Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Archive 014

Curious : Can you write non-NPOV articles?

I was just wondering (don't make fun of me: I'm a newcomer), can you write non-neutral articles (for example, articles that state our opinion on something, like th meaning of life)?

Merci beaucoup!

Sonny jim 01:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Welcome! I don't know the answer to your question in general. In the context of the policy, it is just a style of writing. (Though there is still some debate amongst us about whether or not it should include more than just a style of writing.) There are some paragraphs in the policy that explain this style of writing reasonably well. Just a very small detail. You meant to ask "Can you write an article with a neutral point of view on the meaning of life?", but you wrote the equivalent of "Can you write an article with a non neutral point of view on the meaning of life?". The question was clear and simple. I don't know why I did not get it! --Lumiere 01:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

The answer is no. You are not allowed to write non-neutral articles. All articles must aim to be neutral and represent views fairly and without bias. Bensaccount 04:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

However, you can cite and even quote any article that is available through a reputable publisher and is relevant to the topic. You still need to have a neutral style when you cite or quote this article. The article that you quote can be yours and it does not have to be neutral. For example, "Sonny Jim wrote that the meaning of life is <whatever Sonny Jim wrote> [ref]". In principle, a Wikipedia article can include a complete presentation of an article that is not neutral, as long as the presentation itself is neutral and relevant to the topic and this other article is already published by a reputable publisher. The key ingredients are (1) presented in a neutral style (2) already published by a reputable publisher and (3) relevance to the topic. Also, the neutral presentation cannot go beyond what is said in the published article. --Lumiere 05:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

But you cannot use selective presentation of facts and have an article that meets the NPOV policy either. Citing all sources from one view of a topic is just as POV as if no sources had been cited and the article was all author opinion. - Taxman ^Talk 14:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. However, it is implicit that we cannot reject a viewpoint that is acceptable in accordance with the policies. The policies cannot do more than that. We cannot have a policy to allow the deletion of an article on the basis that it is not complete. We have to hope that editors will come and include all relevant viewpoints and represent them fairly in proportion to their significance. --Lumiere 15:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing that up (LOL)

Sonny jim 15:56, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Is it that you don't understand our discussion or that you do understand it and just want to make a joke. Please note that there is no disagreement in the above discussion, but only a sequence of useful clarifications. --Lumiere 16:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Just a joke, Monsieur Lumiere. Although I did think that there was a disagreement. I suppose that I am not used to such intelligent conversation.

Sonny jim 17:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Proposed rewrite: what do you think?

I've made an initial draft that attempts to address the issues revealed by the last weeks' discussions. It is still very preliminary, but I would like to recieve some feedback over its general direction. --Anon84.x 10:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

It's hard to comment until you've rewritten all the sections you are intending to re-write. As of now, much of the page is simply removed(as you have not rewiritten it yet). I'd be happy to comment later, though. JesseW, the juggling janitor 12:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

The sections removed are not going to be rewritten but replaced with new material. What I'm asking is whether this formulation is helpful for a better (more accurate) understanding of the policy. I also feel I have expressed most of the issues that were needed to address. So if you have more issues or questions, that would make the policy better, then please state them and we'll work together in formulating them.--Anon84.x 12:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

What sort of "new material"? In any case, if you are not going to be rewriting the commented out sections, I can comment on the draft now. Comments to follow. JesseW, the juggling janitor 13:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

My comments:

• I think a number of the sections you have slated for removal should not be removed; these include, Why should Wikipedia be unbiased?, A vital component: good research, Fairness and sympathetic tone, the whole Objections and clarifications section, and the See also and External links sections. Removal of those parts renders the proposed draft unacceptable to me, and, I assume, to most Wikipedians.

• I would strongly encourage you to, rather than attempting to develop and propose a fullly new version, to work on one section at a time, proposing specific changes, or full rephrasings (but not both), of particular sections; waiting to get approval from the community, then going on to other sections. I think that would meet with more success and would be more helpful in general.

Thanks for your time and attention. JesseW, the juggling janitor 13:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not aiming for success or the community's acceptence. I'm aiming for a clearer policy, that reflects a precise distinction between "narrative bias" and "selective bias". The draft is currently in its very beginning (and very concise), and I acknowledge it might take weeks or even months to achieve an communally accepted result (if any).

Most of the sections were removed because they reflect a foundational misunderstandings of what "narrative neutrality" is capable of. The criticisms and clarifications will be eventually replaced by other criticisms that would reflect the new formulation of the policy.--Anon84.x 13:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Looking again over what comments you asked for, "What I'm asking is whether this formulation is helpful for a better (more accurate) understanding of the policy." By "this formulation", I going to assume you mean one that "reflects a precise distinction between "narrative bias" and "selective bias"". In that case, I don't think that such a formulation is helpful for a better, or more accurate understanding of this policy. I think the policy is vague on this point, but I think intentionally so, and clarifying it goes against the spirit, as well as the letter, of the policy, and also goes against the general practice of Wikipedians and Wikipedia. I wish you luck, but I do not feel that such a formulation would be of benefit to the NPOV policy, or to Wikipedia as a whole. Thanks for clarifing your intentions! JesseW, the juggling janitor 13:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

"I'm not aiming for success or the community's acceptence"...? Why waster your time and ours? Without the community's acceptance, nothing you do will become policy, and from the changes you made it's clear you have no chance of getting consensus... Thus all the changes you make are completely pointless.DreamGuy 14:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

If you find my proposal pointless, vote against it. Bye. --Anon84.x 14:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that the distinction between narrative bias and selective bias is fairly straightforward, simple and natural. It is hard to make it vague. It is easy however to write a paragraph that is vague and suggests that it is sufficient to only remove narrative bias to respect the policies, thus ignoring this simple distinction that is otherwise a natural part of the policies. --Lumiere 14:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Changes since March 2005

I went through the diff (actually, various sectional diffs, made with ediff) between the current version and the one from March 2005 (specifically, this version). There have been a number of important changes, which I'd like to alert people to.

• Various new sections have been added:
  • History of NPOV - Pointers to old forms of the policy. Excellent historical work,, IMO.

I got some help from Larry Sanger and the village pump people with this. The point was to replace the so called "original formulation" with the actual history. Bensaccount 16:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

• • The neutral point of view - Seems to basically be part of the introduction, for which see below.

The introduction was combined with the "What is the neutral point of view" section.Bensaccount 16:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

• • Bias - Examples of types of bias, many article-space links. Wholly new - where was the discussion on this?

Someone else created the bias section, I made it more comprehensive. Bensaccount 16:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

• • POV forks - Seems to be a summary section of another page, Wikipedia:Content forking - Discussion on this?
  • Rewording a potentially biased statement - Seems to be based on old material, just moved around and rephrased - Discussion?
• Various sections have been significantly changed:
  • The introduction section(s) - considerable rephrasing, moving things around, etc. Considerably more discussion is needed on this.

See above. Bensaccount 16:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

• • Why should Wikipedia be unbiased? - A sentence has been added to the end of this section: "Neutrality has long been, and will always be, the only way Wikipedia can remain an unbiased source of information for the whole world." Discussion?

I disagree with this sentence. Bensaccount 16:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

• • The vital component: good research - Notable rephrasing, introduction of new material - discussion needed.
  • There's no such thing as objectivity - Seems to have been heavily cut. Should this be reverted?

It was too-long winded. This version gives the same information and addresses the objection quickly and finitely. Bensaccount 16:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

• • Morally offensive views - Notable rephrasing, introduction of new material - discussion needed.
• Some sections have been removed:
  • Parts of the introduction, i.e. Introduction, The basic concept of neutrality, and the long quote from Jimbo, The original formulation of NPOV. Some of these may have been rephrased into the new introduction section(s), but discussion is certainly needed.

See above. Bensaccount 16:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

• • What is the neutral point of view? - Was turned into the Undue Weight section, but the top three paragraphs were removed. Should this be reverted, or were they rephrased elsewhere?

See above. Bensaccount 16:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

• • A consequence: writing for the enemy - Was removed in full - discussion?

The section was misleading. Other editors or other POVs are not "the enemy". The section was not missed. Bensaccount 16:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I assume many of these things were discussed somewhere in the archives of this talk page; help finding and linking to the discussions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! JesseW, the juggling janitor 13:00, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Poll: A formulation that better reflects a precise distinction between narrative bias and selective bias.

• Support - It is a natural and simple distinction. It is not even clear how it can be made vague, except through an unclear formulation that should be improved for clarity. I think any consistent interpretation of the current policies require such a distinction. --Lumiere 15:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - These terms are made-up. The basic formulation already says that views must be selected fairly. If you want to define what is a fair selection of views, go ahead. However, currently it is left up to the editor to judge what is fair and what isn't, and ultimately, I think maybe that is best. Bensaccount 16:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow, you are pointing to the main problem! This is the BIG problem with the formulation. Selection of views is already considered in other policies such as no original research and verifiability. I hope you mean "left up to the editor within the constraints of the other policies". The only issue I have is that the part with the emphasis is totally omitted in the current policy. So, the first step is to acknowledge that there is a distinction between narrative bias and selective bias. This is the question that is asked in this poll. The second step is to acknowledge that selective bias is partially considered in the other policies and we should not state rule or suggest an absence of rule, which would be in conflict with the other policies. This second step is the question that is asked in the nest poll. --Lumiere 16:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

If your problem is with the terminology "selective bias" and "narrative bias", this is a detail. The proposal is not to use these terms in the formulation. I don't care about terminology that much. "Selective bias" is what we have when views are not selected fairly. "Narrative bias" is what we have when views are not presented in a neutral way. You are right that it is already mentioned. So, you actually agree with the principle, but are only saying that it is already respected. Fine, the proposal is just to improve on it.

I wrote "better reflects" instead of just "reflects" to acknowledge that it is already reflected in the policy. So, would you consider also to change your vote here. Your support will not be an agreement with the terminology "narrative bias" and "selective bias". It is only about the concepts, which you say are already presented as distinct in the formulation. Moreover, you already agreed below that it should refer to other policies, which mean that you meant "within the constraints of the other policies". --Lumiere 17:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

General comments

• A support does nor mean an unconditional agreement with any edit that attempts to better reflect such a distinction. --Lumiere 16:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• A support in the next poll is like a support in this poll because adding brief references to other policies as much as needed to clarify that we must avoid selective bias implies that the concept of selective bias will be better defined and thus distinguished from the narrative bias concept. I am considering that perhaps we should only have one poll, the next poll. --Lumiere 18:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Poll: The selective bias aspect of the NPOV policy should refer have brief references to other policies as much as needed instead of formulating rules that possibly conflict with them.

• Support - It is so natural to avoid conflict between policies. --Lumiere 16:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Eventually this page should have sections on the related articles in the style of the POV forking section, with main article: links. But the article is currently just too long. Bensaccount 16:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

This is not an opposition. You actually agree, unless I misunderstood you. The idea was not to make the formulation longer, but just add brief references to other policies whenever needed for purpose of clarification. --16:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I do suppoert references to other policies, but I oppose adding anything to the page until it is shortened to a reasonable length. Bensaccount 16:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Perfectly fine! Please, would you consider changing your vote because it does not seem to reflect what you are saying just above. It sounds like your are saying that we cannot separate this proposal from some rewriting or shortening of the text. This is not an opposition but a constraint on the approach. You can agree with the goal. We will not conclude that you agree with any approach toward that goal. --Lumiere 17:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I think, Bensaccount, that you have mistakenly taken what Lumiere is trying to do (or more likely I have). I think that Lumiére Lumière (it is spelled with an accent, isn't it?) is trying not to add new text to the article, but to put referrences to existing articles in place of conflicting pilicies that are currently there (please correct me if I'm wrong).

Sonny Jim ^news/poll 18:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but I think that it is now clear. At the least, Bensaccount does not oppose to the proposal anymore. Yes, in particular, sometimes the policy explicitly gives a flexibility to the editors that is not allowed in other policies. However, the formulation was significantly modified recently, and I did not check again. It does not matter, even if the goal is a clarification I think we should have these brief references. BTW, you can provide a support even if you feel like a new comer. I am also pretty much a new comer -- just few months. --Lumière 18:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

General comments

• A support does nor mean an unconditional agreement with any approach that attempts to achieve the goal. --Lumiere 16:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)