The project page associated with this discussion page is an official policy on Wikipedia. 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.

The spoken word version of this page is part of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, an attempt to produce recordings of Wikipedia articles. To participate, visit the project page.

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.

tags

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.

— message used to warn of problems

The neutrality of this section is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.

— tags only a single section as disputed

This article has been nominated to be checked for its neutrality. Discussion of this nomination can be found on the talk page.

— message used to mark articles that may be biased. (

This article has been nominated to be checked for its neutrality. Discussion of this nomination can be found on the talk page.

may be used for short)

The neutrality of this article's title and/or subject matter is disputed. This is a dispute over the neutrality of viewpoints implied by the title, or the subject matter within its scope, rather than the actual facts stated. Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page.

— when the article's title is questionable

1. ^{neutrality disputed} — when only one sentence is questionable

This article or section has multiple issues. Please help improve the article or discuss these issues on the talk page.

— When an article or section fails to abide by multiple Wikipedia content policies

Undue Weight Criteria

Concerns about Undue Weight have been raised in the article about trophy taking during World war II. American mutilation of Japanese war dead A free downloadable scholarly paper on the topic is available here. Now despite the topic being well known at the time, see for example Life Magazine Picture of the week May 22, 1944, it "appears" that many authors of WWII literature either don't know about it, or consider it unimportant, or prefer not to mention it for other reasons, such as for the protection of veterans image.

Another example of possibly similar downplaying is another uncomfortable topic: rape:

An estimated 10,000 Japanese women were eventually raped by American troops during the Okinawa campaign. H-Net review of The GI War against Japan: American Soldiers in Asia and the Pacific during World War II. According to Peter Schrijvers, rape was "a general practice against Japanese women".H-Net review of The GI War against Japan: American Soldiers in Asia and the Pacific during World War II According to a New York Times article from June 1, 2000 regarding the 1998 discovery of the corpses of 3 U.S. rapists killed by Okinawan villagers after repeated rape-visits by the group: "rape was so prevalent that most Okinawans over age 65 either know or have heard of a woman who was raped in the aftermath of the war." "3 Dead Marines and a Secret of Wartime Okinawa" New York Times, June 1, 2000

Okinawan historian Oshiro Masayasu (former director of the Okinawa Prefectural Historical Archives) writes based on several years of research:

Soon after the US marines landed, all the women of a village on Motobu Peninsula fell into the hands of American soldiers. At the time, there were only women, children and old people in the village, as all the young men had been mobilized for the war. Soon after landing, the marines "mopped up" the entire village, but found no signs of Japanese forces. Taking advantage of the situation, they started "hunting for women" in broad daylight and those who were hiding in the village or nearby air raid shelters were dragged out one after another.

Japan's Comfort Women: Sexual Slavery and Prostitution During World War II By Yuki Tanaka, Toshiyuki Tanaka, page 111

Especially the New York times article is interesting for trying to understand why so little is mentioned of such massive raping in "war books for western consumption".

An even better example is the fate of the book on the suppression of the book on U.S. troops rape in Europe. (Publisher book summary available here) It is a disgusting topic, and it is understandable that "greatest generation" authors such as Stephen Ambrose seem to have chosen to ignore it completely.

But.... It raises an interesting question. Since it is a topic that most writers seem to choose to ignore for whatever reason, does it mean "Undue Weight" to write about it, and how should "Undue Weight" policy be interpreted in relation to such topics?

I may be stretching it with this comparison, but nevertheless. Imagine Germany had won World War II. Perhaps not much would have been written in scholarly literature about the Holocaust in the U.S., for example due to political and economic pressure not to antagonize the German superpower. How would "undue weight" then apply to the Holocaust article?

Or take this example: American troops 'murdered Japanese PoWs'. There are a number of works from the last decades or so that have started facing up to this topic. But if you look at the full body of literature written since 1945 they probably are a distinct minority, with the others either blissfully unaware or deliberately avoiding the sensitive topic. Does that mean writing about it on Wiki can be considered Undue Weight?

I would be very much interested in knowing how Undue Weight policy relates to "suppressed" topics, perhaps the policy needs finetuning?--Stor stark7 ^Speak 03:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I've considered a similar problem with Burmyanmar, where the change in name to Myanmar has been alleged to be part of an ongoing campaign of revisionism. What happens when all official documents reflect a history that the outside world knows to be false? Do we report the "official" history along with the "real" history? Frankly, I'm not qualified to make that decision. We have to rely on historians for history the same way we rely on scientists for science. Mainstream history has an opinion on these events, and since we are simply gathering information and not passing judgment on it, we must report what mainstream history has to say. Victor's justice is a longstanding problem for history, and wikipedia cannot fix it. We can only report that some historians have suspected that mainstream accounts are tainted by that problem, and let people make their own decisions on what to believe. Somedumbyankee (talk) 03:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Intesting, but isn't my question here not so much about contradicting statements from different scholars, but more about about some sources saying something that other sources says little or nothing at all about. I.e. not one opinion against another, but more a recently developed "new opinion" versus a possible larger accumulated body of "no opinion"?--Stor stark7 ^Speak 03:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

This topic is discussed in scholarly books on the experiances of Allied servicement in the Pacific published over the last 20 years: it's just not accorded much space, presumably as the relevant professional historians consider it not to have been all that commonplace. There seem to be only two scholarly papers on this topic which in turn heavily draw on the handful of pages in professional historians investigations of combat experiances in the Pacific War. It's not correct to state that historians have only started to write about the killings of Japanese POWs in the last decade - this has been discussed in histories for several decades, and was even included in the Australian official histories of the war which were written during the 1950s and 60s. Again, given that few Japanese ever tried to surrender prior to August 1945 (which is proven in countless histories of the war and attributed to the Japanese military's attitude towards surrender), it's not a major part of the war. Nick Dowling (talk) 07:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I presume you are here referring to the topic of mutilation of the dead and not the topic of mass rapes, or the policy of killing surrendering Japanese.

I think we should make it very clear that we represent two very different standpoints on the mutilation issue here. Ever since I started that article you seem to have been very antagonistic against it. And you have also made a number of very strange claims, such as ""In 1984 Japanese soldiers remains were repatriated from the Mariana Islands. Roughly 60 percent were missing their skulls" (cited, but there's no context given for this - why were the bodies being returned 40 years after the war? How many bodies were returned? Was this an example of the Japanese military custom of returning a body part to Japan rather than the whole body?). My question here is, which alleged Japanese custom are you referring to exactly? A scholar doesnt seem to be aware of any such "practice "[1]Also: "Everything I've read suggests the opposite: on the only occasions during the Pacific War when US troops encountered Japanese civilians (mainly on Saipan and Okinawa) the civilians were treated fairly well. The US occupation troops in Japan after the war also generally behaved well, and seem to have actually behaved better than the troops on occupation duties in Western Europe." This doesn't sound very convincing considering the rapes, which you later acknowledged. As to the "topic discussions" in literature that you refer to, and do some presuming about: My position is that snippets of information here and there, and the conclusions the individual authors draw based on their limited horizon, are woefully inferior to the conclusions drawn by scholars in peer reviewed journals who draw on all that information and much much more, to paint a complete and comprehensive picture. Given that we only know of 2 such articles, but that means little since we are hardly topic experts and how many on topic scholarly journals do we actually need?

As to the common practice of killing surrendering Japanese i wish to strongly challenge both your assumptions. It may have been mentioned here and there in the past, but certainly not that it was common practice, such as here[2]. You state the following: "Again, given that few Japanese ever tried to surrender prior to August 1945 (which is proven in countless histories of the war and attributed to the Japanese military's attitude towards surrender), it's not a major part of the war." I guess this comes from your exhaustive experience with the literature. May I direct you to some sources collected here:

Allied_war_crimes_during_World_War_II#The_Pacific "Dower states that in "many instances ... Japanese who did become prisoners were killed on the spot or en route to prison compounds."[36] According to Aldrich it was common practice for US troops not to take prisoners.[42] This analysis is supported by British historian Niall Fergusson,[43] who also says that, in 1943, "a secret [U. S.] intelligence report noted that only the promise of ice cream and three days leave would ... induce American troops not to kill surrendering Japanese."[44]"Fergusson suggests that "it was not only the fear of disciplinary action or of dishonor that deterred German and Japanese soldiers from surrendering. More important for most soldiers was the perception that prisoners would be killed by the enemy anyway, and so one might as well fight on. U. S. historian James J. Weingartner attributes the very low number of Japanese in U.S. POW compounds to two important factors, a Japanese reluctance to surrender and a widespread American "conviction that the Japanese were "animals" or "subhuman'" and unworthy of the normal treatment accorded to POWs.[48] The latter reason is supported by Fergusson, who says that "Allied troops often saw the Japanese in the same way that Germans regarded Russians [sic] — as Untermenschen."[49]" It would seem that a very important factor for Japanese reluctance to surrender to the Allied troops was their tendency to get massacred if they were dumb enough to try it. Hell, there is even colour movie footage of massacres and mutilations[3]. Lets quote Harrison: Hoyt (1986: 391) argues that what he calls the ‘unthinking’ practice of taking home bones as souvenirs was exploited so effectively by Japanese government propaganda that it contributed to a preference for death over surrender and occupation, shown, for example, in the mass civilian suicides on Saipan and Okinawa after the Allied landings." I do believe all these topics deserve much attention, and statements such as "it's not a major part of the war" only reflect a very biased literature selection. To return to your first sentence "This topic is discussed in scholarly books on the experiances of Allied servicement in the Pacific published over the last 20 years: it's just not accorded much space, presumably as the relevant professional historians consider it not to have been all that commonplace." I think we only need look at the topic of rapes in Europe to get some nuance on that.[4].[5]

"'Lilly reveals a different side to the myth of the wholesome GI of World War II. This is a well-researched and courageous attempt to throw some light on an ugly underbelly that has remained unexamined for far too long. His harrowing descriptions of numerous rapes from official records make Taken By Force an uncomfortable read. Nevertheless, this is an important book, and one that deserves a far wider readership than just those with a scholarly interest.' - Lucy Popescu, Tribune"

How much space has this topic been given in the past? What conclusion can we draw from the silence by other authors? That it was unimportant, that someone is lying through their teeth, or that certain historians have had an ugly tendency to underplay or ignore certain aspects of war?--Stor stark7 ^Speak 15:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

What is the point of a neutral point of view?

Is this political correctness? It extends to discussions as well as articles right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.4.239 (talk) 02:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

neutral point of view, as I understand it, primarily refers things that affect article content. talk page discussions should adhere to wp:civility, and the hope is that civil discussion on the talk pages will produce neutral perspectives in article content.

neutrality is not political correctness (which as I understand it simply avoids anything that might offend anyone); neutrality means that we are trying to present a view on the subject that either lacks a particular perspective, or offers all of the major perspectives without giving any undo preference to any of them. it's actually very difficult to achieve neutrality because none of us can really claim to be neutral, and there's no real objective guideline for when something is neutral, and sometimes neutrality means that a perspective some people find offensive has to be given. --Ludwigs2 20:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

talk pages should be PC; articles should have NPOV and be PC (when possible). Keep in mind, both are subjective topics and the ability of humans to strictly adhere to either is a matter of philosophical discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.220.172.236 (talk) 12:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, talk pages must be civil but political correctness has no place whatsoever in the encyclopedia (other than as the subject of the aforementioned article of course). Political correctness chills discussion, which is the very antithesis of what a talk page is all about. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 21:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

So I take it it's OK to start arguments in the discussion of any given article? (civily of course). (Original poser of the question what is the point of a NPOV). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.53.83 (talk) 04:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The point of NPOV is so that an article doesn't become unduly biased. Print encyclopaedias often are not neutral - two good examples being early Encyclopaedia Britannica which had things from an English view point (favourable to english exploits etc) and more recently: the Encyclopedia of World Biography which landed George Bush in trouble after he labelled Silvio Berlusconi a "political amateur known for corruption and vice"see here. Wikipedia is accessible throughout the world and should look not to unduly favour anything but the most accepted point of view, giving lesser priority to more minor views. Also, libellous or dubious claims should not be given any space on a wikipedia article. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 05:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Terrible sentence?

Anyone agree that the following is a terrible sentence?

• "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."

-qp10qp (talk) 10:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

"radiate" isn't really lent to facts, opinions or stances.

well, terrible might be a bit strong, but it isn't great.  :-) let me see if I can fix it; I wanted to clarify something in that section anyway. --Ludwigs2 20:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Headings

What excatly is the policy of NPOV in headings?

My question comes about how band articles have History sections that a divided in ways such as: ===Mainstream success: 1992–1994===. First, isn't the heading somewhat ambiguous? What is the section talking about, the span of years, or mainstream success? Second, wouldn't it be POV if you had to mention both? I mean mainstream success is subjective, and then, there are no papers that can be cited where a historian has published that the years from 1992-1994 is the Mainstream success era for the smashing pumpkins. Where as History sections such as in United States can have the the Gilded age era because historians have written published work in peer-reviewed journals, the Mainstream success era DO NOT have historians that have written published work in peer-reviewed journals, where we have another problem, wp:or. Yet we have another problem, wp:notability, since it can't be cited, it can't be included. Years are objective, why Mainstream success, and other unnecessary discriptors, mind you, are subjective.68.148.164.166 (talk) 07:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I haven't seen the article your example is taken from (if it's from an actual Wiki article), so I can't decide how appropriate the heading is for the content of the section in question. The heading in your example is not ambiguous. It conveys quite clearly that the section is about the history of the band between 1992 and 1994, and that the band enjoyed mainstream success during that period.

The purpose of headings is to allow the reader to get a quick idea of the content of different sections, and to help provide the reader a mental map of the article. It is not intended to provide details. A heading like "Mainstream success: 1992–1994" contains some degree of vagueness and subjectivity, but that's not necessarily a problem. Most people have similar ideas about what mainstream success is, but they don't have the same threshold-criteria for when a band has achieved mainstream success. It would be counter-productive to try to redefine "mainstream success" in terms of clear-cut criteria, as such a definition would correspond less well with how people actually understand the words.

Presumably, if a band achieved "mainstream success" during a certain period, the article section will contain details of their achievements, e.g. sales of recordings & concert tickets, chart rankings, awards, etc. It is perfect acceptable to leave it to the readers to get such details from reading the text, and not just the heading, of the section.

--71.162.249.44 (talk) 11:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with you because that just subjective. I has been raised that success can never be measured. In any case, this is just one case, just an excample. But still, wouldn't it be better to just list the years?68.148.164.166 (talk) 12:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

fairness of tone revision

I recently revised the 'fairness of tone' section to read as follows:

Article tone can affect neutrality, sometimes in drastic ways, even where the article is otherwise unobjectionable. Many articles end up as partisan commentary even while presenting both points of view. Word choice in individual phrases can change the meaning of otherwise factual statements to imply endorsement or condemnation of the topic as a whole, and the particular arrangement and distribution of statements throughout the article can suggest or imply conclusions, creating an implicit and improper synthesis. In general, editors should consider the following:

Necessary and sufficient sourcing

References in an article should be sufficient to establish a point, but not excessive. An over-abundance of references (even properly sourced references) adds little of factual value to the article, but can bias the topic through sheer numerical weight.

Strength of statements

The strength of a statement can be a source of bias. In general, weak statements are preferable to strong statements - i.e. He dislikes... would be better than he hates... or he abhors... - because strong statements add an emotional charge that can influence the reader. However, overly-weak statements can also impose bias. For instance, referring to anti-semitism as a "dislike of Jews" does not capture the proper sense of the term.

Precedence, order, and repetition

In general, people remember most clearly the last thing said and the first thing said (see serial position effect), statements that appear as stark contrasts (see Von Restorff effect), and statements that are frequently repeated. Placing important points in the middle of an article effectively discounts them; placing secondary points high in the article effectively magnifies them. Further, placing contrasting ideas close to each other in an article can magnify the importance of each, which may be useful or may be inappropriate.

Structural issues

In general, Wikipedia articles should be structured into appropriate topical sections for easy navigation and reading, and the comments above should apply to sections as a whole, as well as to statements. In particular, creating sections that contain oppositional viewpoints can sometimes magnify one or another viewpoint. See criticism sections for more details.

Articles in Wikipedia should maintain in tone that all positions presented are worthy of unbiased and respectful representation (see wp:weight and wp:notability for information on when views should not be presented on Wikipedia at all).

it was (of course) immediately reverted, as are most of my posts on wikipedia <sigh...> :-) so I'm posting it here for comment and revision. the improvements this version represents are as follows:

1. it's far more developed than the current version
2. it avoids the current versions overlap with wp:weight and keeps focussed on topic
3. it spells out particular issues that might arise in editing, and how to deal with them

comments and revisions, please? --Ludwigs2 23:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Ludwigs, you have no support. Your recent revision actually deleted long-standing policy regarding giving weight to fringe issues. Notice how no one is giving support here. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Orange, it's fairly clear that you don't like me, and that you base your responses to me more on the fact that you don't like me, and less on the question at hand. therefore, I really can't take any of your comments or actions seriously. You can continue to do and say what you like, of course, but - again - it's all just meaningless expressions of bile.

I may have to make a template of that phrase; I'm getting tired of typing it at you. lol --Ludwigs2 01:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't care about you one way or another--in other words, I have no emotional interest in you. However, your edits are troublesome. You have been reverted three times for the same thing. You have 0, zero, no support for a change, let alone consensus. By the way, three different editors of some stature have reverted your rather POV edits. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

for someone who has no emotional interest in me, you do seem to spend a lot of time berating me...  ;-) regardless, I will continue to pursue what I think is correct in this matter, and hope that (somewhere along the line) I can discuss the matter with someone in neutral terms. --Ludwigs2 03:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I actually don't care about you, I care about the project and NPOV is a core ideal. Weaken it, and you may as well shut this place down. Changes to NPOV require significant discussion and consensus. What you are doing contains neither. You happen to be doing things in articles that matter to this project. So, again, your edits are what matter to me. You...I really don't care. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Everyone please take it easy. Ludwigs2, this isn't going to get sorted out at 0400 UTC. I think if you start a new thread, tomorrow, about the one thing you want to improve/refine about the NPOV policy, here on the talk page, you might have the more neutral discussion you're looking for. Please do discuss things here before editing the policy page, given how much you seem to feel the policy needs to be shifted. Darkspots (talk) 04:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Darkspots. probably a matter of my worldview, but I didn't think my changes were all that extreme.  :-) plus, OrangeMarlin and I obviously have personal issues that need to be resolved (any help anyone can provide on that would be gratefully accepted). I'll come back at it tomorrow, as you suggest. --Ludwigs2 04:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

suggested changes to 'fairness of tone' section

here are the changes I'd like to make to the fairness of tone section, with explanations of why I think they are useful. I've put each in its own subsection for ease; subsections are in no particular order... --Ludwigs2 18:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

added line to first paragraph

I'd like to add a phrase such as this -"Word choice in individual phrases can change the meaning of otherwise factual statements to imply endorsement or condemnation of the topic as a whole, and the particular arrangement and distribution of statements throughout the article can suggest or imply conclusions, creating an implicit and improper synthesis." - to the first paragraph. this is a non-problematical (though possibly unnecessary) explanation of what tone is and how it can affect the sense of an article. I'm not too worried about the particular phrasing or sense, so even significant changes are welcome; I see this more as set-up to differentiate tone from more concrete characteristics of an article. --Ludwigs2 18:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

describing tone issues

this is a list of general issues that can affect tone. again, this is mostly non-problematical; it's the kind of thing I instruct students on as a normal facet of decent writing. Im not sure that the list is exhaustive of good writing points, but it's a start. the second and third statements shouldn't generate many objections (they seem pretty straight-forward); the first might stir up some issues with a particular cadre of editors who are accustomed to over-sourcing criticisms into articles. that will probably require some debate.

Necessary and sufficient sourcing

References in an article should be sufficient to establish a point, but not excessive. An over-abundance of references (even properly sourced references) adds little of factual value to the article, but can bias the topic through sheer numerical weight.

Strength of statements

The strength of a statement can be a source of bias. In general, weak statements are preferable to strong statements - i.e. He dislikes... would be better than he hates... or he abhors... - because strong statements add an emotional charge that can influence the reader. However, overly-weak statements can also impose bias. For instance, referring to anti-semitism as a "dislike of Jews" does not capture the proper sense of the term.

Precedence, order, and repetition

In general, people remember most clearly the last thing said and the first thing said (see serial position effect), statements that appear as stark contrasts (see Von Restorff effect), and statements that are frequently repeated. Placing important points in the middle of an article effectively discounts them; placing secondary points high in the article effectively magnifies them. Further, placing contrasting ideas close to each other in an article can magnify the importance of each, which may be useful or may be inappropriate.

these same issues should really apply to sections as well to sentences (that was originally a fourth point, but there are probably better ways to say it) --Ludwigs2 18:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

With regards to point 1. You're trying to invent a situation that's rare. And sometimes, it requires numerous references to make a complicated point. With regards to point 2, who's to decide what's strong and weak. That's highly subjective. 3. Maybe, maybe not. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

actually, I don't think 1 is rare at all, but regardless, the 'necessary and sufficient' thing strikes me as a good guideline. I can understand your concern, I think - you don't want a restriction that limits sourcing - but that would be covered by the 'necessary' side of the phrase. 2 and 3 are actually well documented points in psychology, and they are meant to be subjective guidelines rather than concrete rules. basically, these were intended to give people a way of talking about tonal balance in an article (as sufficient, as strong or weak, as precedence) rather than specifying exactly how they should be handled. --Ludwigs2 01:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

"Overciting" has some downsides just from a style standpoint. Spamming a claim with twenty cites makes the writer look desperate to prove a point, which isn't very encyclopedic. "Quality, not quantity" is the obvious maxim. I don't know that it's really an NPOV problem, it's more of a style issue.

The question of order is a natural one and it's definitely something that I've run into, such as POV warriors trying to bury a mainstream argument (q.v. the MCS article). More of a question of WP:WEIGHT in that case, though. SDY (talk) 02:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

respect

the first line of the (current) last paragraph should read "We should write articles with the tone that all positions presented are at least worthy of unbiased and respectful representation" (emphasis mine, to highlight addition). I have been coming to the conclusion that one of the major issues on wikipedia is that editors get so tangled up in defending, exploring, and/or attacking the effectiveness, facticity, honesty, practicality, or etc of a subject that they forget that the topic needs to be respected, first and foremost, as a topic of knowledge. honestly, if I have an agenda, it's this - I'd like to encourage editors to spend less effort trying to construct a neutral evaluation of a topic, and more effort trying to construct a neutral description. 'Respect' is the best way I can think of to snip off that evaluative urge. --Ludwigs2 18:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

All positions? No, positions that are fringe, or give weight to fringe, shouldn't be included. Sorry. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

you know I have to say, I'm having the hardest time understanding this perspective. maybe it's because I'm an academic, but it seems to me that knowledge is just knowledge, and it should be respected as knowledge. so I can easily understand you not liking fringe theories - that makes sense to me - but I can't understand why you seem to be against knowledge about fringe theories. if you could explain that to me it would go a long way towards helping me understand why you take the positions you do (because most of the time that eludes me). --Ludwigs2 01:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that the term "respect" is a dangerous one to use, because I think it will likely do more harm than good. I see a significant difference between minority scientific theories in the mainstream, such as the scientific papers on the theories and experiments on cold fusion as opposed to minority theories that have little or no scientific support, but lots of adherents, such as astrology. I am concerned that adding the term "respect" will be usable by wikilawyers as a crowbar to cause more disputes than it resolves. As a cultural phenomenon astrology is significant; as a scientific method of predicting world events, or personal events, it would have no value from an objective scientific viewpoint. I think the word "sensitive"

in the first sentence, which reads "we should present competing views with a consistently fair and sensitive tone" is sufficient. If the competing views were personified, we would expect them to have a civil discourse, just as we are having here. Also, there is the statement "all views presented" ... presented by whom, advocating what, and with what level of mainstream recognition in that area? That seems to imply all views, no matter how small the minority and in scientific fields, how little evidence supports their viewpoint, should be given recognition. I don't think I agree with that... not for a concise encyclopedia article, sorryHatlessAtless (talk) 13:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE would obviously still apply. The article would only treat it with a respectful tone if it actually mentions it. "Dispassionate", the SA/MC version's word, is actually a very good choice. "Sensitive" seems to run contrary to WP:SPADE and seems, in my mind, to endorse flowery and misleading language. The "nutshell" version of this section seems to be "the article should not be actively insulting to a reasonable reader who holds a minority opinion." SDY (talk) 14:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

delete last sentence

the last sentence of the current 'fairness of tone' revision reads "This does not, however, mean that all views should get equal space, nor that they should be presented as equal: Minority views should not be presented as equally accepted as the majority view, for instance, and views in the extreme minority do not belong in Wikipedia at all." while I don't object to the idea in itself, it does not belong in the tone section, because it has nothing directly to do with tone. it's merely a carry-over from wp:weight, where it is already thoroughly described. I'd have no objection to replacing it with something like "Article tone should be considered when assessing undo weight issues." --Ludwigs2 18:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Is there some reason why you're edit-warring to try to force these changes, which clearly lack consensus, into a fundamental Wikipedia policy? The proposed changes are overly prescriptive. They weaken WP:WEIGHT, which is the most-often-ignored policy snippet on Wikipedia. Not all positions are deserving of "respectful" presentation; if all available reliable sources treat a topic as undeserving of respect, then Wikipedia needs to go where the sources go. The bar for significant alterations to a fundamental policy like NPOV is, or at least should be, quite high. Less really is more here. I don't see these as significant improvements to the policy, even if there wasn't a distasteful overlay of edit-warring around them. MastCell ^Talk 04:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

is there some reason why you're resorting to massive hyperbole?

I don't disagree with you about wp:weight - it's an excellent policy. however, I think WEIGHT does an excellent job of saying what WEIGHT intends to say, and I see no reason to make an assortment of other policies duplicate what WEIGHT has to say. in fact, that's confusing, and that's pretty much why I replaced the repetition of WP:WEIGHT's statements with an actual link to WP:WEIGHT. if you think WEIGHT is under-appreciated, then the appropriate place to address that is in article content and talk pages, not by duplicating the content of the policy through other policies like a virus...

look, MastCell, I've given up on ever having a reasonable conversation with OrangeMarlin, but I have had reasonable conversations with you, and even though our positions are very different on some points I still feel like we can work together. maybe not on everything, but still... please don't read unnecessary agendas into my actions. I'm very up front about my agendas (as you can see from some of the other changes I suggested above); this just struck me as an appropriate kind of cleanup. you can still object to it on those grounds, mind you. but don't go bouncing off the walls about it. --Ludwigs2 05:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Not that MastCell needs me to defend him, but I didn't see the hyperbole; I saw succinct explanations of why he did not support your proposals. Mine is even more succinct (but with substantially less explanatory value), below. Antelan^talk 05:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

oh, the hyperbole was with respect to the 'edit-warring' comment only, which was completely unwarranted. no biggie, though. --Ludwigs2 18:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Solutions in search of a problem

These are solutions in search of a problem. I don't have much more to offer; I just don't think that the suggested changes are as good as the current version. Antelan^talk 04:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

not even the descriptions? those struck me as eminently reasonable... --Ludwigs2 05:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Those might be just fine for the Manual of Style. In fact, a couple of them, more or less, might already be there. Antelan^talk 05:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I hadn't even thought of that. maybe I'll go and edit them in over there where they might be more appropriate. thanks!  :-) --Ludwigs2 18:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Removing a sentence

I am inclined to remove the sentence about undue weight applying to more than viewpoints. I recognize what the sentence is trying to do, but there's a fundamental problem with putting this, which is basically a copy-editing and style guideline, in our most fundamental content policy. There are other issues with appropriate weighting that need to be considered in articles beyond weighing of viewpoints, but this policy is about the neutral point of view, and should not instruction creep out to handle all cases of article parts not being of appropriate length. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up - I just realized what this line is supposed to be doing, which is that it's the line we use to keep a BLP from having every little scandal or negative thing that happened to someone included. I still think this line could use a clarification - what we're dealing with here is a sort of implicit viewpoint, not just the vague statement that "all facts should be appropriately balanced in weight," which, while not untrue, isn't really a NPOV issue as such. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

interesting - I hadn't thought of that use (though it makes sense). I'd always viewed that section as a way of keeping an article from being swamped by extended explanations of minor tangents. but you're right, I think; this section (and other parts of the NPOV policy) could use some clarification. what do you think would work for clarifying it?

by the way, thanks for pointing out that particular passage - on a closer reading, that will prove useful in some arguments I'm having elsewhere...  :-) --Ludwigs2 18:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the important hedge here is to switch to a readerly perspective. That is, what we're trying to take care of here is not just the weighing of things that are explicitly viewpoints, but also the weighing of the overall impression the reader will have of the subject. So what we need to do, essentially, is imagine the reader of the article and make sure that this imagined reader isn't going to get a misleading impression of what is important about the topic. A phrasing along this line would, I think, go a long way both towards fixing the odd phrasing and towards strengthening the overall policy. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

We could shove the parts pertaining to the relevant documents back to their originating documents? They only serve to lengthen this document, IMHO. (shorter is always better :-) ). That, and by having the undue weight information *here* we also get several situations where people fight much harder about where NPOV lies than they really have to (because they end up conflating the issues). Does that cover your concerns? --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Kim, can you be more specific? I don't know what you mean by "parts pertaining to the relevant documents...".

Phil - would something like this work? Undue weight applies to more than just the balance of viewpoints presented in the article; it means that the article should appear fair and balanced in the overall impression of an uninvolved reader.--Ludwigs2 23:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Things to do with BLP should only be listed under BLP, things to do with weight should only be listed under WEIGHT, and thus if you do that everywhere, pages in general will be shorter. All else being equal, Shorter==better ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

oh, man, I couldn't agree with you more. every time I make suggestions that way, though, people get upset. don't ask me why - I'm a fan of an ordered world.  :-) --Ludwigs2 01:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Rather than the proposed text ("it means that the article should appear fair and balanced in the overall impression of an uninvolved reader"), I would suggest the following: It means that an uninvolved reader should come away from the article with an accurate understanding of knowledge on the subject. "Fair and balanced" (aside from its association with Fox News) is not necessarily the best formulation here. One could argue (in fact, a lengthy succession of accounts has argued) that the AIDS denialism article is not "fair and balanced" because it describes AIDS denialism as a scientifically discredited fringe view. The article may not be "balanced" - it does not treat AIDS denialists and the scientific community as if they were on an equal footing - but it does provide the reader with an accurate understanding of the state of human knowledge in the field. MastCell ^Talk 22:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Fairness of tone wording

The "fairness of tone" section needed a going over. I have done so. See [6].

Explanation

1. Wording "fair and sensitive" replaced with "dispassionate". The problem is that what is "fair and sensitive" to some is not "fair and sensitive" to other. Neutrality is not sympathy. Wikipedia is not Wikinfo. We are charged with being as dispassionate as possible, but the most verifiable and reliably sourced prose is not necessarily "fair and sensitive" to those who are at pains to understand reality, for example. I also removed "Fairness of" from the section header.
2. "We should..." is very poor wording. Describe what the best practice is instead.
3. "all positions are at least worthy of unbiased representation" replaced with "provides an unbiased representation of all positions". The "at least worthy" is a meaningless platitude. We are charged with writing unbiased representations. Not with writing in tones that indicate "worthiness".

ScienceApologist (talk) 21:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

For the most part, these seem reasonable. I would suggest replacing "unbiased reprsentation of all positions" with "unbiased and proportionate representation of all positions", to sync with the undue-weight portion of the policy. Also, not all positions are worthy of presentation on Wikipedia; we should probably amend it to "all notable positions". I generally agree that we need to go where the reliable sources take us, and if reliable sources consistently disparage a topic, then we should not whitewash the content of those sources in an effort to be artifically "fair and sensitive". MastCell ^Talk 21:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't like the term "notable", though, because notability because that is a policy for articles and not necessarily prose in an article. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

fascinating that this this change comes after this discussion has been raised elsewhere. unfortunately I need to revert it pending further discussion. I don't find your changes to long-standing policy acceptable. let's discuss the matter. --Ludwigs2 21:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Uh... OK. Let's discuss it. Why don't you take a look at the above two posts and elaborate on why you don't find the changes acceptable? That would be a useful start. I see you proposed an alteration to this section about a week ago which did not receive support; is that what you're referring to as "fascinating"? MastCell ^Talk 21:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I've restored the original clause, there's no consensus in the community for the recent changes. Odd nature (talk) 22:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, but in order to generate consensus (or demonstrate its absence) we should probably have some more specific objections to the changes for discussion. MastCell ^Talk 22:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't realize that there was a reason for returning back. I did however make some additional changes. There was a lot of informal wording present in the previous version that I tried to eschew. Sorry for being bold!! ScienceApologist (talk) 22:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

We need to have an actual objection here. I'm giving this 48 hours. If I see no objections being made, I will reinstate the version MastCell & I worked on. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm very confused here. It reads like Ludwig's original proposal, which is too much into subjectiveness. I instinctively reverted back to your version, but after a second read, I'm not so sure. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

MastCell - I'll make my comments below. in the meantime, however, let's not be hasty in changing the wording until some consensus is reached (as you yourself recommended to me above). you and SA have made your points, and we'll discuss them, but policy needs stability.

ScienceAplogist, cool your jets. I'm not here 24/7, and there's no particular hurry about changing policy anyway. Impetuousness isn't going to get you anywhere.

to address your points, using the same numbers...

1. you seem to be forgetting that Wikipedia is based on consensus. "Dispassionate" is a term that refers to individuals: it means that someone is rational and uninfluenced by strong emotion when they act. the concept is just as subjective as "fair and sensitive", since clearly there is no objective measure of dispassion. however, it is much easier to abuse since it's completely ego-centric. all one has to do is say "I was being dispassionate, so your views don't matter" - a perfect rationalization for any offensive statement one would like to make (racists, for instance, are often very dispassionate in their discussions of the flaws of minorities). "Fair and sensitive", however, are social terms that require consensus. one cannot say "I was being fair and sensitive, so your views don't matter", because it would be apparent to everyone that such a statement contradicts the notion that one is being fair and sensitive at all. The only way to deal with an accusation of being unfair or insensitive is to communicate with whomever made the accusation and reach some form of consensus on the matter.
   • in short, "dispassionate" begins to undercut consensus debate, and leaves the door open for an assortment of procedural abuses; 'fair and sensitive' reinforces the consensual nature of editing.
2. This "should" thing is a minor point, I think, which we can resolve after we've dealt with the major issues. it is the nature of a policy to prescribe behavior, and so the word "should" is not entirely out of line, but as a matter of writing style it's not necessarily the best way to go about it. table this for now...
3. "at least worthy" can hardly be described as a 'meaningless platitude'. it brings in the notion (as I was discussing previously on this page) that all topics and positions should be treated with a modicum of respect, even when we need to present extensive criticism. this issue is already thoroughly discussed in Biographies of Living Persons, where sensitivity to and respect for the feelings and attitudes of the subject is enforceable - I think this line extends that same sensitivity and respect to all topics, and to the feelings and attitudes of readers who may have strong opinions on the subject. If anything, I'd like to see the role of worthiness and respect magnified in this passage, not eliminated.

--Ludwigs2 17:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

There are both legal and ethical reasons why "sensitivity" is much more relevant to BLP's than to articles on Ye Olde Minoritarian Belief. Again, I don't think we should be constrained by artificial demands of "sensitivity" or "respect" for a subject if the treatment of the subject in reliable, independent secondary sources is consistently disparaging. I see this wording as being prone to abuse; it could conceivably justify ignoring, toning down, or misrepresenting reliably sourced and relevant critical material on the basis of the "sensitivity" of an inanimate, intangible subject. "Dispassionate" is a better term than "fair and sensitive", because the latter suggests some degree of sympathy toward the subject, while "dispassionate" suggests that we merely follow where the reliable sources lead us. MastCell ^Talk 17:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

MastCell argues well against your Point 1. Point 2 is not an actionable objection. Point 3 is ridiculous. Not everything is worthy of respect. That's essentially not NPOV to insist that's the case. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts. First of all Ludwigs, it is not appropriate to lecture anyone about consensus. I agree with MastCell's view of Point 1. "Should" is fine, because there is not an absolute. Some fringe viewpoints deserve derision. Point 3 is similar to Point 2--not all minority viewpoints deserve respect, especially in face of massive sources against it. By the way, asking someone to "cool their jets" is highly inappropriate. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

well, I certainly didn't expect to convince the three of you on the first go-round, so none of these responses are surprising. however, OM, I do think a discussion of consensus decision making is both appropriate and relevant here. every consensus system has checks and balances, and 'fairness of tone' is an important check that shouldn't be altered lightly. the text itself says

Many articles end up as partisan commentary even while presenting both points of view. Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization.

this implies that verifiable and reliable sourcing are insufficient in themselves for establishing neutrality in an article, and that fairness of tone is a check to prevent a partisan perspective from being imposed through a careful selection and use of sourcing.

now, there's no doubt that fairness and sensitivity are more relevant to BLP, but that does not mean that they are not relevant to other articles. to MastCell's concerns: I don't see any way this clause could be used to remove or misrepresent properly sourced cites (no editor worth his salt would allow that), but it certainly would be used to tone down the way that wikipedia editors use such sources - that is its stated purpose. I don't see that you could actually have a problem with a fair and sensitive approach that was arrived at through consensus, and all this clause really ensures is that consensus needs to be found on that issue. this is not going to keep out cites that are disparaging to a topic; it's simply going to prevent editors from being disparaging in their use of such cites. and please keep in mind that we are not exactly talking about 'inanimate, intangible subjects.' Readers come to wikipedia every day who have opinions and beliefs about these subjects, and we have an obligation to respect their feelings as well. I don't want readers reading through our our articles and dismissing them as bully-fests, do you? and by the way, that's not my term - that's something someone said to me about an article here.

as to your collective view that some topics are unworthy of respect, well... that makes it perfectly clear that your attitude to some articles is not at all neutral. I can't help the fact that you personally may want to disparage some topic(s), but wikipedia is not an appropriate venue for you to do that. --Ludwigs2 19:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

What does a policy that is dealing with how the TONE of words in an article should be have to do with the consensus of editors? I fail to see any connection other than the fact that editors must agree to an appropriate tone. How this implies "fairness", "sensitivity", or "worthiness" is something that Ludwigs seems unable to address. A dispassionate tone is warranted in Wikipedia and certainly tone can cause an article to veer away from neutral, but there is no reason to think that Wikipedia is supposed to be "fair" or that it is supposed to be "sensitive" or that it should treat all subjects as though they were "worthy" of some sort of vague dignity standard. Moreover, BLP is a wholly different issue that is not mentioned in any of the versions of this section: if you are concerned about BLP then go hyuck it up at WT:BLP, but trying to make claims that BLP somehow must influence the word choice here seems suspect to me at best. We don't need to "respect" the feelings of anyone. I know plenty of people who are offended -- offended -- by the term "conspiracy theory" as we apply it here at Wikipedia. Tough cookies for them; we aren't here to write an encyclopedia that doesn't offend. This is a long-standing point and is even codified at WP:NOT#CENSORED. So I submit that Ludwigs2 is nearly entirely misguided here, I think his good faith contributions to the discussion need to be chalked up to someone who simply doesn't understand the core principles of Wikipedia are not accommodating the idiosyncratic beliefs and feelings of the masses but rather presenting reliable, verifiable, and dispassionate text about notable subjects. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

If you don't understand why all articles should be "fair" and why all "positions presented" should be considered "at least worthy" of "unbiased representation", then you are in the wrong place my friend. 208.89.211.168 (talk) 20:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not your friend. At least, I don't think I'm your friend. But "fairness" is an irrelevant point here. Neturality != fairness. All positions should be presented with an unbiased representation. Full stop. Whether they are "worthy" of this treatment is irrelevant. I'm not sure you are really in the position of telling me that I'm in the wrong place. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Alas, I see that you don't understand. 208.89.211.168 (talk) 20:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I most agree with ScienceApologist and Orangemarlin and think Ludwigs2appears to miss what consensus is about. Consensus is not about voting on what it true, or agreeing what is deserving, or what a majority of people in the world think. Our job here is to write a great encyclopedia. We get a consensus on what claims are made in the best sources we can find and report those - even if a majority of humans disagree. Majority opinion among the most informed is what we record and consensus is about agreeing what those claims are and what sources are the best. WAS 4.250 (talk) 20:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll go even further than this. It's not even the most informed. It's those who are perceived by the preponderance of reliable sources to be the most informed. I'm coming across this problem now at Talk:Cold fusion where the proponents for cold fusion believe that the critics are not the "most informed" and they, indeed, may have a point in the raw facts of the case since most critics of cold fusion don't bother to waste their time on the subject. Nevertheless, critics are given a high degree of consideration among independent evaluators as evinced by the 2004 DOE report on Cold Fusion which did not recommend funding any cold fusion research specifically but only on a case-by-case basis (which, for most cold fusion researchers, has been something of a dead end). So the most informed should probably be changed to something like the most reliable. But I'm being nitpicky. I essentially agree with what you are saying. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

unfortunately - SA and WAS - it appears that you either haven't read what I wrote, or you haven't understood it. in either case, you really haven't responded to it. you say: 'Consensus is not about voting on what it true, or agreeing what is deserving, or what a majority of people in the world think,' well... I never mentioned voting (don't know where that came from), and if consensus isn't about agreeing or about what other people think then what exactly do you think consensus is about? You seem to think (or at least you keep insisting) that I'm trying somehow to censor particular views from wikipedia, when in fact all that I'm doing is trying to promote a properly encyclopedic, detached, polite tone in articles, by maintaining that a 'fair and sensitive tone' be arrived at through consensus.

you really should read up on the notion of checks and balances...

and sorry, but the "tough cookies, we don't need to respect anyone, to hell with any perspectives we don't like" attitude you hold strikes me as an aberration from normal human civility and proper consensus. I really can't see any reason to implement it as policy. --Ludwigs2 21:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you now admit that consensus is a red herring. The issue boils down to this: Should we ask writers to strive for a fair and sensitive tone or should we ask writers to strive for a dispassionate tone? I submit that "fair and sensitive" is a subjective and misleading guidepost while dispassionate sums up the goal of NPOV better. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

hunh - you think consensus is a red herring? no son, not in the least... but your wording of the issue is wrong. I think it's a good idea for writers to strive for a dispassionate tone in any event (despite the fact that it's an entirely subjective state of mind...) - that can only help. but the real issue at hand is this: should dispassionate tone be the 'be-all-and-end-all' measure of neutrality, or should consensual agreements about fairness and sensitivity play a part? I submit that by trying to eliminate fairness and sensitivity, you are corrupting the basic wikipedian cornerstone of consensus editing.

and remember, the latter point is the current standard - you are asking to have considerations of fairness and sensitivity removed from long-standing policy, and you have not yet provided a particularly good reason why, except that you don't like it.

is it time we open an RfC on this yet? --Ludwigs2 21:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Your argument looks very weak. What makes "fair and sensitive" something that consensus can be built around but "dispassionate" something consensus cannot be built around? As far as I can tell, consensus applies just as much to striving for a dispassionate tone as any other tone we care to identify. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I (we?) have actually articulated a rationale for the change. You don't agree with the rationale, which is fine. Let's give it a day to let anyone else chime in; if we're still at an impasse, then sure, an RfC would be reasonable. MastCell ^Talk 22:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Please Ludwigs2, go right to the RfC. You might want to check first to see how often that route makes a change in policy. You have little or no support for these changes that you have proposed. You can't convince anyone of your viewpoint, so you're trying to force us to accept your POV by the casual threat of escalating the argument to another forum. It doesn't give you leverage, because an RfC really isn't going to get you the change you want. May I suggest that consensus works only when there's a common goal. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... Ludwigs2, you surprise me. When I said I thought you had a better chance of changing NPOV policy than significantly changing the tone of Intelligent Design, I didn't realize you had already started editing this page. Way to have all bases covered! In anycase, the "fair and sensitive tone" rhetoric seems to predate your involvement here, as far as I can tell, [7] so you probably do see yourself as defending or elaborating on the spirit of WP policy as you see it. However, fairness and sensitivity seem to me to mainly have to do with the way "reliable sources" are represented, rather than with what WP might say about something or anything at any given moment. While fairness and sensitivity in tone may be something to shoot for in prose, such considerations should take second place to the accurate and impartial representation of the most reliable information available. Amerique^dialectics 23:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

That's right. And what makes a source "reliable" for one thing may make it "unreliable" for something else. It is sometimes our jobs as editors to make that distinction apparent. That's hardly "fair and sensitive" of us. For example, when we report on the disparagement of Answers in Genesis we are hardly being "fair and sensitive". ScienceApologist (talk) 00:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I view it as a form of translation. Representing whatever the reliable sources say in a way that saves the sense or the sentiment and is appropriate for the encyclopedia per NPOV and other policy does involve some measure of "fairness and sensitivity," or perhaps a better term would be "discretion." As editors, we make choices about what info we represent from what sources, guided by our perceptions of how it would go towards an NPOV depiction in an article. The issue as I see it is how to neutrally represent reliably-sourced negative information. Because information is negative does not necessarily mean it is biased, and misconceptions over this I think go to the heart of the problems we are having. Amerique^dialectics 00:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Can we revert to a previous stable wording for this policy and protect it there while we have this little spat? Call me a fascist or a nazi or a policy wonk, but is it irrational to say that this page should be aggressively protected from edit wars when there was no consensus for any of these changes? SDY (talk) 01:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The version it's currently at is the closest prior version before this spat started. As I see it, Ludwigs2 started it with this edit on June 28th: [8]. After multiple editors revert him, SA started editing the contested policy yesterday: [9], and much confusion and a revert war breaks out with Ludwig reverting back to the version before he personally started editing this. No harm, no foul, I say; although I don't agree much with either contested version so far. On a second reading, SA's version does seem a definite improvement. Amerique^dialectics 02:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree - SA's version is far clearer, and avoids the all-too-easy misreadings of "fairness of tone" that violated other, long-accepted policy, such as WP:UNDUE, and WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I agree that the section needs work, but consensus first, then changes. SDY (talk) 02:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

So how do you suggest obtaining that consensus, when you would deny the normal consensus process by having the page protected? :-P I do think Ludwigs2 does seem to have a bit of a point. The current wording is open to interpretation where you could actually read it as saying the opposite of what NPOV is. Whether Ludwigs' wording fixes that perceived problem is a different matter, of course, but it's something we definitely ought to keep in mind, at the least. --Kim Bruning (talk) 03:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC) (for instance, some people might read it as saying we shouldn't have an article saying that the earth is flat despite the fact that that position is historically significant... if only because it's a commonly cited 19th century myth :-P )

Tone Consensus discussion

By my count there are at least four people supporting the MastCell-SA version of the text and one person who has explicitly stated that they don't like it. Then there are a number of people who want consensus to be established before changes are made. Okay, at what point can we say we have consensus? ScienceApologist (talk) 13:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I think a consensus of 4 is sufficient to "stabilize" the text at this version, as a starting point for further improvements, of course. Amerique^dialectics 15:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

replying to multiple editors, more or less in order...

OrangeMarlin: - you said: "You have little or no support for these changes that you have proposed" when in fact the version I'm defending is the stable and accepted version, not some change I'm making. you might want to actually read through the diffs before you offer opinions that are factually incorrect. plus, your cynicism about the RfC process doesn't strike me as particularly good faith.

Amerique: - I previously made some changes here which were (properly) reverted. hey, I'm learning...  :-) but they weren't these changes, which have been advocated by MastCell and ScienceApologist, please see this version here which was the state of the article before I became involved on this page. as above, I'm basically suggesting that the changes MC and SA offer should not be accepted without a lot more discussion. also, where you say this: "The issue as I see it is how to neutrally represent reliably-sourced negative information. Because information is negative does not necessarily mean it is biased, and misconceptions over this I think go to the heart of the problems we are having" I think you're substantially correct, but I think you still miss the distinction between the negative tone of reliably-sourced authors and the negative tone of wikipedia editors. the whole point of the 'Fairness of tone' clause is to prevent wikipedia editors from presenting a biased account. it's very easy to present even heavily disparaging material in a fair and sensitive manner, if editors discuss the matter in good faith.

SDY: - good idea. I'll put in a protection request.

MastCell: - yes you've articulated a reason, and I've offered a response. I'd be more than happy to discuss it with you further if you'd like. it's really not that complicated an issue if we can get past the distractions to work on it directly.

SA: - this is consensus, not voting. my objections are well-stated and clear, and I find your attempts to push through a change without proper debate disconcerting. why don't you slow down and discuss the matter reasonably - we have all the time in the world to figure this out.

General comment: - I'd like to point out that this discussion is an excellent example of the problem I see with this change. SA and his friends are using their dispassionate assessment as an excuse for justifiable edit warring, rather than taking the time to reach a fair consensus on the talk page. very sad state of affairs... --Ludwigs2 15:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

P.s. Amerique - are you suggesting that a "consensus" of four editors (who habitually work together) is sufficient for making a radical change to policy? --Ludwigs2 15:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Stating implicitly or explicitly that individuals are "working together" or "friends" can be construed as an uncivil comment. The point is dispassionate editors are not in agreement with you. There is no conspiracy.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see MastCell/SA's version as a radical change, but more of an incremental improvement, which had adequate support. Although there is a conceptual difference, there isn't much of a functional distinction between "fair and sensitive" and "dispassionate," as either wording is easily gameable. If "dispassionate" holds, you can argue that the pro-science side of disputes does not seem sufficiently "dispassionate" regarding psuedoscience topics, so I don't really care regarding the change in adjectives. Best, Amerique^dialectics 17:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I oppose this change. "Sensitive" reflects the critical requirement that presentations of points of view must reflect that point of view -- they must come from a position in sympathy with that point of view and explain what advocates of the point of view claim as the advocates see things. This is what NPOV requires. "Dispassionate", on the other hand, implies that one is coming from a "true" position, a kind of philosophical aether in a state of absolute rest from which one can survey other lesser positions. This is exactly what the NPOV policy is designed to prohibit. This change would simply open the door for people who believe that their positions are "dispassionate" to use Wikipedia to shoot down points of view they disagree with, and claim they are complying with the policy and discribing them "dispassionately." Moreover, "dispassionate" implies passions are bad and suggests that exploration of the emotions is not a valid way for human beings to understand themselves or the reality they live in. There is no reason for imposing this moralism on human knowledge. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 16:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

WOW, Shirahadasha I think you are reading way too much into this. The word "dispassionate" implies nothing (words can not imply anything, rather, readers infer based upon their own perspective, knowledge, and feelings.) Ludwigs, please make that 5 editors support the SA version (I do not habitually work with any of the other 4 editors.) Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 16:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) But this is a fundamental misunderstanding of policy/practice, as well as of the word "dispassionate". There is not a requirement that points of view be sourced to "sympathetic" outlets. There is a requirement that everything be sourced reliably. A "dispassionate" description of a fringe group's belief from the New York Times is far preferable to a "sympathetic" description taken from snakeoilforsale.com. Furthermore, in no sense does "dispassionate" mean that there is One True POV. Dispassionate means that we try to describe things objectively, independently, and without excess emotional involvement in either side. I think these objections are more misunderstandings than anything else, and I suspect we're actually close to agreement on the underlying matters. MastCell ^Talk 16:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The neutral point of view in a nutshell is to accurately describe what reliable sources say on a subject. If reliable sources do not treat a subject in a sensitive manner, then neither should Wikipedia. Instead we should dispassionately report what the sources say, even if others might see this as insensitive. For instance, most reliable sources deal with the views of Holocaust deniers in what these people might regard as an extremely insensitive manner, and we must reflect this well-sourced insensitivity in our article on the subject. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Tim. I think there is a push here to be nice. It's like that time you added a point to the Homeopathy article that homeopaths created solutions made up of the Berlin Wall for something or another. There wasn't any way to treat that but with derision. OrangeMarlin