To suggest that a person who is able to articulate the universal perspective on something makes it neutral is quite a thought. After giving some thought to this, I refer to what L Ron Hubbard said in his essay 'What is Truth'. His position is that if we want to find truth we 'look' not 'think'. If we filter what we see through our belief system to find out what to do with it, the result will hardly be neutral. If we allow whatever we see to address us without the filtering process, it is much more likely that we will recieve the message waiting for us. Is it possible for a person to be neutral, that is probably the better question. Many people are not even aware of this concept. Will one person be able to tell if another is neutral, or even more important, will we be able to tell if we ourselves are neutral? To make an edict that mandates something that may be the pervue of the gods' is interesting. Nice idea, but to get other people's thoughts on what they see, is probably going to be more important to most people, than what they have heard at least second hand, filtered through one or more biased positions. How far we can go down this road is something that I would like to know. If there are others who have been here before and know what is up ahead, I would like to hear from you!Ken 06:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Couldn't we just block Bensaccount and let everyone else keep working? Stevage 07:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, David. I've reverted back to the 23 January version as I don't believe we've seen any serious arguments on the talk page preferring the mid-November version that the page was protected on. Of course, if I'm wrong on this, people should note this here and we'll go back to the mid-November version. Hopefully, at least in the short term, any suggested tweaks are discussed on the talk page rather than just being inserted into the project page, jguk 13:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
There is enough dispute in this talk page with regard to the clarity of the project page that a {{totallydisputed}} tag is justified. The essential problem was well described by Anon84.x and Iantresman. Anon84.x also wrote a useful small draft as a starting point for a clearer policy. A useful discussion about this issue is necessary. The main proponents of the current version should contribute to this discussion. Please do not dismiss the issue with general POV argments of the kind "this policy is the core of wikipedia and we must commit to it to achieve the liberation of mankind" -- the last quote is a caricature of one paragraph in the current version (see above). --Lumiere 15:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
WP:NOR is a special example of applying WP:V, and in my opinion WP:NOR should be downgraded from policy to guideline for that very reason. WP:CITE explains how to cite sources, but the requirement to cite sources is in WP:V, jguk 17:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I prefer the idea of a merging of WP:NOR and WP:V. Also, I don't like the title of WP:V, which is "Verifiability" -- it doesn't say what it is. But, this is not what we should discuss here. Jguk, what is your opinion on the small draft? --Lumiere 17:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
You guys are violating WP:WOTTA. Kim Bruning 17:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Kim! I loved this WP:WOTTA, and I got every thing just from the title! --Lumiere 17:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
To help simplify and clarify NPOV I think this section should be entirely removed, or deflated. Please consider this and tell me why you agree or disagree. Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Why should Wikipedia be unbiased? Bensaccount 18:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
As far as I am concerned, you can delete it. However, I think it is more useful at this time to discuss essential issues in this talk page or in the talk page of Anon84.x proposal. What do you think of Anon84.x small draft? --Lumiere 18:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
To make this critical distinction clear for newcomers, here's a simple analogy:
Let's say I'm an author and I'm writing a novel. I choose a style of storytelling in which the narrator is "objective", ie. the narrator does not make judgements about or criticise the characters or scenarios in the story. For example, the book will not feature statements like:
Instead:
In my book, the narrator is neutral, as the narrator is not involved in interpreting the story. Therefore it may be said that the book is written from a neutral point of view. However, me, the author, is far from neutral, as I choose to show different aspects of the characters and places, but not others, that might have shown them in a different light if I chose otherwise. Thus, me, the author, is selectively biased.
--Anon84.x 09:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I mean, anything else added to the page (e.g. selecting views, balancing views, other wikipedia specific policies, making research, saving the world, etc..)
--Anon84.x 08:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Anon84.x, one way or another, it is important to clarify that a viewpoint must be both (1) written in a neutral style and (2) be significant before it can be accepted for inclusion in an article. The people that are working on the NPOV policy need to understand the above point and it should be mentioned in the NPOV policy even if we adopt a limited version as you propose. Many misinterpret the neutral style as a sufficient criteria for inclusion, and this misinterpretation is often used in disputes. It is simply not true that we can explain a neutral point of view policy, especially its limited role in the selection process, without referring to other aspects of the selection process. As a strict minimum, it must be explained that a neutral point of view is only one aspect of the selection process, and the natural way to explain it is to mention the other aspects. This would still be needed even in a limited version of NPOV as you propose. Therefore, I am not against your proposal, but I am saying that it does not adress the main issue. --Lumiere 10:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Anon84.x, I am aware that we are working toward the same goal. In fact, I can support your proposal, but then do you also agree with me that even this restricted version of NPOV must mention the other aspects of the selection process. --Lumiere 10:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I added the {{Contradict}} and {{cleanup-rewrite}} templates. --Anon84.x 10:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
You should write a section with a title like Why NPOV needs a complete rewrite so that people who see your tag can directly get the point. This section could link to the previous sections that are the most relevant. --Lumiere 11:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I almost feel like I am attacking the 'holy grail'! Is it possible for something to be truly neutral? I made the trip from the Encyclopedia to the Dictionary to see what this word meant. It seems as though the term which is addressed in #6 below ends up being part of an Oximoron. Adjective 1. Not taking sides (in a war or political race) 2. Unbiased, unaligned 3. Neither beneficial nor harmful. 4. Neither positive nor negative, possessing no charge. Having equivalent positive and negative charge such that there is no imbalance of charge. 5. Having a pH of 7, neither acid nor alkaline 6. Favouring neither the supporting viewpoint nor the opposing viewpoint of a topic of debate. 7. Family feuds. Belonging to neither of the two feuding families. Retrieved from "http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/neutral"
Is not a point of view a perspective from which a person observes something? How can a person understand what he/she sees without having something to relate it to? Is that which we relate it to the database which is what will allow us to understand what we see, and will provide us with an ability to do what we intend to do? If we have no data base on which to build an understanding we end up in the condition of a baby, no knowledge of anything, with only an interest is its surroundings. It has no point of view. It does not even know what it is seeing. As time goes on, it finds that certain things do certain things, and begins to check itself to see how it affects it. At some point it finds that some action has an effect. If the action affects the persons condition which relates to a need this is noted and begins the forming of a data base. At some point in time priorities are set to be used in sorting the data for future use. This happens through out the useful life of the person. This allows the formation of the attributes which determine the relationship that the person has with the universe. The profile that is presented and from which it relates is called a point of view. For this to be neutral is not likely to occur. It will have been formed by very strong influences with whatever processing powers that have been developed used to erect a belief system. This is what we humans function out of. Out of this someone suggests neutrality.
It has been said above that it is not the person that is to be neutral, but rather the message. Fine. The question that comes to mind from this is 'Which is more important to the communication...the message itself or the way in which it is recieved?' It is this writers contention that we have less control over the way a message we send is recieved by the intended recepiant than the recepiant themselves. What will determine how they recieve it? Their Point of View!
For me to state that the above is true would be quite a stretch. To state that it is not true would be a greater stretch. To get someone elses point of view is very important to obtaining a great understanding. Just as certainly as no two people can occupy the same space at the same time, neither can any of us occupy all space at the same time. The sharing of what we have from our point of view with others who do not have the opportunity to be there seems to be a blessing, rather than something to be cursed.
If a University is a place where expression is encouraged so that the greatest amount of learning can occur, what is an encyclopedia supposed to be. It is quite clear that most of the people contributing to this work are much more schooled than am I. I attended a University for nearly 3 months back in 1968 before 'washing out'. Since then I have picked up what I know from the real world. 90+% of the learing that I have acquired has come as a result of others providing me with questions. Thank you to all who help me with an understanding of the concept discussed on thege pages.Ken 11:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Would a statement of fact be the equivalent of a point of view? A point of view would seem like something that would be seen from a specific perspective. If everyone everywhere saw the same thing, would that not be a statement of fact, rather than a point of view? An accountant or mathematician may argue with this but most people would say that 2+2=4. Most would say that that is a fact. It may be a point of view if it is possible that someone my see it another way. Would it be correct to say that 1,000 is larger that 100 as a specific number would be a fact? And if this is true, is it a fact or a point of view? Still trying to figure out what this all really means. Sometimes feel Bill O'RielyKen 00:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC) But if I was to say that 2 + 2 = 5 {\displaystyle 2+2=5} , then 2 + 2 = 4 {\displaystyle 2+2=4} would be an opinion, is that not correct? In reality, everything we say is an opinion, because everything that we take to be as fact passes through our minds and is subject to our own interpretation, not to mention that reality is defined by our perception and therefore there is no such thing as concrete factual reality. Therefore is it not correct to say that anything that is a fact is also an opinion?
An example would be that if someone was in a forest and saw a tree get struck by lightning and fall eastward, but another person standing next to him saw it fall westward, then who's opinion is taken to be fact? In a situation like this, there is no definite fact, and therefore no neutral point of view. If I was to go look at that tree and by my own analasys deduce that it had in fact fallen northward, then would you accept my opinion, or go based on the two people with conflicting opinions who were there when it ocurred?
In my own opinion (which I suppose is a paradox since it cannot be proven because it is niether fact nor a point of view as I have just proven), there really is no such thing as a neutral point of view. There is, however, a reasonable amount of discretion between tones that we use when writing articles. Therefore, it would be my idea to, instead of having NPOV, have NTOV (Neutral Tone of Voice). Just an opinion.
Wait a second, I seem to have fallen into my usual trap of, instead of talking about the original topic that was intended, making a completely different point. Please excuse me, I am not the best persuasive writer, as you can plainly see. Sonny jim 01:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
--Anon84.x 13:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
(Note: these problems have been addressed to Larry Sanger, the original creator of the policy: see his talk page) --Anon84.x 19:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I note from the main article history that DreamGuy has commented [1]: "remove pointless tags, as two people trying to totally rewrite the policy to make pushing their POV easier doesn't overrule the wide acceptance this version has -- convince a sizable group, THEN tag".
Ignoring the tag issues, there is the suggestion that a rewrite is self-serving, so I'd appreciate elucidation from DreamGuy. How would a rewrite make anybody's POV easier to push? --Iantresman 14:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
There shouldn't be edit warring over this page. Obviously, if there is, that means you haven't done your job in ensuring there is a broad and significant consensus for what you are trying to change. If you won't create a sandbox page to work in, then I'll do it for you. Work here, please. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 15:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
It is not true at all that there is only two people that thinks that this policy page needs rewrite. There is actually a significant support expressed there and there in comments in this talk page and no opposition to the proposal of a separation between the notion of neutral viewpoints and other notions such as the notion of non biased selection of viewpoints, which is the essential motivation for the rewrite. There are only people like DreamGuy who woke up when they saw the tag, and don't even discuss the proposal in the talk page. Also, like Anon84.x, I don't mind the new tag, the {{protected tag}} . We are working on the talk page and also in a kind of sandbox page (which Katefan0 say we don't have). The proposal for a rewrite comes from people that only want to improve the policy. We have strong points and the proposal seems to be supported by more and more wikipedians. --Lumiere 16:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
-- Ec5618 17:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Our critic of the ideologic or political part of the text is most likely biased by the fact that we feel that the connection of the entire policy with selective bias is not clear enough or other issues of this kind. It is not fundamentally wrong to have some inspiring components to a text. Inspiring expressions such as "liberating", "help the whole world", etc. might actually be welcome if we really like the policy. I know, it is kind of playing with our human nature, but we are human. The problem is that, if someone is not into it, then these expressions start to look weird. Perhaps, we should wait and see how we feel after we got a version that we like. Maybe we will then want to see these inspiring expressions. --Lumiere 20:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Really, I would like to focus my critic on the essential. I don't mind redundancy, and believe it can be useful. I don't mind inspiring expressions, and believe they can be useful. The only issue is there is a need for a better connection with other policies so that we do not confuse people about how Wikipedia policy deals with selective bias. --Lumiere 20:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Here is a 'quote from above' ""Where there is disagreement about what is true, there's disagreement about what constitutes knowledge." That is why I want it deleted or abbreviated. Bensaccount 18:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)" From my perspective the equivalance of what is true, and knowledge is not even close. My understanding of knowledge is that it relates to the ability to use something and is not based on the correctness of what is being used. If this quote is from the article, which cannot be changed, and I am correct in my understanding of the above, then I do not know how it can continue unchanged, and have this site claim integrity with the implication that the word manifests.
As to wanting to "savage it" were you intending to do that, or to 'salvage' it. Kind of interesting. Seems sometimes one sets out to do one thing and ends up doing something different.Ken 01:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I am not certain what you are asking. What I did might have been confusing. I was addressing two different issues. I am not aware of any problem that I did not create with deliberatness. Some genius, eh.Ken 03:17, 29 January 2006 (UTC)