| Revision as of 19:58, 14 April 2006 editIantresman (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users21,376 edits →Jimbo Wales comments on NPOV Undue weight← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:03, 14 April 2006 edit undoFeloniousMonk (talk | contribs)18,409 edits discussion was moved to: User talk:IantresmanNext edit → | ||
| Line 49: | Line 49: | ||
| ==Jimbo Wales comments on NPOV Undue weight== | ==Jimbo Wales comments on NPOV Undue weight== | ||
| Per prior requests from the community, this discussion was moved to: ] ] 20:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I've restored Jimbo Wales' actual quotes, replacing the ambiguous paraphrase in the Undue weight section ... unless someone can verify his 2003 mailing list "comments" as they were written. Here is the correct, accurate, verifiable quotation: | |||
| <table cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 border=1><tr><td> | |||
| : From ], writing on the ] mailing list in September 2003: | |||
| ::* If a view is the majority view of a broad consensus of scientists, then we say so. | |||
| ::* 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. | |||
| ::* And if a view is held only by a few people without any traditional training or credentials, and if that view is dismissed by virtually all mainstream scientists, then we can say that, too. | |||
| ::* And we can use all of that as a reasonable grounds for dividing up articles. Usually, mainstream and minority views are treated in the main article, with the mainstream view typically getting a bit more ink, but the minority view presented in such a fashion that both sides could agree to it. Singular views can be moved to a separate page and identified (disclaimed) as such, or in some cases omitted altogether." | |||
| ::*Jimbo further clarified in response to the suggestion "I'm wondering if the proper crieria for inclusion/exclusion is the fact that any theory, albeit mainstream, minority or other, is whether or not it is available in print", Jimbo Wales replied: I think that's a very valid way to look at it, yes, absolutely. And this helps to tie the policy here in with parallel policies in other areas, i.e. ']' has long been accepted as a decision rule. | |||
| </td></tr></table> | |||
| --] 19:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't understand why you think this is necessary. — ] ] 19:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::What either one of us might think, what is more important is a verifiable primary source. --] 19:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Policy pages aren't subject to the ] policy. If that's your only reason for making the change it should be reverted. Though I would say retaining the link to the original email is warranted. — ] ] 19:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Facts presented on ANY page are suject to verifiability, unless you can verify otherwise. Additionally, Jimbo Wales' may set policy, so again, his version of policy is law, and that too is verifiable. --] 19:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Please note that I have added another direct quote from Jimbo's post, directly address Undue weight, and the amount of space majority and minority views may have. --] 19:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 20:03, 14 April 2006
When starting a new topic, please add it to the bottom of this page, and please sign your comments with four tildes: ~~~~. This will automatically place a date stamp, which will allow us to maintain this page better.
Shortcuts to sections
... don't work, so personally I'd propose to omit WP:NPOVUW entirely from the policy page. Maybe it should better be proposed for MfD or so, per Misplaced Pages:Redirect#When should we delete a redirect?, reason 2, that is: "confusing" (it creates the confusing, and incorrect, idea that the shortcut actually links to the UW section, someone not knowing that was the intention can only be more confused when reading the "NPOVUW" acronym, and when clicking arriving at the top of the NPOV page, where the "UW" is nowhere explained). And overall, i think NPOVUW to be a horrendous acronym, in the WP:WOTTA meaning. --Francis Schonken 21:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
- If they don't work, then delete them. I seem to remember them working in the past, but that was sometime ago. FeloniousMonk 21:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
- It would be nice if the software would support redirects to sections. Not for NPOVUW, but to create e.g. WP:WEIGHT. AvB ÷ talk 12:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
- Agree with AvB exactly. NikoSilver 20:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Sanity check
Would it be ok if I were to tag chinese ctities under Category:Taiwan as the goverment of Taiwan (Republic of China) claims to rule mainland china? --Cool Cat 09:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
- Seems like a question you could easily answer for yourself... if not, maybe after reading Misplaced Pages:NPOV tutorial#Categorisation, and other guidance linked from there.
- If still not being able to answer that question for yourself after reading all that, maybe ask your question at wikipedia talk:categorization, or start an RfC (but I think you may assume that the outcome of such RfC would be pretty much predictable - only encouraging you to try to find a sensible answer to your question yourself - if you'd try to find it yourself, I'm convinced the eventual answer will stick better) --Francis Schonken 09:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
- This discussion belongs on Category_talk:Taiwan, not here. Bensaccount 15:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Jimbo Wales comments on NPOV Undue weight
Per prior requests from the community, this discussion was moved to: User talk:Iantresman FeloniousMonk 20:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)