Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view

WT:NPOV

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

Spoken Wikipedia

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia articles

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.

Requested move of World War II evacuation and expulsion articles

I recently began a centralized discussion for the renaming of population transfer or forced migrations relating to WWII. Participants in this area have shown interest in the topic in the past so I wanted to bring the discussion at Talk:World_War_II_evacuation_and_expulsion#Requested_move to your attention. --Labattblueboy (talk) 13:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let the facts speak for themselves

I was linking to the other day when I realized to my horror that this simple, eloquent recommendation was removed....By consensus! Now, I know that only jaded, old WP editors hang out in the WP:discussion pages, but I always loved this simple "You don't need to say Hitler is bad" guideline. It tended to focus the mission of WP and always seemed very... Jimbo. Do you think there is a way we can reintroduce it? --Knulclunk (talk) 16:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See the RfC [1] and Wikipedia:Let the reader decide. --Atomic blunder (talk) 16:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw this. From what I gather, the main offense seem to be the inclusion of Saddam Hussein. I will offer a rewrite in the next few days.--Knulclunk (talk) 04:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will support any effort to reinstate a subsection which has the merits of simplicity and clarity that the removed section had, without the deficiencies raised in the RfC.

It is a long-standing cornerstone of the NPOV policy that we should let the reader decide their own position based upon the facts (according to reliable sources) and upon a balanced and fair presentation of viewpoints described in reliable secondary sources per WP:V. We should not thrust a particular worldview down their throats or tell them how to interpret the information we present. Too many of our articles try to tell the reader what to think about a topic even in the first sentence, and this is counterproductive and contrary to any encyclopedic goals. This subsection is a vital element in countering that unfortunate trend. Geometry guy 21:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question about undue

There is this user who kept claiming a single source is undue/minority unless more sources could be brought up to support it. However, the source at that moment of the claim is the only source in that article and it is deemed a reliable source in the related wikiproject. Thus I told him to find sources presenting other views to prove it to be minor. S/he refuses and keep saying one cannot prove a double negative thus s/he do not have to find any sources to prove his view on that single source is a minority, and claimed that since it is a single source, it must be minor and undue because if it is not minor, one can easily find other sources supporting it. I do not find it necessary to do so since if it is minor, it must be easier to display the majority view point with sources. And questioning the single source is also questioning the notability of the article because that is the only review on the subject and other sources at the time are only media release information. The user keep bothering me with his view point on my talk page since he can get no support in that article's talk page. My question is simple, can anyone claim the single reliable source undue just because he think it is untrue and minor? Is this claim against the undue policy? Thank you. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 14:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if your summary is correct, you have worse problems than that. If there is only one source for the article the topic may not be notable enough to have an article in the first place. You clearly need better sourcing than that. Being a minor source may be enough to make a source be undue weight, but agreeing on what is minor can be tricky... but merely being the only source currently on the article does not automatically mean it's not undue weight. We would need to see specifically what's being discussed. DreamGuy (talk) 18:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At that point of time, the article is rather new, and an edit war took place while one user kept claiming the source to be incorrectly using a term(which was actually not quoted in the article anyway, it seems, which another user point out) so the concern is to stop the edit war. The article got more sources now and none is the major view claimed by the user, yet the user kept saying if it is a single point, it is by default minor. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 06:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the original discussion at the article: 1 and this is the user claims on my talk page: [2] —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 04:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

I have a contradiction!

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view represents views that are biased towards a neutral point of view, thus Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is a point of view and a violation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. But if Wikipedia:Neutral point of view was deleted due to a violation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, then it could be recreated because Wikipedia:Neutral point of view has been deleted and a point of view is now allowed. Attinio (talk) 13:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing is better than God, and a ham sandwich is better than nothing, so a ham sandwich is better than God.Angryapathy (talk) 13:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Lennon said that god is a concept, by which we measure our pain. A ham sandwich also is not universally considered better than pain. skip sievert (talk) 16:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV is about editorial neutrality in presenting topics as they appear in the body of available reliable sources, not some objective or arbitrary neutrality. Contradiction resolved. Vassyana (talk) 21:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect it was a joke, but isn't the resolution somewhat simpler? WP:NPOV applies to articles: WP:NPOV is not an article. Geometry guy 22:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

69.221.233.230

69.221.233.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who just started yesterday, at least under that IP, is methodically going through looking for "peacock" terms like "popular", "influential", etc. He might well be right, but it just seems odd for a "new" user to have such a narrow focus. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Logical Point of View

From a logical stand point. The transition from AD/BC to CE/BCE is unnecessary. If people are complaining that using "Before Christ" and "Anno Domini" are too offensive to their non-belief of the Chirstan faith, then they are being biased, so their opinion is null and void. To see things in a WNPOV then you need to be neutral. To be neutral is to be unbiased. To be unbiased is to put all emotions aside. So we can ignore everyone that says they are offended that the Standard Time has Christan Reference. Now we can break down the options. BC and AD are an accepted standard in time for over a thousand years of recorded history. They are based on an inaccurate base of the birth of Christ. But at least BC and AD have something to base their words off of. BCE and CE are based on BC and AD and have a time difference of zero milliseconds. If we use BCE and CE then we have to understand their stand point and basis of origin. When is the Common Era? Should we start from when Christ was born? Because the years before and after Christ has no difference in how common the time was. They used the same currency, same sun to base off the time of day. Their was recorded history before and after. So using the birth of Christ doesn't show and difference in a common time. How about we use the time history was recorded on stone by cavemen in France? We should approximately be in the year 20000CE according to that. What about when currency was started to be based off of gold and precious jewels? Now were approximately in the year 9000CE. What defines common? Should we reset our calenders every time a new pair of shoes goes out of style? Now were buying a new calender every ten minutes. Since there is no basis of a "Common Era" there is no way to define time. Anyone who uses the words BCE and CE are hypocrites for using the Christan time. That is the same as an artist stealing a painting from another and putting his signature on the canvas. And what is more valuable then time? And for all of you people who are sensitive about using something not of your faith. Suck it up. Your just whining that you non-Christians didn't think of a way standardize time.

What is the purpose of this nonsense? There is nothing in this policy that has anything to do with AD/BC vs CE/BCE, and the policy that does cover it, WP:DATE clearly says that neither style is preferred. Rusty Cashman (talk) 05:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elimination of article content

{{edit-semiprotected}} The phrase "elimination of article content" in the WP:YESPOV section should link to the WP:PRESERVE policy -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 06:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Erledigt Set Sail For The Seven Seas 263° 29' 0" NET 17:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Facts and Opinions

OR A Simple Formulation - Not So Simple

The so called "simple formulation" is not as clear and simple as it may seem.

Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves.

If you define opinions as matters which are subject to dispute among Wikipedians, this works somewhat better.

The problem is the trend of defining opinions as matters which according to reliable sources are subject to dispute.

For a single statement like "theft is wrong". This is fine. You might find a journal with an article about people disputing this statement.

But what about for an entire paragraph like

"In criminal law, theft is the illegal taking of another person's property without that person's freely-given consent. The word is also used as an informal shorthand term for some crimes against property, such as burglary, embezzlement, larceny, looting, robbery, shoplifting, fraud and sometimes criminal conversion. In some jurisdictions, theft is considered to be synonymous with larceny; in others, theft has replaced larceny."

You are never going to find a journal article about two prominent individuals disputing this exact paragraph. Not necessarily because it is fact, but because it is original. This specific formulation of what order of words and ideas best define and describe theft doesn't exist anywhere else.

You can reference it by simply adding references to the individual claims. Provided the writer hasn't put and A and B together to make claim C then there's no problem. You're allowed to just collate information.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 23:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now take an entire article about theft. Like it or not, it is our original research. It is the picture that readers take away with them of what theft is.

Now sometimes we encounter a paragraph that we sense is biased, so we alter it a little. Change the order of ideas, the words, the tone, etc. Then we have two different versions of a paragraph, or maybe two different versions of an entire article. Which one is biased? There is no published source that will tell us the answer. We have to decide for ourselves what is fact and what is opinion.

We have to decide what is balanced and what isn't. But none of the facts should be invented.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 23:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately this is not made clear by the policy. So what wins out is often when someone adds a bunch of quotations. Look: it contains more citations therefore it only has facts and facts about opinions so it is less biased.

This is not how NPOV is meant to work.

Citing opinions does not make them equal to fact. I drafted an article about this kind of thing. I am going to modify it to fix/replace this "simple" formulation. Bensaccount (talk) 00:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Careful here. That's not the way the wikipedia works, and could never work that way; there would be too many arguments.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 03:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of people think that when they first come to this website. Actually, with some good faith it does work. Bensaccount (talk) 22:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the value system of people varies, and this causes them to have violent disagreements sometimes. If the people have to do actual research of reliable sources, it tends to work a lot, lot better.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 23:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only facts that are agreeable to be used here is where there are opinions that are expressed in a verifiable source. The fact is that those opinions are expressed, the opinions they hold are not considered facts. The editors of the wikipedia do not hold themselves up to be judges between these opinions, we just report them.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 03:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We do make judgments. The only way what you are suggesting would work is by copying the entire article directly from a pre-existing encyclopedia and citing it. If you do that you would have an encyclopedia article with no original opinions. Fortunately we do make judgments about what to include and how best to define and describe our topics. If we didn't the process would grind to a halt (a phenomenon which people like you are slowing causing).Bensaccount (talk) 22:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't believe everything you've heard. Fact is, the wikipedia's growth is slowing because the low hanging fruit has been picked. It used to be easy to come up with a new article to write, but now, the article is already there. The world is not ending. The quality is improving. It's got little to do with the policies.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 23:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really NPOV as neutral point of view is a misnomer, it's really notable points of view; we try to capture all of those.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 03:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If they were correct there would really be no reason to have the NPOV policy. We already have verifiability for that purpose. The key point in NPOV is NEUTRALITY/NON-BIAS not verifiability/notability.

NPOV helps when there are conflicts, but it can not create an article for us. Like it or not we have to synthesize the article ourselves. If we refuse to write anything that isn't already written we will not get articles. Wikipedia articles aren't already written.

Why are there so many people like you on campaigns to ensure that editors do nothing but repeat verifiable sources? Do you not realize how impossible this is?

Bensaccount (talk) 22:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I do not realise how impossible this is. I've seen very few examples where what I know to be true was not able to found in reliable sources. I do know that simply relying on what editors 'know' is a fundamentally bad idea. Too many things that people know, aren't so.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 23:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If what you are saying is true, it would mean that there is some gigantic encyclopedia somewhere that I don't know about that people are repeating word for word. Do you know what the word "repeat" means? I don't mean take a bit from here and there and synthesize something new. I mean EXACTLY DUPLICATE. Otherwise you are changing it. Modifying it. Relying on your own knowledge. Bensaccount (talk) 00:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To a limited degree, but encyclopedia's always try to minimise this for reasons that should be obvious, but I'm not sure they are for you. An encyclopedia is essentially a summary of knowledge. Summaries always lose something, but we do at least try to include references so that the material can be checked and further investigated, and corrected; without those references the wikipedia cannot improve.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 00:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ben, our job here is to summarize fairly, in our own words, what reliable sources are saying about a subject. If necessary, we add pertinent quotes. What is 'fair', as far as content and weight, is up to all of us to decide by common sense and consensus. This is what WP is all about. Crum375 (talk) 00:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crum375, that is a good way to put it. I think what is important to understand is that a fact is verifiable. Fact is the same as verity; the two are synonyms. A fact can be proven and will be listed in reliable sources. If a fact is somehow wrong, which, due to misprints and misunderstandings, they often are, multiple sources can be used to verify its accuracy.

A point of view is the same as an opinion. The two are synonyms; directly interchangeable in a sentence. A point of view can be verified only in that it exists, and this is done by attributing it to the point from which it came (a direct quote, or So-and-so said..., not just an inline citation which could make it look like a fact). Where there is an opinion there is usually an opposing one, so neutral POV is about providing all opinions that are notable (significant) in an unbiased tone and an even amount of coverage. There is no such thing as a wrong opinion.

The hard part is often telling a fact from an opinion. They teach us in journalism that all inquisitive questions can be boiled down to these seven: What, where, when, who, how, why, and do/does. The way to tell a fact from an opinion is to ask what question it is answering. If it answers the first five, then it is either a fact or a mistake. If it answers the last two, why or do/does, then it is an opinion. Zaereth (talk) 01:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zaereth, we are not journalists here. Our job is not to find out what happened or why (from primary sources or eye witnesses), or any of those points you mention. Our job is to summarize what reliable sources have published about a subject, and present it in a fair and balanced way. We don't distinguish 'facts' from 'opinions'. All we care about is that reliable source X said A, and Y said B, and we summarize what they said per above. We try to rely mostly on secondary sources, to help us get a good overview. Crum375 (talk) 01:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, I disagree. True, we are not journalists, (I am not a journalist either), but anyone who's ever worked for a real encyclopedia knows that one is written in a journalistic format, and such training is generally a prerequisite for hire. The point is, if talking about POV, you're really talking about opinion. If talking about verifiablility, you're really talking about fact. To not define them and distinguish between them is simply ludicous to me, which is why Wikipedia should never be used a reliable source.

That is my opinion, and I will leave you with it in hopes that the quality of Wikipedia can be improved. I dislike arguments, so I'm going to go back to boosting the quality of technical and scientific articles, where such distinctions never come up as an issue. Zaereth (talk) 16:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zaereth, I dislike arguments too; I am only responding to your points. You are absolutely correct that Wikipedia should not be used as a reliable source for anything. It is written by unknown people, with unknown credentials and unknown motivations. At best, it should be used as a source for a general overview and further reading and research on a given topic, based on the provided references. More specifically, I think you have a confusion about the meaning of 'verifiability' on Wikipedia. For us, this means that the statement we make in the article can be verified by our readers to have been made by a published reliable source. Not that the underlying fact or opinion is 'correct' or has any merit. Thus we don't distinguish between 'facts' or 'opinions' or 'beliefs', we simply report that X said A and Y said B, per reliable publications. Unlike journalists, we do not seek the 'truth'; our goal is to summarize what reliable sources have published about a subject, and present that information in a neutral manner. Crum375 (talk) 18:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. For the most part, I agree with everything you're saying, except for one. Facts should be double checked for accuracy, even the facts about an opinion. Zaereth (talk) 19:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, we need to verify that the published sources in fact say exactly what we say they say. We also need to find the highest quality sources available. Crum375 (talk) 23:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great, it's nice to be on the same page. I like your idea about using the highest quality sources. Through my own research, I've often found that a university study is usually better than a book, which are always better than periodicals. But everyone makes mistakes. I guess what I meant, by example, is that if source X says Colombus sailed the ocean blue in 1942, we might have reason to question that date, (when), and find a few more sources to validate it, (or find out how he avoided all those German subs.) Zaereth (talk) 00:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We certainly need to vet our sources, and compare them against each other. If we suspect a typo, like your example, we need to find another source that confirms our suspicion. If there is a typo in an original quote, we may add a 'sic'. But we can't just modify or 'correct' information on our own, as it would constitute OR. All this has little to do with this page, which focuses on neutrality. Crum375 (talk) 00:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

blah blah blah original research blah blah....

"What is 'fair', as far as content and weight, is up to all of us to decide by common sense and consensus." No really? EVERYTHING THAT GOES IN THE ARTICLE is up to all of us to decide by common sense and consensus. Yes we cite as much as we can so you can stop saying "blah blah blah....reliable sources....blah blah blah....verifiable....blah blah. That is not the issue.

Our job is to determine what is fact and what is opinion. What is true and what isn't. What defines the topic and what doesn't. What is relevant and what is not relevant. It is not complicated. Define and describe. Yes it would be nice if there were some gigantic encyclopedia that we could just copy and cite, but there isn't. We have to determine how best to define the subject ourselves. That means sometimes we have to say that some of the ORIGINAL content on our page is fact. And sometimes we have to say that it is opinion. No outside source can do this for us.

What NPOV does is tell us that when we find opinion we have to attribute it and present it proportionately. Fine. What I am saying is that Fact takes precedence. Can you please address this issue and not start with the blah blah blah verifiable blah blah again?

Furthermore, Crum & Wolf I suggest reading the section I am referring to. Read how it defines opinions and facts. The definitions you are basing your arguments on is actually only a trend, the definitions in the section are quite different.

Bensaccount (talk) 02:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, if there were some "giant encylopedia" we couldn't just copy it down. That would be plagiarism. We find information in sources and we write it down in our own words. The writing must be original but the information accurate, as portrayed in the reliable source. We can not omit information we do not like, nor can we rearrange the context to achieve an unintended meaning.

We have to decide what goes in by means of notability. (ie: Does the subject or topic have significant coverage? Is the opinion a widely held belief?) I also believe that policy should state that information needs to provide further knowledge of the subject.

I have read your essay, and disagree. An editor can not decide which fact is true. A fact is either correct or it is not. If multiple reliable sources comfirm that another source got its fact wrong, its sort of a majority rules case, with the exception that some sources are obviously more reliable than others, (you get a sort of "grapevine" of information effect).

Opinions, on the other hand, are different. There are no wrong opinions, so they all must be treated equally. In this case, what is truth to you may not be truth to me, so both truths must be represented fairly. The exception to this case, once again, is notability. The way to properly represent it is to display the facts about it, as in what is it about, where did it come from, when did it originate, and who came up with it? These questions look for fact, and can be answered by the evidence. We do not seek this evidence ourselves, for others who are more qualified have already done that. We simply find it in reliable sources, and build this giant encyclopedia which you are looking for, from the ground up.

What is important is that Neutral point of view, (which could be renamed Neutral opinion and still have the same meaning), Verifiability (factualty), Reliable sourcing (expert testimony), and Notability (does anyone care) all go hand in hand. It's really very basic stuff, and I believe, with a little effort, all of wikipedia policy could be condensed down to one or two pages, simplifying things for so many users, new and old alike. Zaereth (talk) 19:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is quite a bunch of scattered ideas. Your main concern seems to be that you, as an editor, can not decide which fact is true. If this is the case, I think you should not be editing. Can you imagine an encyclopedia written by someone who makes no effort to decide how relevant the content of the articles are to the topic? How much truth they convey about the subject? It would just be a random jumble of scattered thoughts, none with any specific pertinence to the title of the page. (kind of like your above rant). And don't start with the notability blah blah again. In deciding what highly notable, well cited, verifiable, non-original, super-reliable opinion to include you STILL HAVE TO DECIDE WHETHER IT CONVEYS SOME TRUTH ABOUT THE TOPIC.Bensaccount (talk) 21:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to examine any article I have edited. Start with the laser pumping article, and see if it has improved with proper sourcing versus the original research provided previously. Zaereth (talk) 21:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was using you as a hypothetical example. I am not going to that article because I am sure that you improved it. The point is that to improve it you had to decide that the sources you added conveyed some truth about laser pumping. You also decided that the previous content was opinion. Bensaccount (talk) 21:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, other editors who also have expertize in the field helped me to pick out what was incorrect and make it factual. If there was an opinion, I did not touch it. Zaereth (talk) 22:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever made the edits had to decide that the sources added conveyed some truth about laser pumping. Bensaccount (talk) 22:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice if someone would learn about the current NPOV policy -- what it says, how it works and why it was written that way -- before trying to make a drastic change that defeats its entire point. User:Bensaccount, please do not make major changes to a policy without a clear, demonstrated overwhelming consensus of other editors to do so. What you are trying to do is like some guy off the street showing up and rewriting an entire chunk of official hospital procedures and expecting all the doctors and nurses to just do what you want. This is policy, and one of, if not THE, most important ones. You can't just make stuff up as you go, especially when it makes no sense. DreamGuy (talk) 15:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its not written in stone, its not life or death. Anyone can edit (policy or not). Be bold. Revert and discuss what you don't like. This method is what has shaped the policy as it currently stands. I know this because I have done so myself - Look at my contributions in the history.

What does not make sense? Bensaccount (talk) 16:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]