Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view

WT:NPOV

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.

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.

Preparation for policy RFC

Given what has happened in the last day or so, what do you think constitutes enough community input and agreement to put back in a change.(olive (talk) 00:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

As much as we can possibly get. The community needs to see what the edits really were. The wider community represent the new and wiser heads which are most needed here. Mediation might help, as it is another way of getting more participation.

However, if no one chooses to participate once it's on a few public-notice type pages, we really have no choice but to think that silence equals consensus. What are we going to do, break down their doors? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about setting up a policy-RFC? That's an earlier DR step than mediation, and could encourage wider participation. Focus would be important though- with clearly defined alternate versions, and not just a link to the talk page ongoing discuussion, so editors seeing it for the first time can get oriented quickly and fairly. A link to the RFC could also be posted at the Village Pump policy page. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 02:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. I will try to set up tomorrow if you set up an RfC. Perhaps the form of former text/ new text/ explanation/ comments. You and the others can set up as much of it as you want. I've had more time the last couple weeks, and may have less for a few. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that the {{RFCpolicy}} template not be added until there is agreement here on the talk page that the formatting of the RFC is a balanced presentation. RFCs can be quickly derailed by conflict about the wording of the question, or the alternate versions presented. The attention of previously-uninvolved editors is valuable. There's only one chance to post an RFC for the first time on an issue. If it's confusing or distracted, the wider attention could lose some of its value - sort of like listing a house for sale and then changing the price later. On the other hand, if it turns out that agreement can't be reached even on how to present the question, the RFC could be posted anyway and let the chips fall where they may. My personal view is that the results will be more useful it there is advance agreement on the presentation of the question. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And that's difficult, since what we want is community input on the content of edits. Also, it seems that people don't understand how this works: for example, above they don't understand the meaning that "prominence" has on WP, they don't understand POV forks, they don't understand NOTABILITY. They didn't get it that I was working against my own purported POV on WP there! There are people who probably do understand- SlimVirgin comes to mind. But it seems that WEIGHT has its own sphere of knowledge and most editors don't know a thing about it. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an example of how editors are handling a difficult situation on the Notability guideline: Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:compromise. They've set up a separate page for the RFC, and at the top, they defined the terminology for use in the discussion. Might be worth taking a look. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What would be necessary is the EXACT changes being proposed, side-by-side with the original, with every change pointed out. The changes are fairly long and confusing, and so I'd say it would have to be broke down into an easier-to-understand series of proposed changes, perhaps by section. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I presume there should be a difference in the process required to change core policy and that required to change a guideline, but I haven't the foggiest idea what it is. I agree with Martinphi that a lot of users aren't familiar with the terms and concepts and may apply 'common sense' meanings whereas they have their own, often different, WP meanings. It would certainly have to be carefully broken down. AND -- we need to agree first on the objective(s) for these changes, a vision of what the outcome should be, or if we can't share that, clear different visions of what we are aiming for. Doug Weller (talk) 13:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's really enough of a sharp difference between guideline and policy - for instance, compare Reliable sources (guideline) with Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (policy). One of these is an extremely well-known, pretty much "core" aspect of editing, the other of these... probably very few people know it exists. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not just a guideline page or essay, this is a cornerstone policy, a nonnegotiable fundamental plank of the entire encyclopedia. Any changes that make any significant deviation from previous understanding of it needs OVERWHELMING consensus of broad Wikipedia community, not just a couple of people making changes here in a stealthy way or a single RFC. Frankly, the kinds of things Jack-A-Roe and MartinPhi are suggesting would gut the whole policy, so I'd think ArbCom or Jimbo himself would have to approve before the changes could actually go through. DreamGuy (talk) 15:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly agree with you. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree. Thanks for putting it so clearly. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dreamguy. I'm giving you a high-five for saying it clearly. Certain individuals here think there's a consensus of 3 all patting each other on the back, which leads to changing this fundamental policy. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 15:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dreamguy well expresses the problem with the recent spate of edits to Undue weight, the general prohibition of POV forks, and indeed NPOV in general. Despite protests by advocates of the changes that the edits were intended to clarify and/or strengthen the policy, quite plainly the edits significantly weakened the policy. Words like "must" were replaced with words like "should", along with various other dilutions of key aspects of the NPOV policy. ... Kenosis (talk) 15:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks DreamGuy. I agree with everyone who replied after me! :-) Doug Weller (talk) 16:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shoemaker's comment at 12:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC) is a good explanation of what I was suggesting for the RFC: "the EXACT changes being proposed, side-by-side with the original, with every change pointed out." and "have to be broke down into an easier-to-understand series of proposed changes, perhaps by section."

After that, some other editors diverged into off-topic personal comments about editors, not content. That's unproductive and serves only to increase tension, not move the process forward.

I suggest returning to Shoemaker's comment about how to format the RFC with the exact changes side by side, broken down into specific sections, and continuing from there.--Jack-A-Roe (talk) 17:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know, this isn't going to work if you're going to claim that strong statements that the version being proposed is completely unacceptable are 2talking about ediors, not content". If every oppose can be summarily dismissed by ignoring the content of it and claiming that it's just about editors, then it's hard to see how any discussion can go forward. This is not what you want: The default result is "no changes" not "changes get readded", so it's to your benefit to at least try to work with the opposers. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was a suggestion that this process be worked out in a sandbox.

I think Jack-A-Roe is suggesting that focus be on the editing not on the editors so that this process can move forward without degrading into personal attacks. I think that's a good idea.(olive (talk) 19:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Yes, however, he appears to be referring to the thread directly above this, beginning "This is not just a guideline page or essay, this is a cornerstone policy". If that discussion, which I read as being about the problems of presuming consensus, mixed with a discussion of the perceived problematic nature of some of the edits is what Jack means by "focusing on the editors" - well, let's stop there - is that what is being referred to? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I was only mentioning that after your comment at 12:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC) (which I agreed with), in the next several paragraphs there was some discussion about editors, not the content of the policy. Edits that someone finds problematic are fine for discussion, I did not mean to imply to the contrary. There is not consensus on the content here, that's why there is a discussion of asking for wider community attention. It's clear that there could never be big changes to a core policy done quietly without anyone noticing and I don't get the impression that anyone working on this page thinks that it could. I was simply trying to return the discussion to the RFC idea. That's all. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, then I do have a major problem: as I read that section, it was stating that major changes, such as the ones made, were highly problematic, to the point of gutting several policy provisions. You have every right to argue against that, but if you want the changes to go through, you can't claim that clear statements in opposition to specific perceived aspects of the changes that mention the people who made them to identify the changes are not actually talking about the changes. If you're going to claim anyone who opposes you is talking about people, not policy, even when they are talking about policy, then I don't see how any productive dialogue can move forward. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What you described is not what I meant. Maybe my writing wasn't clear. I'm not trying to get the changes to go through, I'm not even sure at this point what the proposed changes are. That's why I'd like to see a clearly formatted RFC showing the proposed new version. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Maybe we're still looking at different sections. Anyway, I'd suggest numbering the changes, then it'll be easier to pull them up and discuss. I suspect that some are going to be considered fine, some unacceptable, so a little care will mean that the non-controversial parts, at least, will pass. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this edit okay?

I would like to reinstate this edit: [1]

Any objections?

ScienceApologist (talk) 07:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You mean, change "...though a view may be spelled out in great detail..." back to "...though a view may be described in some detail..." – seems OK. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer not. "Great detail" is in fact the original consensus, what SA is describing is not "changing back," it is changing back to the version he perfers, which represents a recent, non-consensus edit. If we are going to go forward with a broader consensus, we should start from the longstanding version.

Now, Schonken, please wait for consensus before making edits. I of course understand your desire to be BOLD, but one can't have it both ways. here is how it actually used to be. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 07:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer (if we do anything at all) that we remove the unnecessary qualifier entirely. e.g. - "though a view may be spelled out (or described) in detail" --Ludwigs2 07:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

change made (forgot the edit summary, but it's one word...) --Ludwigs2 07:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great. That will avoid arguments over how much detail NPOV allows people to put in. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 08:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken out "in detail" since it is a vague and unspecific; I think the amount of coverage to be given to minority views in mainstream articles is a matter for editorial discretion on a case-by-case basis, and the amount of detail will be informed by how much detail is necessary to convey the essential facts in context (some minority views are very simply described, others not). Guy (Help!) 18:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's true. Except, the passage is about minority views in articles about themselves, not minority views in mainstream articles. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

maybe 'in detail' isn't the best phrase; how about saying 'may be described fully'? --Ludwigs2 00:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That might be taken as being a requirement they be described fully. This may not be appropriate if their notability lies only in one aspect - say, in HeadOn's notable ad campaign, or in the debunking of a famous fraud. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"May be described" seems to me to be entirely sufficient. It allows for editorial discretion on a case-by-case basis, and discourages wikilawyering and weselling ("But that's not described in detail! We may describe it in detail!" or variants thereof). Guy (Help!) 14:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The word "fair"

We tend in general discussions to use the word "fair" as a synonym for "neutral". Normally, this is fine, but in the toss-and-tumble world of Wikipedia, people sometimes think that "fairness" should reign supreme. This is problematic. "Neutrality" does not mean we treat subjects "fairly". I doubt a Nazi would find the coverage of Nazism on Wikipedia "fair" for good reason: neutrality in the sense of Wikipedia doesn't mean fairness. Otherwise we would not have WP:WEIGHT or WP:V or WP:NOR or WP:RS. Those are all aspects of Wikipedia which encourage unfair treatment to certain kinds of contributions. We explicitly do not welcome poor sourcing, scholarship that is not verifiable, or detailed "in-universe" exposition of ideas which are decidedly in the minority. Fairness is not the same thing as "dispassionate writing" or "objectivity". I have replaced two instances of the word "fair" in our policy with the synonyms "objective" and "dispassionate". I think that those synonyms do not carry with them the same baggage that "fair" carries with it. Removing the word "fair" from this policy would go a long way to addressing the concerns of new editors who get confused as to how Wikipedia can have NPOV policy that is distinct from a "sympathetic point-of-view", for example. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't really agree with this. you are making the following two problematic moves:

you are equating 'being fair' with 'being nice', in order to claim it's not neutral: 'fair' is a moral term, and as such it carries moral weight - A Nazi may not like the coverage of nazism on wikipedia, but s/he would have a much higher burden to demonstrate that the coverage was not 'fair', because that would mean that s/he would have to show that it was inaccurate or unjustified, as opposed to merely unpleasant. we do all sorts of things in our society (jail or execute criminals, allow abortions, impose taxes, punish children) that we consider to be unpleasant but perfectly fair.
you are substituting inappropriate and functionless terms for a functional one: 'objective' and 'dispassionate' lack any effective standards, and open the door all sorts of abuses. for instance, a modern Nazi (to use your unfortunate example) could easily argue that an objective and dispassionate article about Nazism should explain why Jews, Gays, Gypsies, and other peoples deserve to be eliminated from the human genome; that represents the Nazi position. The article could easily be objective, dispassionate, and heavily pro-nazi. in fact, the only way to prevent that kind of bias from creeping into such an article is to object to it on moral grounds, by claiming it is an 'unfair' representation of those peoples. Fairness (in the sense outlined above, not the straw-man that equates it to niceness) is necessary for maintaining neutrality in the article.

Frankly, it is impossible to write an NPOV article without some conception of fairness. I'm open to another (better) term that keeps that same moral component intact, but replacing 'fair' with the paltry terms offered changes the meaning of the policy dramatically. --Ludwigs2 19:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia takes no "moral stance" on how to treat subjects. NPOV is not a morality-based policy. Your claims of "functionality" for the term "fair" is fatuous: there is ambiguity and equivocation with how people use the term and so pretending that there is agreed upon "standards" for what "fair" means is false. You are also mixing descriptions and prescriptions in your hypothetical. It is in fact the "interests of fairness" that would encourage someone to argue for a non-neutral explanation of the final solution. Objectivity and dispassion are beside the point and cannot be blamed for agenda-driven editing. We both agree that neutrality is the key here. The problem is that "fair" is not the same thing as "neutral".

Your claim that "it is impossible to write an NPOV article without some conception of fairness" is like a theist claiming "it is impossible to have a basis for morals if you are an atheist". It's a fat-headed proclamation that is not only unprovable: it's on-the-face false due to its narrow proscription.

ScienceApologist (talk) 20:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simply not true in many ways. Just for example: we welcome research which is not verifiable, for example, research on Creationist ideas, when we talk about such. For another, we welcome in-universe sources for articles on that universe, or for sourcing what people in that universe think. Just not so.

Your point was that it's misused. Maybe, but your edit here, merely makes it into a scientific thing: presenting things objectively means presenting them from the scientific standpoint. "Objective," in this instance also means we have to manufacture the objective viewpoint, which may not be in the sources. So you're promoting OR.

This edit [2] is excellent. It is, in fact, what I was doing in the WEIGHT section recently.

However, I do not mean to imply that we have a consensus to edit war that change into the article, so will not participate in doing that. You'll have to create consensus around it if you want it. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 19:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me dispatch with some of the major problems with this post:

Just for example: we welcome research which is not verifiable, for example, research on Creationist ideas, when we talk about such. -- Research about creationist ideas is verifiable. To say otherwise is simply wrong.
For another, we welcome in-universe sources for articles on that universe, -- No we don't. See WP:INUNIVERSE.
or for sourcing what people in that universe think. -- Primary sources are written "in universe". WP:V does not permit us to write prose that pretends that someone's fantasy is reality.
presenting things objectively means presenting them from the scientific standpoint. Patently false. "Objective" just means attempting to remove the "subject". Please read a dictionary for more.
"Objective," in this instance also means we have to manufacture the objective viewpoint, which may not be in the sources. So you're promoting OR. Bullshit. There is no such thing as an "objective veiwpoint". That's an oxymoron. You seem to be under the misapprehension that any synthesis is an original synthesis. This is false. Otherwise we would not allow paraphrasing.

ScienceApologist (talk) 20:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Geez. Not even going to respond to this. Except... MOS???? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SA - let me offer a compromise. let's leave the word 'fairly' in, but qualify it with a phrase like the following: "Being fair does not imply that we need to present views in a way that accepts, supports, or approves of those views; it only requires that we present them without judgement, in their proper context to the topic." would that (or some variation) satisfy your concern? I can see what you're objecting to; I just don't want to throw out the baby with the bathwater. --Ludwigs2 20:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would come closer. The issue is that the word "fair" is too broad. I would prefer a synonym. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Neutrality" does not mean we treat subjects "fairly". Actually, yes, we do. Even with Nazism. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, and Ludwigs idea is good. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not in at least one sense of the word "fair" which is "equal time". The problem is that "fair" as a term is ambiguous... too ambiguous, I argue. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

again, let's find a way to remove this ambiguity without destroying the underlying sense of the policy. 'equal time' is a very long stretch for 'fair' anyway - easy enough to handle on talk pages, with a simple reference to wp:undue. so how do we modify what we have to preserve the sense of fairness but exclude arguments that it means 'equal time'? --Ludwigs2 20:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems fairly simple. We use "fair" to mean "presented with due weight to majority opinion, and with no need for mention of extreme minority views except in articles specifically about these minority views". Seems fair. . dave souza, talk 20:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But how exactly is that "fair" to the minority? ScienceApologist (talk) 20:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, "presented with due weight to majority and minority opinions, and with no need for mention of extreme minority views except in articles specifically about these minority views". ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that anyone except a crazed Wikiholic would think the phrase between Martin's quotation marks is an adequate definition of "fair". ScienceApologist (talk) 21:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is the sense of "fairness" that we need to preserve? Let's take a common usage of the term: Fairness Doctrine. In short, there are three parts to the doctrine: honesty, equality, and balance. I would argue that Wikipedia does not really, in-point-of-fact, follow ANY of those senses of fairness. We have a WP:V policy which scoffs at honesty, a WP:RS guideline which scoffs at equality, and WP:WEIGHT which scoffs at balance. So... how EXACTLY is Wikipedia fair? In what sense of the term? ScienceApologist (talk) 20:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So I take it you agree to Ludwigs change. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only the braves deserve the fair, to quote Lobey Dosser. It's fair to show views proportionately to expert opinion, and minority views can't reasonably expect uncritical coverage. It is fair that their views can be presented as their views, shown in the way that they would wish, provided that they are shown in the immediate context of majority expert views on the subject. All's fair, eh? And yes, objective and dispassionate are clearer terms. . dave souza, talk 21:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who says that this is "fair"? It doesn't seem fair to most people encountering it for the first time. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right. And, we can use the minority's writings to source their views. As long as we can do that, we are not going to have to rely on sources biased against them. We can then present the majority expert view. Otherwise, you have a source presenting their view from a negative perspective, which may be a more reliable source- but it's not actually a more RS for what they believe. So there is a certain amount of context which has to be taken into account. I don't think anyone here argues that criticism should not be presented. But there is an argument going around that minority sources, being not RS, are not to be used. They are not to be used except for sourcing the minority's opinion. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is decidedly off-topic. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) SA, Dave, I'm unclear what you're after, and this is all starting to seem a little CREEPY to me. in point of fact, we don't need to make an exactingly perfect definition of the word 'fair', and trying to do so is just going to lead to a lot of wikilawyering: from us, and from people who read it later. 'proportionate views' is not sufficient in itself, because it leads to the question 'proportionate with respect to what?' in just the last few paragraphs there have been about three different answers given to that question, and the only way we can ever decide between them is by choosing the answer that seems most fair. you cannot get away from the fact that in any discussion like this, sooner or later, you have to agree - together - that this (whatever that happens to be) is the proper (i.e. fair) way to deal with it.

let me be even more frank. if you think we can reduce the policy to some 'objective' state such that NPOV can be declared on inspection by one or two editors, rather than discussed and agreed to by many, all you're going to end up doing is trashing the policy thoroughly. the reason 'fairness' is important is that even though we can't define it well, most of us have a decent intuitive grasp of the concept (so long as we can stand back from it, anyway). not all of us on every topic, but most of us on most topics. few of us really understand what it means to be dispassionate, and almost no one is objective, but fair is pretty much part of the fabric of our minds. that makes it very useful for NPOV discussions. --Ludwigs2 22:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no comment to make on the fabric of your mind, but would point out that fair is foul, and foul is fair. The terms "objective" and "dispassionate" are much clearer and less ambiguous in this context, and provide better aims than the cuddly "fair" that you seem to be thinking of. Kindness to dumb animals and extreme minorities is laudable, but objectivity is the objective of an encyclopedia. Here, we achieve that by giving due weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence amongst expert views. . dave souza, talk 22:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I rather agree with Dave. "Fair" is a very woolly term, it can be made to mean anything. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<<< "objective" and "dispassionate", is not the same as "fairly". Fairly: reasonably: to a moderately sufficient extent or degree; That has nothing to do with dis-passion or objectivity ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fairly:

In a fair manner; clearly; openly; plainly; fully; distinctly; frankly.
Favorably; auspiciously; commodiously; as, a town fairly situated for foreign trade.
Honestly; properly.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dispassionate

not showing, and not affected by emotion, bias, or prejudice

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, I find all three of the definitions you provided for fairly to be more problematic than the definition you provide for dispassionate. In particular, there are many aspects of Wikipedia which are not clear, open, plain, full, distinct, or frank. Certainly Wikipedia does not treat subjects "favorably", "auspiciously", or "commodiously" (which is diametrically opposed to both the spirit and letter of NPOV). And WP:V flat out contradicts honesty and propriety with its exhortation to verifiability and not truth. On the other hand, we do attempt to write prose that is doesn't show emotion, bias, or prejudice. If I didn't know any better, Jossi, I'd swear you agreed with me that "fair", as a term, was problematic for this policy! ScienceApologist (talk) 18:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you think dispassionate and objective are more unambiguous? how so? If I were to make this claim: "ScienceApologist - you consistently misrepresent scientific positions in your single-minded pursuit to remove material you personally dislike from wikipedia", would that comment be dispassionate? would it be objective? I think we can both agree that it's not a fair statement, but if we tried to discuss whether it were objectively true we'd end up mired in a wave of diffs of your past editing; and a discussion of whether it was a dispassionate claim would instantly devolve into personal insults.

let me state the obvious. you object to the word 'fair' because you are worried that editors on the pseudoscience articles you so love to hate will complain that the criticisms you want to inject are excessive and produce an unfair treatment of those topics; you want to forestall that kind of thing with the claim that we don't need to treat topics like that fairly. am I correct? --Ludwigs2 22:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

historical analysis

Is the word "fair" important to the policy? How much is it used? How long has it been part of the policy? I spot-checked the history for the words "fair", "fairness", "fairly", "unfair", or "unfairly". Appearences of the term in the TOC are included in the counts.

This was fast research, it might not be precise, but I think it's pretty close. Here's what I found:

Today: those several fairness-related terms appear in the policy approximately 10 times.
mid-2006 through today: I spot-checked a dozen or so historical versions going back to mid-2006. The versions I checked all had between 10 and 14 uses; and generally, it seemed the more recent versions were closer to the lower number of 10 uses.
For earlier years, I checked only one per year, the last edit of each year, and found:
- December 2007: 13 uses
- December 2006: 12 uses
- December 2005: 19 uses
- December 2004: 27 uses
- December 2003: 27 uses
- December 2002: 29 uses.

Until recently, there was a section heading that used the word "Fairness". That heading has been changed this year. Here's a quick check of the history on that:

3 years -- 2002-2005: Fairness and sympathetic tone
2 1/2 years -- 2006-2007: Fairness of tone
2008 - July 20 - Aug 1:
- Tone
- Equitable Tone
- Unbiased Tone
- Impartial Tone
Today: Impartial Tone

It's clear that the idea of "fairness" has been part of NPOV policy since the early times.

Fairness as a principle is less prominent in the policy today than a few months ago, and significantly less than in prior years. Of course, we all know, consensus can change. Is it the new consensus that the idea of "fairness" is less important to this policy today than in was the past? --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think so, on the contrary. Fairness in presenting competing viewpoints is part and parcel of the concept of NPOV. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The thing that bugs me in this discussion is that some editors tend to look at policy pages through the narrow slit of the articles they edit. Policy needs to be encompassing enough to accommodate an article about Jesus, Power Rangers, Sarah Palin, Atropa belladonna, and The Simpsons. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, it needs to be clear for all pages. I don't see the problem with the word fair. However, I thought it would be fine to say "in proportion to their prominence." That makes that language more consistent through the policy. But fair, as you note above, is a word which is perfectly consistent with WP. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think Jack-A-Roe's point that "fairness-related" terms are disappearing from this policy as Wikipedia has grown older deserves some consideration. As pointed out above, "fairness" as an idea is ambiguous, meaning different things to different people. This is not to say that "dispassionate" and "objective" are perfect terms, they just aren't so wide-ranging in their meanings. I think the reason that Wikipedia policy has been tending away from using "fairness-related" terms is because the concept of "fairness" is essentially meaningless in a project that aims to develop a reliable, verifiable, mainstream internet encyclopedia. Is it "fair" to demand peer-review from someone who thinks that they've solved all the energy problems of humanity with their perpetual motion machine? Some would say "no". Wikipedia doesn't say "yes" or "no", it says that whether it is "fair" or not is beside the point: aspects of WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR that cause us to marginalize this well-meaning hypothetical inventor rule the day. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

again, you want to throw out the baby with the bathwater. fairness is important in wikipedia articles. of course it's fair to include peer-reviewed sources about perpetual motion machines, if any of those are notable enough to appear in wikipedia. if someone says no, all you have to do is call for an RfC and the weight of sensible wikipedia editors will resolve the issue nicely. removing the terminology does no positive good, and can have a number of negative consequences as editors realize they no longer need to be fair to positions they don't like, and begin to attack them unmercifully. you forget, SA, that the heart of Wikipedia is cooperative editing, and where there is no conception of fairness, there is no conception of cooperation. --Ludwigs2 22:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That seems a bit alarmist, frankly. Do you really think that no other word in the policy but "fair" is standing in the way of utter chaos? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

no, but I'm unwilling to keep nipping away at the things that do stand in the way of chaos. I'll reiterate. changin gthe terminology does no good, and opens the potential for harm. so why are you pushing for it? --Ludwigs2 23:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I kept my personal view out of the historical analysis, to provide it as a source of information for the discussion. In this separate comment now, I'll say that I have concern about the (as yet unclear) cause, and possible long-term effects, of the recent and seemingly-continuing erosion of the principle of fairness as part of the policy. I'm not sure what this erosion means or how it will change day-to-day application of the policy, but it's a significant change of something that has been part of the policy for more than 6 years. That's a big enough change to call for a bright light discussion and real consideration of the direction the change is moving. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

agreed. --Ludwigs2 23:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree too. I think in the context of "representing" viewpoints, with "balance", "due" weight etc, then fairly is a very appropriate term. Not saying other terms aren't also...although the FAQ says "The policy says nothing about objectivity, or whether there is such a thing" EverSince (talk) 00:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how the vague term "fair" is a better word than "objective." I don't have to define the word "objective" because the meaning is clear. "Fair" means different things to different people, and policy should never be multi- interpretive. That's just begging for wikilawyering. Aunt Entropy (talk) 17:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure which term is better. But when a major concept has been solidly established in a core policy since the very first version, it should not be changed without an indication that there is a consensus for the change. (first version of NPOV I could find: Dec 2001)

Recently, that word has been changed and reverted many times already. Instead, it should be left as it was while we determine if there is concensus for changing it or not.

Just because an idea or principle seems "vague", that does not mean it's not effective. The idea of "objective" can equally be considered vague, a personal judgment call on any topic that is not directly based on simple facts or hard scientific data (and, even the objectivity of scientific data is often questioned in debates between sceintists).

"Fairness" is a concept that is central to interactions of humans, so while it may be difficult to apply to determining neutrality in statements of facts, as an operative feature of how people interact, it is basic, and as such has a powerful effect on the structure of communities. We're not a social networking site, but we do need to collaborate to build the encyclopedia. Therefore the core policies must be well-grounded in the principles that foster effective collaboration in a community, as they say in MeatBallWiki, "barnraising".

The word "fairness" was central to NPOV from the beginning. It should not be deprecated without solid consensus.--Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me like consensus is forming that "fair" is inexact. Why include inexact wording in policy that is so stridently referred to? ScienceApologist (talk) 19:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at [3] from the archives section, it seems an original brief version said: "What people believe is a matter of objective fact, and we can present that quite easily from the neutral point of view". While an early expanded version says "The policy doesn't assume that it's possible to write an article from just one point of view, which would be the one neutral (unbiased, "objective") point of view. The Wikipedia policy is that we should fairly represent all sides of a dispute, and not make an article state, imply, or insinuate that any one side is correct". That expanded version uses the term fair many times (and includes a caveat that it doesn't mean that all views are described on a par). EverSince (talk) 23:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ten instances of "fair"

I removed ten instances of the word fair remaining in this policy: [4]. I do not think that this changes the meaning of the policy in any substantive way. Please comment. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Treating subjects fairly in WP articles is a cornerstone of NPOV and of this project. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Jossi's stataement here. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Is use of the word "fair" needed?

Template:RFCpol

Do we need to include the word "fair" in NPOV policy? ScienceApologist (talk) 20:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate questions

Contested RfC formulation. That formulation of the question is backwards. The principle of fairness has been a prominent part of the NPOV policy since the earliest version (Dec 2001). This includes the use of the word in its various derivations: "fair", "fairly", "fairness", "unfairly", etc. So the question is not, do we need to include the word "fair" - the question is - do we want to remove the word "fair"?

Background information: The use of the words related to fairness in the policy over time, is reviewed in the section above at: #historical analysis.

Alternate statement of RfC Question: Shall we keep the principle of "fairness" as an integral part of the NPOV policy (including the use of the words "fair" and related derivations) , or, shall that principle (and the associated words) be removed or reduced in prominence in favor of other principles or ideas? --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC) [re-edited to change "restatement" to "alternate statement" --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)][reply]

I believe that your "reformulation" misstates the situation entirely. In particular, the existence of a consistent "principle of 'fairness'" is disputed and the "prominence" first-derivative of words whose root is "fair" is unequivocally negative. Asking about "removal" or "inclusion" are different sides of the same coin. There is no reason to prefer one side over another (just like Wikipedia takes no stand on British or American spelling). I appreciate that you attempted to "restate" the RfC question in your own words. However, I believe this is a slightly different question since there is no consensus that the "principle of fairness" is even found anywhere in Wikipedia. (I contend it is largely an invention of your own, actually.) Since I proposed the RfC and I am of the opinion that it is properly formulated, I relegated your argumentation to a subsection. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to disagree, however, you are not welcome to obscure a good-faith contesting of the way in which the RfC is stated.

In deference to your comment, I've changed the "restatement" of the question to the addition of an "alternate" question.

Both questions address the same issue. Editors responding to the RfC can make up their own minds, when they have all the information. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, both questions do NOT address the same issue. Your question invents a principle that you claim is being "integral" when there is significant disagreement that this is the case. Your question is an interesting counterpoint, but it doesn't address the fundamental issue which is, namely, do we need the words "fair", "fairly", "fairness", etc. in this policy? ScienceApologist (talk) 20:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement is presented as if we are starting from an empty page, deciding whether or not to use the word "fair." That is not the situation. The page has used that word in various forms, 20-30 times on the page, since 2001 until the last few months when it's been whittled down to a dozen or so. And today, you removed another 10 instances.

You've now refactored my valid contesting of the RfC formulation a couple times, reducing the visibility of what I wrote, to favor your view.

I'm not interested in playing that game with you, so I'll leave it at this version for now. I look forward to finding out how other editors see the question of keeping "fairness" as part of NPOV, as it has been since 2001. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the diff above, and I must say that the word "fair" adds a lot. It is important not only to present all major points of view, but to do so in an equitable, aka "fair" manner. For instance, if I write "the free market has significant problems, the problems have led to hoarding, self-ceteredness, and outright war," without qualifying the statement at all, I am not presenting the free-market criticism in a "fair" manner. Ngchen (talk) 21:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that others may think your hypothetical sentence is, in fact, "fair". To be sure, "fair" is in the eye-of-the-beholder. "Equitable manners" is not quite right either since we have WP:WEIGHT. Please keep brainstorming, though. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jack-A-Roe's point seems obviously correct here. There is no single word (except maybe "neutral") that absolutely has to be included in this policy, so to frame the question in terms of inclusion rather than exclusion prejudices the outcome completely. The question actually is: is there something so problematic about the word "fair" that it needs to be excluded from the article? And the answer to that question is obviously no. The notion of fairness is no more subjective than that of "neutrality", or "objectivity" or anything else. If that's the best argument for exclusion then it's really no argument at all.216.245.208.61 (talk) 21:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The real issue is not with the "subjectivity" of fairness. The real issue is that there are definitions of "fair" which, when applied to editing at Wikipedia, run directly counter to best practices. This is not the case with "neutral" or "objective" -- though it is true that those terms are subjective. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are such... but the word "neutrality" itself could be mis-interpreted in the same way as "fair." Ludwigs2 had a solution to this, which I tried to put in, but it got reverted. Anyway, as long as we have the prominence principle, and the RS policy, there is no real problem here. People will always mis-interpret. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No there aren't. Identical arguments to the one you make about "fair" could be made with regard to any other term. What if the only reliable sources we have are not "neutral", for example. Should we not also remove this problematic term.216.245.208.61 (talk) 21:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your example mirrors none of my arguments. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It mirrors exactly your argument that being fair runs counter to core policy/best practice - an argument you make above. So, to use your wording to make things clearer: we have a WP:RS guideline that scoffs at neutrality.216.245.208.61 (talk) 22:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be correct: one can make all sorts of arguments about words. Also as I said before, fair is simply fair, but the words presently being edit warred in are prescriptive and may require OR. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, fair should remain in the policy, as explained above. Stop trying to edit war the changes in. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As argued substantively above, "fairly" is a distinct aspect from "objective" and "neutral". Pick up a dictionary, please. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to a dictionary "fair" has up to 31 different meanings, so its use in policy probably isn't the most appropriate. Would recommend it be substituted for the correct use of the word in the context to avoid it being incorrectly utilised. Shot info (talk) 23:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not "fair", the adjective; but "fairly", the adverb. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

in a fair manner; justly or honestly; impartially.; 2. moderately; tolerably: a fairly heavy rain.;3. properly; legitimately: a claim fairly made.; 4. clearly; distinctly: fairly seen. - Which is exactly how it applies here (wit the obvious exemption of (2). ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See RfC:Is use of the word "fair" needed Shot info (talk) 01:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would someone please clarify the effect this would have of some sample questions of inclusion of material? I suppose that's at the core of this rather abstract discussion. It would need to be, for essentially I think the NPOV policy is simply an expansion of what we mean by "fair" in our context. One could of course argue that the inappropriate political use of the word by some journalistic endeavors, and many notable pressure groups, has degraded it. DGG (talk) 13:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Introducng specific examples would run a severe risk of getting distracted into discussions of the examples themselves, but perhaps some though-experiments would help:

Consider
- the case of two ethnic groups who have a history of conflict: Each considers itself to be a victim of the other. "Fairness" means presenting facts essential to the viewpoints of both sides, so that both those viewpoints become comprehensible, though neither is endorsed as "right". There is often an unevenness in the quality of sources in such cases. Fairness means presenting the two sides in a balanced way, and not allowing WP:RS to be used as an excuse to favour the side that happens to have the better documentation. Even well-sourced, neutrally presented information can be unfair if the selection is biased.
- a biography of a recently-dead controversial person: Being fair to that person means a presumption of innocence unless proved guilty. Not as strongly, perhaps, as provided by WP:BLP, but not abruptly different. It means a stringent adherence to WP:RS for adverse information, or indeed for strongly positive information.
- religion: Here fairness means letting the viewpoint of every non-trivial religious group be described in factual terms but as far as possible in terms acceptable to that group. Very small groups, not notable for other reasons, can be omitted altogether.
- scientific controversies: If a minority view has a negligible number of supporters, it can be omitted altogether. If it has substantial support, fairness demands that the minority view is presented as far as possble in a way that makes it credible. The fact that it is a minority view, and the statement of the majority view, must of course also be given due weight. As with the ethnic conflict scenario, there is often an imbalance of reliable sources in these cases. Sources which favour or assume one of the viewpoints should not be accepted uncritically, but should be used cautiously if there is nothing better. The majority view should not be assumed to be right. Fairness should dictate the selection and emphasis of the facts. We serve our readers best by giving them full and balanced information, and assuming that they have the intelligence to make their own judgements.

There have been, and perhaps still are, some unfair articles in wikipedia. Speaking for myself, I find these totally counter-productive. The unfairnesses, which can be very obvious; do not tend to change my mind in their direction; rather the reverse. They also undermine my faith in wikipedia. Fair articles, on the other hand, because they inspire confidence, are more persuasive. The only consequence of blanket removal of the word "fair" would be to legitimise unfairness, and that can hardly be what we want to do. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 21:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, describing religion in terms "accpetable to the group" or a scientific controversy "in a way that makes it credible" is political correctness, which is decidedly not what the neutral point of view is about. If there truly exists a disparity in positive and negative reliable sources on a dispute, this should be reflected in the relative weight given each viewpoint. Being "fair" to the weaker viewpoint by sugarcoating the article is distinctly POV. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above illustrations show the difficulty in describing the difference between how the policy would work with or without the words related to "fair" - or the principle/concept of "fairness". That's the reason it's important to keep those words and ideas in the policy. Every "case" of NPOV is different. The idea of "fairness" has been part of the policy from the beginning; and it gets re-interpreted every time there is a debate and consensus on an article that refers to the policy. It's analogous to the way obscenity laws in some countries do not define the meaning of "obscenity"; instead leaving that determination to the jury when there is a trial. The writers of those laws recognized that the meaning of the word could not be boiled down to a simple statement, so they trusted to the judgment of the people who would interpret the law in as applied in individual cases.

We don't know how the process will change if we remove the words related to fairness from the policy. Other words, like "objective" or "impartial" are not the same; all are subject to interpretation in each situation that NPOV is cited, but "fair", "fairly", "fairness" and "unfairly" bring certain dimensions into consideration -- removing those dimensions would change the core of the policy. Would that be best in the long run? I don't believe it would, though I suppose it's possible. For now though, it's such a large and deep change that it should not be made unless it turns out there is a strong and wide consensus for the change. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 02:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, and also, words like "objective" require the synthesis of an objective standpoint, rather than simple use of the sources. Nothing easier to misuse. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<rhetorical question> Why not focus on the core principle (editorial neutrality in presenting information as it appears in reliable sources) and leave "squishy" concepts like fair, objective, balanced and so forth completely out of the equation? </rhetorical question> Vassyana (talk) 14:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For two reasons:

The concept "reliable" turns out to be equally squishy. Every author has his point of view, which someone can disagree with.
Reliable sources may be very unevenly distributed over aspects of an issue, or incidents in a conflict. Confining oneself to reliable sources without any regard to balance may result in gross unfairness in the presentation as a whole.

SamuelTheGhost (talk) 14:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by fair? Remember, the most fundamental policy confines us to what we can find in reliable sources. Parallel to how another policy restricts us from making up entirely new facts, this policy restricts us from making up (or overpresenting) new viewpoints. I would say, to go beyond the sources to find "balance" is being unfair to the sources! Someguy1221 (talk) 16:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, this policy even requires that we match the "unfair presentation" of the "unevenly distributed" sources. Vassyana (talk) 16:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reminding me about WP:V and WP:OR, but I was already aware of them. They are both essentially negative rules, to prevent editors from inventing things. I am not suggesting any breach of them. WP:V is about verifiability, so that we quote authors accurately. Reliability is the more stringent requirement that the quoted authors are telling the balanced truth. Where there is good coverage of a topic by sources which all editors agree to be reliable, there is no problem. If we insisted strictly on that, probably half the articles in wikipedia, including nearly all the contentious ones, would have to be blanked. There may be editors who'd prefer that, but it isn't going to happen. Your arguments seem to be scarcely different from what I'm saying. Someguy uses the word "overpresenting". What does this mean, if it is not defined in terms of some notion of "balance" or "fairness"? Similarly Vassyana refers me to UNDUE. What is "due" if not a reference to some notion of appropriate level, in other words, what is balanced? Of course we can differ when if comes to applying these ideas in particular cases, but I can't see how you can get away from the fundamental concept.

I would like to comment on the policy statement "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources" that Vassyana indicates. Note that this sentence appears in the same article that we're discussing, so we are at equal liberty to discuss it too. I can see the motivation behind it, but on closer examination it falls apart. First of all, discovering the said "proportion" would be an arduous piece of WP:OR. Furthermore any such effort, in contentious cases, would collapse into arguments as to which sources were reliable. And in any case, do we really think it appropriate to decide on wikipedia content by the mere volume of other publication?

A final rhetorical question of mine. Are you willing to promise never to appeal to "fairness" or the like, even when the notion would support the case you want to make? SamuelTheGhost (talk) 17:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Journalistic objectivity

In looking around, it seems that the traditional and practical term in this area is "journalistic objectivity" and the appropriate WP page is Objectivity (journalism). I tried to mention this in the lead by changing "all significant views that have been published by reliable sources" to "all significant views that have been published by reliable sources in the tradition of journalistic objectivity". It got reverted and the reverter's "I don't think so." comment in his revert seems to me to be an insufficient discussion.

Please talk about this change. I think we should re-apply my change.--Tubesidiom (talk) 07:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably it was reverted for being overly restrictive with regard to cases like self-published information by people about themselves. If we have an article on Joe Bloggs, and Joe Bloggs is involved in some sort of controversy, then while Joe Bloggs' Blog is certainly not written in a "tradition of journalistic objectivity" it's still considered part of NPOV presentation to say what Bloggs has written about his view on the controversy about him. --erachima talk 08:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But journalists, from time to time, do refer to "this journalist" if they somehow become involved in the story. It is simply that Joe does that much more frequently than professional journalists typically do. My point is that there is a vast corpus of literature already built up within the concept of journalistic objectivity which overlaps quite well with NPOV. Let me recommend this change: "and as far as possible without bias,..." to "and as far as possible without bias and in the tradition of journalistic objectivity,..."? Perhaps that would be less confusing.--Tubesidiom (talk) 08:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am presently too tired to formulate a sufficiently thought-out reply, so I am afraid you'll have to wait for someone else to respond to you on that. However, I feel that any changes to our core policy pages that may alter the scope or meaning of the page need to be discussed and weighed prior to insertion, so I'm going to revert your addition per WP:BRD. Please do not add it again without agreement from at least several other editors. Thanks and good night. --erachima talk 08:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted energetically, but now you are too tired to discuss the matter. I will exhibit some patience.--Tubesidiom (talk) 09:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be happy to respond now that it's no longer 2 in the morning. NPOV and journalistic objectivity are different because, where objectivity seeks to lean towards neither extreme on an issue, NPOV seeks to chronicle notable disputes, but to only give each view its correct prominence. A prime example of where this differs would be the issue of evolution vs. intelligent design: journalistic objectivity would say that each side gets on equal say, NPOV would say that, while the debate itself needs to be covered, intelligent design is given little weight in articles related to the process of evolution because it is an extreme minority position scientifically. In other words, reference to journalistic objectivity completely skews the nature of the policy and contradicts with WP:UNDUE. --erachima talk 19:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent and ec) If a journalism model appeals to you, Wikinews welcomes contributors. There's a bit of difference, though, between a journalistic approach and an encyclopedic approach. Durova^Charge! 09:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not journalism, but the vast amount of the existing literature about "journalistic objectivity" (JO) is not innately tied strictly to such narrow definitions of journalism such as that which differentiates Wikipedia from Wikinews (the latter of which is journalism). The point of choosing the term JO is to indicate that the other kinds of objectivity on the objectivity disambiguation page are not the the appropriate subjects. JO has to do with getting it right in a general sense and in a timeless sense. JO clearly covers knowledge-sharing far beyond the timely daily or periodic reporting of current events. The relevant and practical kind of objectivity is JO but the traditions of JO applies more generally to "reporting the facts" or "sharing the knowledge" in an appropriate way.--Tubesidiom (talk) 10:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like a worthy undertaking to to shift the public's understanding of journalistic objectivity toward those connotations. Wikipedia's core policies need to be written toward current layman definitions. Within that framework your proposal runs into two serious problems. A common type of edit dispute occurs when an editor tries to disallow citations to a reliable newspaper by claiming that source isn't neutral (usually because that editor disagrees with its op-ed pages). The other is a problem Wikipedians call recentism--a tendency to give undue weight to recent events. When a musician releases a new CD, the journalistic approach would be to profile the artist focusing mostly on the new release. An encyclopedia article shouldn't let that dominate its coverage of a long career. Both of those problems would become worse rather than better if we adopted this innovative definition into core policy at this time. Durova^Charge! 11:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My first reaction on seeing this heading was "uh-oh... is someone channeling User:Moulton?" My second reaction is, unfortunately perhaps, "I don't think so." This isn't any old Wikipedia article, where we discuss the best way to represent the reliable sources out there. (In fact, when it comes to NPOV there are no reliable sources, to the best of my knowledge.) This is a page documenting a core policy and Wikimedia foundation issue. There is no need to change it. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Durora: The "problems" you present are illusory. The intent was not to shift the public's understanding. Laymen are familiar with the term JO. The emphasis of JO is not about the coverage of entertainment but the coverage of fact. To both Durova and SheffieldSteel: This is not about the sources but about the Wikipedia article. Do either of you assert that NPOV has little to do with JO?--Tubesidiom (talk) 16:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For now, I assert only that NPOV is not JO, and that this policy document is not in need of changing. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This can't pass without comment: an account which was created one day ago calls three years of dispute resolution experience an illusion. Tubesidiom, your idea is surely offered with the best of intentions. Nothing personal: I approach all new policy and process proposals by shooting holes into them. Durova^Charge! 06:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sheffield Steel is right. NPOV has philosophical origins that were drawn on to suit what Jimbo and Larry Sanger considered foundational needs for a radically new project, Wikipedia. Wikipedia functions very differently from journalism and has its own history. Even if we grant there are similarities between journalistic objectivity and this policy, the developed independently to suit different institutional needs. We shouldn't cloud the issue by mixing them up. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I accept your assertions but they might be irrelevant. If there was a concept of the mathematical digit zero invented by Arabics and another in India and another in China, those zeros would have different origins but we would recognize them as the same zero even if they had different spiritual and philosophical implications for each of their inventors. If NPOV and JO have a large amount of overlap (overlap in the sense that you are talking about the same thing) then all you have to do is explain that "NPOV is like JO but with these important differences..." Can anyone pinpoint any of those differences? I am not asserting that NPOV and JO are the same thing, but I am challenging you to delineate the practical differences or else to allow clear mention of the overlap of NPOV and JO early in the text.--Tubesidiom (talk) 19:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've got it backwards. You prove to us that NPOV and JO are the same - or that there is no significant difference, nothing that could come back and bite us in the future when some hitherto unknown academic article about JO is used to justify a novel and (to Wikipedia regulars) surprising interpretation of NPOV. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tubesidiom, I'd just broadly advise against making a policy depend on an external and potentially fluid definition. Part of the idea of explicitly defining "neutrality," "notability," "original research" and other concepts in the Wikipedia: project space is to make everyone clear as to what we mean by those terms, even if not everyone on the outside would agree with us. And they usually do not, but this largely stems from the unique problems we face as a Wiki trying to be a legitimate encyclopedia. If you feel our definition of neutrality could use a reworking or an expansion, I would advise you to recommend substantive changes to how neutrality is defined here, instead of pointing to an article that is subject to mainstream journalistic views that can change without our knowledge, and whose changes would affect the policy without our consent. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JO is a well-established concept with many decades if not centuries of tradition so it is silly to suggest that mainstream journalistic views might suddenly or significantly change about what is meant by JO. When Schools of Journalism talk about objectivity, they are talking about a well-defined and stable concept that goes far beyond the narrow definition of journalism. While JO was not invented here at Wikipedia, it clearly has a large overlap with NPOV. Both what NPOV seems to talk about and wha JO clearly embodies have a little dependence on the supposed "unique problems" of wiki. The issue is primarily of NPOV or JO of the content. Again, I am not trying to equate the two, but I have just to hear of significant, practical and compelling way in which NPOV is not solidly within the same subject area as JO.--Tubesidiom (talk) 20:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It just does not matter. A Wikipedia policy is not an article on a journalistic value or standard. If someone out there wants to write an essay or article on the similarity between scholarly notions of neutrality and journalistic standards, they are welcome to do so. Many professions - encyclopedists, jurists, journalists - have notions of neutrality or objectivity. If this interests you, write about it on your personal blog, or write an article for a peer-reviewed academic journal, or write an article for a magazine, there is nothing stopping you. But this page is for discussion of a Wikipedia policy and is limited to that. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It does matter. It does matter that you treat your Chinese zero digit as utterly distinct from an Indian zero digit. It is based on ignorance or parochialism. It is a great impediment that the project page guides the reader to the straw man and time sink of Objectivity (philosophy) but ignores Objectivity (journalism). It is a great impairment to communication. It also keeps the dialog at a low level of maturity.--Tubesidiom (talk) 07:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the above posters have tried to make clear, they are two different concepts. So your digit analogy is flawed; an appropriate analogy would two different digits. Criticizing the distinction of identical digits is the straw man here, even if an unintentional one. Now, in principle we could gain consensus to rewrite NPOV policy to reflect or even mirror JO. But I suspect that would be astronomically unlikely. What you are advocating is more the standard of Wikinews. But that is a different project for a reason. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 13:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is kind of sad that Tubesidiom has no interest whatsoever in the views of others. She made her point, we listened, and don't agree. You know, Tubesidiom, you won't get very far here unless you are willing to work with others. As for the example of zeros, of course it is a poor analogy. A better analogy would be, well, Analogy (biology) but the point remains that wikipedia policy, especially th original non-negotiable policy, should stand on its own and not depend on referents external to Wikipedia. The page refers to philosophical objectivity because that was Larry Sanger (a philosopher)'s source. If he were a journalist I suppose it owuld be different. But we aren't going to rewrite history. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I came to this talk page seeking knowledge and I try to remain sensitive to the views of others and I appreciate when those views provide me with new information. I am aware that Objectivity (philosophy), as it says, is "difficult to pin down" and that Sanger's background in philosophy (and Wales' background in Objectivism? Well, perhaps not.) might predispose him to wander into the time sink of philosophical objectivity. I only chose the zero digit analogy because historically when Arabic numerals with its digit zero was introduction to Europe, which had previously used Roman numerals, it initially met with some resistance but was eventually accepted because of its vast utility. I am willing to listen and to change, but my question remains unanswered: what are the practical, significant differences between NPOV and JO? Come on - there must be something. Is it just that NPOV is ours and JO is theirs? Accepting that as a meaningful difference, is there anything else?--Tubesidiom (talk) 18:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You question remains unanswered? I put it to you that my answer remains unquestioned. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, perhaps we could try something like this on the project page: "While NPOV and JO remain distinct, the specific differences between the two that will be enumerated in the following list..." and then we just leave the list to be filled in by the community.--Tubesidiom (talk) 23:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's try this instead: The consensus here (unanimous among the seven editors to respond) is that NPOV is not JO and that there are no grounds for changing the policy. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 23:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dilution of WP:UNDUE

One of the problems of trying to put all the old guidelines into a single guideline is that part of them gets lost. WP:UNDUE used to include explicitly not only undue weight with reference to the opinion of groups but also undue weight with respect to notability. It used to be clear that just because a news item mentioning an article topic reached a minimum threshold for notability did not mean it has a right for inclusion on the main article on the topic. The coverage of a topic should reflect the notability of what is included. Without this we will get a form of NPOV by inclusion of minor news items in too prominent articles and the job of reducing the size of some enormous articles gets harder. Things which reach a threshold for notability of course we can include somewhere but the main articles on big topics have to be balanced in choice of notable content. Are we happy that undue with respect to notability should be included in some form and if so would someone like to try and add it?--BozMo talk 07:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Durova^Charge! 10:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should definitely be in. Not sure of wording though, what did it say before? Doug Weller (talk) 17:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that still in? Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements. Maybe it just needs a clarification? Someguy1221 (talk) 17:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I take it back, at least partly. What has gone is just explicit reference in terms of notability. I didn't read it that way first time, but I agree if you read "significance" as "notability" it is still there. Of course "significance" is a subjective term, far more so than notability (and after all the stuff on viewpoints I was still reading significant in terms of "pervasiveness of a viewpoint"). We do define notability pretty well elsewhere though. As everyone can argue "significance" til the cows come home, can I change "significance" to "significance (in terms of notability)". Looks like there is support for clairifying this?--BozMo talk 18:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely. Otherwise people will say 'significant means important, and what I want to add is really important, it will prove Elvis is alive on Mars!'. That will deal with issues where someone wants to add something that has little prominence (eg a fringe idea that not even many fringe people pay attention to). Doug Weller (talk) 18:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]