Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:53, 6 May 2009

The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Misplaced Pages. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic.

• WT:NPOV

The project page associated with this discussion page is an official policy on Misplaced Pages. It has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. Before you update the page, make sure that changes you make to this policy really do reflect consensus.

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

Spoken Misplaced Pages

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Misplaced Pages

Archived discussions

Archive_001 Discussions before October 2004

Archive_002 Closing out 2004

Archive_003 Discussions begun Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr 2005

Archive 004 July to November 4, 2005

Archive 005 to November 13, 2005

Archive 006 to December 4, 2005

Archive 007 to December 30, 2005

Archive 008 to December 27, 2005

Archive 009 to January 16, 2006

Archive 010 to January 23, 2006

Archive 011 to January 25, 2006

Archive 012 to January 26, 2006

Archive 013 to January 29, 2006

Archive 014 to January 29, 2006

Archive 015 to March 8, 2006

Archive 016 to March 10, 2006

Archive 017 to April 09, 2006

Note: Edit history of 001-017 is in 017.

Archive 018: Apr 2006

Archive 019: Apr 2006 - May 2006

Archive 020: May 2006 - Jun 2006

Archive 021: Jun 2006

Archive 022: Jun-Jul 2006 (moving FAQ)

Archive 023: Jul-Aug 4 2006

Archive 024: Aug 4-Sept 21 2006

Archive 025: Sept 22 - Oct 2006

Archive 26: Nov - Dec 2006

Archive 27: Jan - Feb 2007

Archive 28: Mar - May 2007

Archive 29: May - September 2007

Archive 30: Oct 2007 - Feb 2008

Archive 31: Feb - May 2008

Archive 32: May 2008 - July 2008

Archive 33: July 2008

Archive 34:

Archive 35:

Archive 36:

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.

Question & Comment

Frankly I have little time to go through all the finer points on NPOV (neutral meaning no bais). Instead why don't we go for holistic understanding (inclusive of all points of noteworthy views APOV that contributes to the whole understanding of the subject). Even within Science there are always the official mainstream version and significant other views that are repressed. For example the section Climate Change do not allow adding another equally strong group of scientists or views The Great Global Warming Swindle listed in wikipedia. If wikipedia is about collaboration and open sharing of knowledge then we must have space for all credible and significant sources and emerging unofficial views. May be not in the same article (to avoid edit wars) but in the end sections or external links like 'see also' which should always remain open an unprotected. SusMita Barua 14:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC) isis07

that's really what NPOV says, though it's rarely observed in practice. I'd probably support (for instance) the inclusion of the anti-global-warming perspective (even though I personally think it's idiotic, I can see the case for it being notable). but the most active editors on pages like that are not generally the most reasonable editors. sorry. --Ludwigs2 18:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Can I have a reason for my reversion?

Can I please know why my edit was reverted? The only reason I reverted the revert was that I wasn't given a reason.--Canaris 4 (talk) 12:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I assume you're talking about this? there are a number of reasons, but primarily you shouldn't make comments about other editors, or place your signature, anywhere except on Talk or Administrative pages. If you don't like the logic used, then change it to something more effective on the page itself, or bring up the fact that you don't like it on the Talk page, so that you can discuss it with other editors. Articles are only for substantive points; anything personal or discussion-oriented belongs in talk. --Ludwigs2 15:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

For another answer to your question, see the box at the top of the article: This page documents an official English Misplaced Pages policy, a widely accepted standard that should normally be followed by all editors. Any edit to it should reflect consensus. Consider discussing potential changes on the talk page first. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL 17:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok SheffieldSteel had the better reason.--Canaris 4 (talk) 08:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

History and rationale

The section was created out of an older section on 16 January 2006 by user:Bensaccount.

Some archived talk sections discussing the section in the article:

• Archive 15#Can anyone find a relible source for this key policy? (Feb. 2006)
• Archive 17#Last paragraph of Reasoning behind NPOV section (Mar. 2006)
• Archive 17#First para of Reasoning behind NPOV section (Mar. 2006)
• Archive 17#Should the Abortion example be replaced?(Mar. 2006)
• Archive 31#History of NPOV (March 2008)

This page is kinda a critical policy page which we expect people to read. As a courtisy we should make it as short as posible. This section may be full of interest but it isn't policy and isn't needed therefor it should not be included.Geni 23:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Given that this is a core policy that we actually want people to read and understand, it should be kept short, sweet and to the point. Historical discussions and rationales are interesting, but it would be better suited in an auxiliary page. henrik•talk 00:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I doubt there would be a problem with moving this section to its own page, but deleting it altogether seems wrong; and there's some chance that it would help destabilise the policy in the long run.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 01:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I have a proposal: separate the page into sections, each of which covers a different topic. Separate the sections using bold words that tell people what the topic or theme is. We can make a table of contents ... Does someone out there understand IT enough to create a way to link the table of contents so that people can go directly to the section they want? I know I am reaching toward the impossible here and I hope I explaining myself clearly, the idea is to break this into sections so no one has to read all. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess a secondary project will be to find a way to install in all the robots who use Misplaced Pages some kind of "free will" chip that will enable them to choose for themselves what sections they need to read. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh while I m at it I have an idea what do you guys think: people new to Misplaced Pages, even if they read the whole page (which is gosh, what percentage of a Reader's Digest article?) are not going to get the finer points of how we do things. I think this is inevitable no matter how short or perfectly written this policy because there is no substitute for experience. Can we create a policy that tlls other users not to be impatiently abrupt with new users? Slrubenstein | Talk 01:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, the wikipedian way is to use summary style in situations like this.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 01:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Sections don't really help because new users see a wall of text and give up. Always going to be a problem with this policy but there is no reason to make it worse than need be.Geni 00:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Another possibility is to use the {{hst}} and {{hsb}} templates so that it doesn't take up so much space, yet gives the reader an easy way to view it if desired, like so:

History and rationale

History of NPOV

• WP:NPOVHISTORY

The neutral point of view policy is one of the oldest policies on Misplaced Pages.

• Nupedia's "Non-bias policy" was drafted by Larry Sanger in spring or summer of 2000.
• "Avoid bias" was one of the first of Misplaced Pages's "policies to consider" proposed by Sanger.
• Jimbo Wales elaborated the "avoid bias" rule with a statement about "neutral point of view" in the early months of Misplaced Pages: see copy in web archive (note: that page also contains comments by other Wikipedians up to 12 April 2001) – in subsequent versions of the NPOV page, Jimbo's statement was known as the "original formulation" of the NPOV policy.
• A more elaborate version of the NPOV policy was written by Larry Sanger, at Meta-Wiki in December 2001: see "Neutral point of view--draft," Larry Sanger's version of 20 December 2001.
• After several transformations (see edit history of "draft" at Meta) the version by Larry Sanger et al. was moved to this page on 25 February 2002, and was further edited (see edit history of this page), resulting in the current version.
• Another short formulation was introduced by Brion Vibber in meta, 17 March 2003: see Meta's "Neutral point of view," version of 17 March 2003
• Development of the Undue weight section started in 2003, for which a mailing list post by Jimbo Wales on 29 September 2003 was instrumental.
• Jimbo Wales describes neutrality as "non-negotiable", consistently, throughout various discussions: November 2003, April 2006, March 2008 (compare also User:Jimbo Wales/Statement of principles #1).

Further historical notes at Misplaced Pages:NPOV, V and OR.

Reasoning behind neutrality

• WP:NPOVREASON

Misplaced Pages is a general encyclopedia, which means it is a representation of human knowledge at some level of generality. But human beings disagree about specific cases; for any topic on which there are competing views, each view represents a different idea of what the truth is, and insofar as that view contradicts other views, its adherents believe that the other views are false and therefore not knowledge. Where there is disagreement about what is true, there is disagreement about what constitutes knowledge. Misplaced Pages works because it is a collaborative effort; but, while collaborating, how can we solve the problem of endless "edit wars" in which one person asserts that p, whereupon the next person changes the text so that it asserts not-p?

A solution is that we accept, for the purposes of working on Misplaced Pages, that "human knowledge" includes all different significant theories on all different topics. We are committed to the goal of representing human knowledge in that sense, surely a well-established meaning of the word "knowledge". What is "known" changes constantly with the passage of time, and so when we use the word "know," we often enclose it in so-called scare quotes. Europeans in the Middle Ages "knew" that demons caused diseases ; we now "know" otherwise.

We could sum up human knowledge (in this sense) in a biased way: we could state a series of theories about topic T and then claim that the truth about T is such-and-such. But then again, consider that Misplaced Pages is an international collaborative project, and that nearly every view on every subject will be found among our authors and readers. To avoid endless edit wars, we can agree to present each of the significant views fairly and not assert any one of them as correct. That is what makes an article "unbiased" or "neutral" in the sense presented here. To write from a neutral point of view, one presents controversial views without asserting them; to do that, it generally suffices to present competing views in a way that is more or less acceptable to their adherents, and also to attribute the views to their adherents. Disputes are characterized in Misplaced Pages; they are not re-enacted.

To sum up the primary reason for this policy: Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, a compilation of human knowledge. But because Misplaced Pages is a community-built, international resource, we cannot expect collaborators to agree in all cases, or even in many cases, on what constitutes knowledge in a strict sense. We can therefore adopt the looser sense of "human knowledge" according to which a wide variety of conflicting theories constitute what we call "knowledge." We should, both individually and collectively, make an effort to present these conflicting views fairly, without advocating any one of them—with the qualification that views held only by a tiny minority of people should not be represented as though they are significant minority views and perhaps should not be represented at all.

There is another reason to commit ourselves to this policy, that when it is clear to readers that we do not expect them to adopt any particular opinion, this leaves them free to make up their minds for themselves, thus encouraging intellectual independence. Totalitarian governments and dogmatic institutions everywhere might find reason to oppose Misplaced Pages, if we succeed in adhering to our non-bias policy: the presentation of many competing theories on a wide variety of subjects suggests that we, the editors of Misplaced Pages, trust readers to form their own opinions. Texts that present multiple viewpoints fairly, without demanding that the reader accept any particular one of them, are liberating. Neutrality subverts dogmatism. Nearly everyone working on Misplaced Pages can agree this is a good thing.

Example: Abortion

It might help to consider an example of how Wikipedians have improved a biased text.

On the abortion page, early in 2001, some advocates had used the page to exchange barbs, being unable to agree about what arguments should be on the page and how the competing positions should be represented. What was needed—and what was added—was an in-depth discussion of the different positions about the moral and legal aspects of abortion at different times. This discussion of the positions was carefully crafted so as not to favor any one of the positions outlined. This made it easier to organize and understand the arguments surrounding the topic of abortion, which were then presented impartially, each with its strengths and weaknesses.

There are numerous other success stories of articles that began life as virtual partisan screeds but were nicely cleaned up by people who concerned themselves with representing all views clearly and impartially.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 18:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Again this is a policy page. If something is being compressed like that it is a pretty clear admission it isn't needed.Geni 18:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Although I would dispute the conclusion that compressing something means it isn't needed, deleting the History and rationale section is OK with me. I only suggested the compression as a compromise in case consensus couldn't be reached. If someone wants the History and rationale info in the Misplaced Pages, it seems that they can put it on a separate page with a link to it, or use compression. Either way is OK with me. But I do agree with Geni with the basic premise that policy pages shouldn't be cluttered with unnecessary info. It distracts from the significant points of the policy and dilutes the message.--Bob K31416 (talk) 22:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I am reinstating the sections. So far less than a handful of editors have participated in the debate. I think if it is to be removed then it should be a decision made by more than that. It would be useful if someone would put in links at the top of this section to the sections in the archives which have already discussed the article section as there will be arguments there for why it was created and maintained in the first place, and at the moment the conversation seems to be taking place in a vacuum. --PBS (talk) 09:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

If you think such debates exist you are free to find and link to them yourself. Until then will people stop it with the flawed procedual rule lawyering?Geni 13:50, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The person who initiated this debate should have read the archives to see the reasons why the section under discussion was developed (there is no need to rehash old arguments), and put courtesy links in so that other editors could see those debates. If there has never been any discussions on this subject then that in itself is relevant information which should have been included in the first posting to this section. That you have not looked to see if these discussions have taken place (you comment shows that you have not bothered to look) is why I think that further discussion is needed. --PBS (talk) 15:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

PBS, Re "So far less than a handful of editors have participated in the debate. I think if it is to be removed then it should be a decision made by more than that." - So far, this position is the opinion of only one editor, you. Shouldn't you have discussed the reversion here before you made it? Also, it may be that even fewer editors than the number in this discussion put that section into WP:NPOV in the first place. Before restoring it, shouldn't you have checked that too? I'm sorry to say but frankly, your reversion was unilateral and dictatorial. You should have discussed it before making it. Unless there is a reasonable amount of support for your action, change should be reverted, in my opinion. I'm not suggesting that you need a consensus, just some reasonable amount of support for your move. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:34, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

It is customary to gain consensus before a policy page is changed and this is a large removal of several sections not the placement of a comma so I think it better that the subject is more thoroughly discussed. I did not change the page, I reverted it to to how it was before a large edit was made. --PBS (talk) 15:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Philip that this is too much to remove without more discussion. SlimVirgin 14:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

PBS and SlimVirgin, I appreciate your participation but I notice that you haven't offered any discussion about the merit of the section and haven't responded to criticism of the section. One might view your participation as simply obstructive. Please contribute to the discussion. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:49, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I have now looked through the archives and put in links at the top of this article to those sections in the archives that discuss this section. I may have missed some and if I have then please feel free to add some more.

I think that we need to discuss this in the context of the three subsections in the overall section and whether one or more of those subsections should be removed:

1. History of NPOV
2. Reasoning behind neutrality
3. Example: Abortion

I think all three have some validity, and one important consideration is that "Well, the wikipedian way is to use summary style in situations like this" is not an option with policies. Information on policy pages is policy and that in other things are guidelines essays etc. This difference is important because as WP:Policy and guidelines says "Our list of policies are considered a standard that all editors should follow, whereas our guidelines are more advisory in nature,".

Of these subsections I think that the first one should stay in the article as it reminds people that this is not a new policy but one that has existed for a long time. Several times I have had to add the history of WP:NC into conversations on the talk pages of that policy and associated guidelines. Rather than deleting it from this policy it is something that is probably worth adding to WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NC. As to the other two sections, we have to ask ourselves do they add anything to the policy or would it be better if they were deleted or moved into a FAQ or guideline? --PBS (talk) 17:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Well done! I will be carefully looking at the links you provided.

I think there is an important general issue regarding what should go into Policies that stems from something you mentioned,

"Of these subsections I think that the first one should stay in the article as it reminds people that this is not a new policy but one that has existed for a long time. Several times I have had to add the history of WP:NC into conversations on the talk pages of that policy and associated guidelines."

The issue that this brings to mind concerns the function of a policy page. Shouldn't the policy page be for editors who are seeking information for using the policy rather than for editors that are involved in editing the policy page? It seems that information for the latter should be on a separate page that policy page editors can refer to, rather than on the policy page where it can distract from and dilute the message of the policy. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

In Ireland if you stop in the countryside and ask directions to a place, if it is difficult to describe how to get there you will sometimes be told "If I had to go there I wouldn't start from here". A brief history helps people understand how the policy has got to where it is now. Let me give you an example last year we added "use reliable sources" to the naming conventions policy page. Why had it not been added earlier? Because the naming conventions are older that the verifiability policy. If the verifiability policy had existed before the naming conventions, then almost certainly mention of using reliable sources to help select the name of a page would have been included from day one as it helps to harmonise the names of articles with their content. It has made large chunks of the naming conventions guidelines redundant, as they were written as work-arounds because some editors were including unreliable sources when deciding on the best name for an article. Knowing the history of a policy helps a person make informed decisions on why parts of the policy exist. --PBS (talk) 00:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Nicely put, Philip. SlimVirgin 01:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I think we are in agreement that understanding the history of a policy page can be useful for editors that are working at improving the WP:NPOV policy page. So the NPOV History is useful in that regard.

You gave an example of how you added "use reliable sources" to a policy page, and that would have been done earlier if only the editors who developed that policy were better informed about the related history of that policy page. I will trust you on the details of this, and I basically agree with your point.

But these points relate to the editors that develop those two policy pages, not the editors that go to those policy pages looking for an explanation of the policy that they can use in their editing of regular Misplaced Pages articles. For the latter editors in their role as policy users, I don't think the history is very helpful. For the former editors in their role as policy developers, the history is very helpful.

I feel that what is in the policy page should be for the editors who are looking for help (users) and info for policy development editors (developers) should be in a separate page.

Is my point about the different needs of the users and developers clearer now? And did I understand your points about developers correctly? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Policy changes are worked out on the talk page not the policy page. Thus there is no reason to have information related to changeing the policy on the policy page.Geni 21:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:No original research#Follow-up

Comments? Peter jackson (talk) 13:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

NPOV/FAQ status

Should the "Frequently Asked Questions" page for this Policy also be a Policy? From my understanding, FAQ's are never policy, they are merely a guideline to an actual policy or other areas that have a need for a FAQ on them. There was some material that legitimately fell under Policy, but it was moved over a month ago. Please weigh in on the RfC: Is a FAQ a Policy RFC to determine if there is consensus for this (or any) FAQ to be a Policy or a Guideline - if even that..it could be just left as a FAQ page with no designation. Thanks! Dreadstar † 23:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Policies moved from Neutral point of view/FAQ

Following requests at Misplaced Pages talk:Neutral point of view/FAQ I've moved the explanations of Making necessary assumptions and Giving "equal validity" here as part of longstanding policy which is inadequately explained in this policy page. In each case I've made minimal changes to rephrase them as statements rather than keeping them in the question-and-answer format that has been objected to. The positioning is logical in relation to other sections of the policy, this can be discussed and reviewed. Other editors may wish to review whether other sections should also be transferred in whole or in part, to achieve the expressed aim of several editors that Neutral point of view/FAQ should be a guideline or just a helpful FAQ page rather than a policy. . . dave souza, talk 10:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I support these changes, and see nothing baring them at the other talk page. Discussion about this page should continue here. Verbal chat 12:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I feel this discussion should take place on the FAQ page, to keep all the material is a consistent place. I've made my responses at Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#sections_to_transfer. --Ludwigs2 13:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Discussion here is appropriate to ensure that these policy statements are fully tied in with other aspects of NPOV policy. Until this matter is resolved, NPOV/FAQ can and should remain policy. . dave souza, talk 14:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense Dave. Thanks for doing this. These were in the orignal policy page and I participated in the original discussion that spun them out to the FAQ page, which was done on the condition that they remain policy. Fringe POV pushers have been trying to remove these specific clauses from this policy for years. having spun them off, they then tried to downgrade the FAQ page from policy to guideline. Moving them back here makes sense and I'll fight to make that happen. FeloniousMonk (talk) 14:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

reverted additions

I reverted these additions. please see the discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Neutral point of view/FAQ#sections to transfer for details. --Ludwigs2 12:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any discussion at that page which bars these changes, hence I have reverted. Discussion and justification here would be more fruitful? Verbal chat 12:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

jesus, what the f@ck is wrong with you people! stop edit-warring over policy, give me chance to write an explanation, and discuss the damned changes like adults. reverting again, and this time wait for the explanation. --Ludwigs2 12:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I assumed that this thread was the explanation, as it was made by you about your edit. I found it didn't justify your edit. I'd ask you not to revert, and I find your personal attack and language highly offensive. I'm sure you're aware of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Verbal chat 12:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

In fact, why don't you take your own advice - revert your "edit warring", as you like to call it, and then justify what changes you want made here. Dave has justified his above, and I agree with him. Verbal chat 12:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I've justified my position on the wp:NPOV/FAQ talk page, and I will add for you and Dave that sheer common sense would suggest that one does not make additions to a policy page in the middle of a discussion of those very additions. that can only be viewed as tendentious behavior.

with respect to your other point - I'm not the one pushing a POV here - I'm not doing anything except keeping a page stable while a discussion is ongoing. so what-ever! --Ludwigs2 13:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

You don't see a problem with "jesus, what the f@ck is wrong with you people!" then? Where is this ongoing discussion? I see Dave's post, and then your discussion after where you attack editors and fail to AGF. Please revert and apologise, and strike your comments. Verbal chat 13:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

an outburst, nothing more, at a problematic revert that took you all of 10 minutes to complete from the time of my post. now perhaps those ten minutes were filled with deep, heartfelt, sober reflection on the issues, but if so, I see no evidence of that (yet) in talk. let's go over to the FAQ talk page and discuss the issue; I have no interest in pursuing this personal matter any further. --Ludwigs2 14:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

1. Manchester, William A World Lit Only By Fire: The Medieval Mind and the Renaissance – Portrait of an Age Little, Brown and Company. 1992 pp. 60 – 62 ISBN 0-316-54556-2 (pb)
2. Roberts, J.M. A History of Europe Penguin Group. 1996 pp. 139 – 140 ISBN 0-7139-9204-2