate on the last comment above, if you are able to prove something that nobody currently believes, Wikipedia is not the place to premiere such a proof. Once a proof has been presented and discussed elsewhere, however, it may be referenced.

This last sentence in Undue Weight, does not appear to be relevant to Undue Weight, but is part of "verifiability" and "original research"?--Iantresman 20:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Although it we clarly already have a policy regarding text moves, two Wikipedians have teamed up to hide any clarification or amplification of this. I can only assume it's because they want to censore this policy, because they personally oppose it.

1. (cur) (last) 18:09, 19 June 2006 Francis Schonken (remove link to proposal: that proposal should not be presented as a part of "policy" on this page)
2. (cur) (last) 19:05, 19 June 2006 FeloniousMonk m (Reverted edits by Ed Poor (talk) to last version by Francis Schonken)

Francis claimed my link to Wikipedia:Text move is not part of "policy" - on what grounds I don't know, maybe because I placed the {{proposed}} template at the head of the linked page.

But I have seen references to "text moves" on 2 or 3 other pages, and I've noticed that FM and his clique oppose this policy. They feel justified in reverting any changes they disagree with (often with the terse comment that I must discuss all my changes first), while reserving the right to make any changes they want without any discussion at all, before or afterwards. --Uncle Ed 19:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Go take a breather, WP:AGF, and come back when you want to rephrase all that without invoking cabals. — Saxifrage ✎ 03:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ed Poor (2) All anyone needs to know about what Ed is on about is there. He also has a long history of trying to create new policy to support his activities detailed at the RFC. FeloniousMonk 04:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I know the NPOV policy is meant to cover situations in which an editor edits sourced facts into an article but, because of selection of which facts to present from said source, the facts presented a slanted view of its subject. I think this is covered under the general "don't be biased" mantra of NPOV, and is mentioned secifically under the "Fairness and sympathetic tone" section of the article: "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. . . ." As a more concrete example of what I'm talking about: an editor edits the following, sourced blurb into Ted Kennedy's article, "Kennedy supports a tax on imported rubber and justifies the tax by stating 'rubber imports are not a practical response to current tire prices'[reference]". The editor leavs the blurb at that, failing to note that the source goes on to say that Kennedy's true motivation/justification for supporting the tax is because he believes domestic rubber production is sufficient and expanding. This blurb obviously violates the portions of this policy that I've mentioned above, as it makes Kennedy out to have no concrete justification for his support of the tax through selection of which facts to present. My point for posting here is to ask two questions: (1) is this type of fact-selection NPOV violation mentioned anywhere else in the policy other than one sentence in the Fairness and sympathetic tone section and (2) if not, shouldn't there be a more expansive subsection on fact-selection bias here? I understand that this problem is somewhat related to undue weight (in that both deal with fact-selection bias), but undue weight doesn't cover a situation similar to what I've posited above. - Jersyko·talk 02:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Jersyko, policy is not a replacement for good judgement. Polices are there to assist us in the process of collaboration, so that we can write an encyclopedia. If an editor is selective in his citing of materials form sources, challenge him. An article that is not biased is easy to spot, and one that is not, even easier. There is no replacement for the process of give and take, tweaks, nips and tucks, that an article goes through. It is that process that carries the promise of a good NPOV article. More policy would not help, IMO. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, I don't believe I am requesting new policy, I'm requesting a fuller explanation of something briefly mentioned in this policy. I am not requesting this change merely to bolster my argument in NPOV disputes. Rather, I believe this is an important subset of NPOV that is barely glossed over in the text of this policy. I understand that many Wikipedians resist implementation of new bureaucracy and policy for numerous reasons, but since this issue is already perfunctorily treated in the policy, perhaps an exception can be made. - Jersyko·talk 12:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Jersyko, I have a practical question: when the kind of flaw you describe is found in articles and someone tries to fix it, have you found that they often encounter resistence? If the answer is yes, then perhaps the policy needs to be clearer and stronger. If the answer is no, I'd say that the policy is working fine. Look, policies are here for the most part to (1) help educate newbies and (2) provide guidance in disputes. My belief is we should pretty much leave them alone unless they are really failing to accomplish either of these objectives. I am not arguing with you, I just think the issue here is not resisting implementation or a new bureaucracy, but rather trying to gage just how much of a problem this is. No policy can or should try to cover every possible instance. But my opinion is shaped by an even more basic belief: all wikipedia articles are works in progress. We should never really think of any article as being perfect, flawless. Sometimes an article is flawed not because a policy is not clear enough, but simply because more people need more time to work on it. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm only aware of two, maybe three situations in which I've encountered resistance on point in my year and a half of editing here. Perhaps it's not a widespread problem, I have no idea. Each time that it has come up, however, I recall searching, in vain for the most part, for a section of the NPOV policy (or another policy) that would be entirely on point. The sentence I mention above is all I have been able to find. In any event, I suppose that if other editors consider the one sentence to be sufficient for the problem I have described, and if other editors are not experiencing the same phenomenon, I will gladly concede and withdraw my suggestion. - Jersyko·talk 14:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, would you mind saying a bit more about your experiences? Were the conflicts quickly resolved? Were you satisfied with the way things were resolved? Would it really have made a difference if the policy addressed this more directly or at greater length? I don't want to discourage a good suggestion, but there is no point in making a change unless we know it will make a difference. I have been in lots of conflicts where I needed to explain my interpretation/application of the NPOV policy to the matter at hand, and once I did this the matter was resolved. If your experiences were like mine, then i honestly do not think there is any need to change the policy - talk pages exist because sometimes we just need to hash things out there. But if your experiences were more protracted and bitter than mine, then maybe yes we do need to clarify the policy. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Could someone nautral to WoW please check out that article. I do not want to add a VfD because the article itself has potential. I just feel it's a pile of POV as it stands right now. Any guidance as to what could be done would also be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Havok (T/C/c) 20:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

A handful of editors and I are in conflict with a single admin on a particular subject, and I believe that the problem comes down to different interpretations of what constitutes "undue weight". I've read through the main NPOV page, and digested as much of this page as I can (it's a LOT!), but haven't seen anything which really addresses my issue. If I've overlooked it, I apologize, and would thank somebody for pointing me in the right direction; otherwise, I would like to know what the community thinks of the following situation. In a nutshell -- the rules are clear that, when a vocal minority is in conflict with a substantial majority, the article must be weighted towards the latter -- ie, creationists and flat-earthers are relegated to footnotes on pages about evolution and geomorphology. Rightly so. But how does one weight an article when a subject is relatively obscure and the "majority view" of a subject is, well, ignorance? The admin insists that proper NPOV weighting means that the article should be small and vaguely skeptical; I disagree -- I believe it does not need to be either small or weighted. But I would appreciate some additional opinions.

For those who are interested, please allow me to give some background on the subject,

Just to give some background, the conflict concerns an experimental transit technology called "Personal Rapid Transit" (PRT). PRT has been theorized and experimented with since the 1960s, with several billion dollars having been collectively spent on it over the years, and several full-scale prototypes built, tested, certified by various regulatory agencies, and so forth -- but for a variety of reasons, no PRT system has ever been deployed publicly. Recently, there has been a resurgence of interest in PRT, and a small system has finally been purchased for public installation at London Heathrow Airport in 2008 (see ULTra (PRT)). There are also funds allocated for a small system in Dubai, and in two places in Sweden. Worldwide, there is perhaps $50 - $100 million being spent annually on R&D for this technology.

As far as the vast community of transportation engineers and scientists go, PRT is largely unknown. I'd guess that the percentage who have even heard of it is somewhere in the vicinity of 2%, and most of those could barely define what it is, much less give a cogent support or refutation of its premises. Commercially, when compared to planes, trains, and automobiles, $50 - $100 million annually is utterly insignificant.

However, there is a small number of engineers, probably numbered in the very low thousands worldwide, who are either involved with PRT ventures or are just very enthusiastic about the technology (although there is a considerably larger group of non-credentialed supporters who are intrigued by or supportive of the concept). These people have produced a voluminous body of work documenting the results of various prototype trials, hashing out design strategies, and generally extolling its virtues. As implied above, the rest of the transit world has more or less ignored this -- they've got enough else to think about.

There is another, even smaller number of engineers and activists who are aware of PRT and actively critical of it. My guess is that there would be, at most, about a hundred of these individuals worldwide. They have produced a body of work criticizing the PRT concept. This body of work is considerably smaller and less detailed than the body of work of the supporters, but both represent tiny niches within the field as a whole.

So, this brings us to the heart of the matter. The admin in question asserts that skepticism is the "majority view". I strongly contest this assertion: apathy is, unquestionably, the "majority view" among transit professionals. At any rate, the admin feels that the article (and associated articles) should consequently be short and very basic, if indeed they should exist at all, and that above all else they must emphasize that PRT does not actually exist (he repeatedly refers to it as "fictional") -- and he routinely mass-deletes content, adds redundant "in theory" and "according to proponents" tags to virtually every sentence, and threatens to lock down articles when anybody objects to his behavior.

I, of course, do object (but I'm not an admin, so what does that matter?). I believe that apathy is not a legitimate "majority view", and that it is fully within Wikipedia's purview to do a nice and fairly comprehensive article about highly niche topics such as PRT. [Solar Sail]s and [Space Elevator]s and have far more extensive articles than [Personal Rapid Transit], for example, despite the fact that the majority of aerospace engineers have no interest in those topics, a minority are actively highly skeptical about them, and those things are in any case far more "fictional" than PRT.

My belief is that there is no need for the issue of "undue weight" to even enter into an article like this. I believe it should be possible in this case to summarize the works of PRT designers (being very careful to attribute all non-empirical claims -- basically anything concerning PRT that wasn't physically gleaned from a prototype), and also summarize the works of the PRT critics. I believe that there is no intrinsic POV problem with summarizing both camps in as much detail as their literature provides; the hostile admin, however, believes that going into such detail would be intrinsically POV, given that PRT is "irrelevant" and "fictional". Edit wars thus ensue.

Am I wrong? Is he wrong? Please help! If anyone would like more background on this issue, I urge you to check out the talk pages for Personal Rapid Transit, ULTra (PRT), and UniModal. I look forward to your responses and thank you for your time! Skybum 01:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, for further background on this argument, you can look at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-04-22 SkyTran/UniModal uncooperative admin, (which resulted in no resolution). Skybum 02:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I want to notify that I placed the Orania page under the npov tag. Reasons being the article erroneously assumes the opposing position and ignores the central issue. Example, 2nd paragraph. There is no issue of Apartheid being continued in Orania in the form of exploitation of black labor. The issue is clearly one of Apartheid used to segregate resources and land. Nothing more. So the article violates the neutral point of view in the political bias and misrepresentation of other viewpoints. --Zaphnathpaaneah 06:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

This seems to have been missed. I wish to remove, or move the following sentence from the Undue weight section:

In particular, to elaborate on the last comment above, if you are able to prove something that nobody currently believes, Wikipedia is not the place to premiere such a proof. Once a proof has been presented and discussed elsewhere, however, it may be referenced.

This last sentence in Undue Weight, does not appear to be relevant to Undue Weight, but is part of "verifiability" and "original research"? --Iantresman 12:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

From the second paragraph of the intro of the NPOV policy page:

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is one of Wikipedia's three content policies. The other two are Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main namespace. Because the three policies are complementary, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another [...]

The sentence from the "Undue weight" section you point to clarifies such connection between WP:NPOV and the other two core content policies. Trying to cut such links that clarify the unseparable relation between the core content policies, by eliminating the sentence you quote from the NPOV guideline would be a step towards trying to interpret the three core content policies "in isolation from one another". Not acceptable IMHO. --Francis Schonken 12:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you fully, that policies should not be interpreted in isolation. It's just that I see no connection with Undue weight. When would unverifiable information even be considered for undue weight? --Iantresman 17:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I believe this is purely a semantics issue. Undue weight is about letting a small subject overshadow a larger subject. If people use undue weight to mean verifiability and NPOV - then the term becomes near-usless - as people will get confused as to what you mean when you use the term. Fresheneesz 18:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)