Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shortcut: WT:NPOV

The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Wikipedia. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Before editing this page, please make sure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss on the talk page. Always remember to keep cool when editing. Changes to this page do not immediately change policy anyway, so don't panic.

Are you in the right place? For questions or discussions about the application of this policy to any specific article(s), please post your message at either the NPOV Noticeboard (any neutrality-related issue) or the Fringe Theories Noticeboard (undue weight given to a minority view).

Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:Talk Spoken WikipediaSpoken Wikipedia articles		WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia
	v • d • e The spoken word version of this page is part of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, an attempt to produce recordings of Wikipedia articles. To participate, visit the project page.

When starting a new topic, please add it to the bottom of this page, and please sign your comments with four tildes: ~~~~. This will automatically place a date stamp, which will allow us to maintain this page better.

Contents 1 Scientific consenus 2 Role of Truth and NPOV 3 Is NPOV necessarily the best way? 4 Dead end link on NPOV page? 5 NPOV vios are a blockable offense 6 Question regarding NPOV 7 Problems over at The Hardy Boys

[edit] Scientific consenus

I suggest that the article be modified to discuss scientific consensus. --Atomic blunder (talk) 17:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Scientific consensus certainly doesn't qualify as neutral.

How old is the earth ? 5,000 years ? 5 billion years ?

Is the earth warming ?

--InnocentsAbroad2 (talk) 03:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

We've made an active decision not to allow scientific consensus to be the defining viewpoint on Wikipedia. On the other hand, we do tend to operate under a sort of default assumption that scientific consensus is by its nature the most mainstream viewpoint available, and we tend to give it weight appropriate to that fact. So while we do not establish scientific consensus as true, we do make sure that every claim that differs from scientific consensus is clearly flagged as such. The result is usually an informative article that is neutral without being misleading about the facts. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Inexplicably, scientific consensus is not discussed in this article. Since it is a notable viewpoint, it should be discussed. Don't assume everyone knows what you just explained. --Atomic blunder (talk) 19:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Also kind of wondering what or where is the boundary between scientific consensus and fact. "That there is a planet called Mars is a fact. "

At one time (not too long ago) the notion of a planet was not considered a fact, but rather an assertion within a scientific controversy. --InnocentsAbroad2 (talk) 21:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

What is a scientific fact? See:[1]. There can be scientific consensus about something that is not considered a fact, such as a hypothesis. --Atomic blunder (talk) 03:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the project page mentioning "scientific fact". It does mention "majority scientific opinion" and "majority (scientific) view", and it links to scientific consensus. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 02:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Scientific opinion and scientific viewpoints are both ways of thinking or perceiving held by scientists. Science and fact (as in scientific fact) though, are actually mutually exclusive words. Science is a process rather than a thing, and fact is a thing, and cannot refer to process but is in itself the end product of some kind of process. Mars may have been discovered/defined as a planet through scientific processes but once its existence is established the existence is the fact, but not the scientific processes that proved that existence.(olive (talk) 03:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC))

Actually the existence of Mars had been noted since ancient times; people just weren't sure what significance to attach to the fact that a few of the bright spots in the night sky didn't have fixed positions but instead wandered according to predictable patterns. Scientific consensus changes as available evidence and expert opinions change. As consensus updates Wikipedia follows. An interesting case of that is the Ivory-billed Woodpecker article: fifteen years ago it wouldn't have been neutral to assert very strongly that the species isn't extinct. Now? Well I sure hope those birds are out there hiding in the Arkansas wilderness (we probably all hope they still exist), but it wouldn't be neutral to affirm that they're alive (even if it's true). We report that the evidence has serious interest from experts in ornithology, reflect the strengths and the weaknesses of that evidence as it exists today, and (quietly) hope tomorrow's headlines contain a beautiful photograph of those great birds nesting. When and if that happens, the balance of that article will undergo substantial change. Best regards, Durova^Charge! 07:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

For a glimpse of how scientific opinion has shiftied with changing evidence during Wikipedia's project lifetime, compare the 2002 article to today's. Durova^Charge! 07:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

What is neutral by nature is not scientific consensus, but the scientific method. In practice, there are good and bad scientists, mistakes are made, some have a personal agenda, and what they can work on and what they can publish is decided by money and politics. As a result, scientific consensus can be just as biased as any other kind of consensus. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 12:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and, the so called scientific method is as old as mankind's ability to observe and measure, to relate cause and effect and fundamentally to think. To see science as an frozen ideal or idea is a flawed view, because science is based on thinking and observational processes that must be by definition subjective, however much objective boundaries are designed to control that subjectivity. Subjectivity is not frozen but constantly changing process itself. NPOV needs to be underpinned by other policies and guidelines like WP:Weight, more attempts to control subjectivity. Articles deemed scientific as with all articles, must present multiple viewpoints (mainstream and fringe taken into consideration... another bag of snakes) so that the reader is presented with the best information on all sides of the topic, and can make decisions on their own. This approach helps define the NPOV of the article itself, but not the NPOV of the topic, the editor, or the "science". Fact, and truth another subjective measurement, don't and can't enter into the actual act of placing information into the encyclopedia. My two cents:o).(olive (talk) 14:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC))

Just to clarify, my suggestion was that "scientific consensus" should be discussed somewhere in the article; I never said that it should be called the defining viewpoint, the neutral viewpoint, or even the mainstream viewpoint, just that it should be discussed, period. --Atomic blunder (talk) 20:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

and to clarify further . My comments were to the editor asking about these points. I often find that unless a common ground of understanding is established it can be hard to reach agreement. I haven't commented here in a long time but have a bit of time to jump in again ... thus my comments . Best wishes.(olive (talk) 20:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC))

Alternatively, the article should explain why scientific consensus does not apply to NPOV. --Atomic blunder (talk) 23:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

It would add nothing, and as I see it the article is fine the way it is. These are rules, not theories.--71.162.70.211 (talk) 20:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Role of Truth and NPOV

Does NPOV got anything to do with Truth? I mean, THE TRUTH. It would be interesting to see a discussion go on about this issue. I mean, seriously, does Truth have to follow the NPOV guideline? Or any guidelines?

--XH 03:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)User:Xinyu

and on exactly what subject are you certain you know the truth, and are prepared to make a definitive statement of it? DGG (talk) 06:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps NPOV depends on one's point of view? : ) --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The best we can do is follow the standards of WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV and so forth to try to get as close to the objective truth as we can. People who think they know THE TRUTH^TM typically have some ideology or product to sell and haven't really done any sort of critical thought about it beyond wanting to advance their own philosophical/religious or financial situation. DreamGuy (talk) 18:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Hear, hear, DreamGuy. Though frequently objectivity requires the admission that there's more than one 'truth' to a subject. (Why is it that some people demand/feel the need for one simplistic, usually very reductive answer to complicated questions? That's the real problem here, if there is one.)--Tyranny Sue (talk) 14:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Is NPOV necessarily the best way?

I assume this has been debated to death before now; if so, where would I go to see what people have said on the subject and/or have my 2p worth? 92.234.8.173 (talk) 01:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC) Josh

As opposed to what?- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 01:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

As opposed to anything; isn't that the definition of best? I'm happy to have a debate about the advantages and disadvantages of NPOV if you like; I just wanted to make sure it was in the right place before we started.

Specifically, I was wondering whether NPOV is necessarily the best way of handling highly controversial topics; I find that the POV edits in the talk pages add a lot to my understanding of some issues, and so I started thinking about whether allowing some POV on pages - in a space for it - in addition to the main NPOV body of the article - might add something. If it could be adequately referenced, would it already be considered reasonable to say something like 'one side's view of X is commonly held to include [POV], and the other side argue [opposite POV]'? 92.234.8.173 (talk) 01:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC) Josh

I don't see how it would benefit the current page.--71.162.70.211 (talk) 20:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Josh, isn't what you're talking about ("to say something like 'one side's view of X is commonly held to include [POV], and the other side argue [opposite POV]' ") covered in the 'Bias' subsection? (i.e. "...the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence...") --Tyranny Sue (talk) 14:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Dead end link on NPOV page?

When I clicked on the 'religion' link in the 'balancing different points of view' part of the 'Common objections and clarifications' section of the NPOV page, I was taken to an FAQ page that does not have a religion section at all (not in its contents list or in the actual article). Has this section been moved and the link not updated? Could it have been deleted by mistake? Although I do not belong to a religion, I am sure that there are many people who are unsure of how they can write objectively about their own beliefs. Where has the answer to this question gone? Myrtacea (talk) 07:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The Religion section in the FAQ was moved to this policy. I've fixed the link. Dreadstar † 08:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV vios are a blockable offense

Feedback, on this, please? This is nothing as complex as Wikipedia:Neutrality enforcement, which didn't gain consensus apparently. This is very simple. You violate our behavioral policies too much--you're gone, with blocks by uninvolved admins. You violate our copyright policies too much--you're gone, with blocks by uninvolved admins. You violate NPOV too much--you should be gone, with blocks by uninvolved admins.

Unrepentant POV pushers are no better than those who violate copyright, since NPOV is on the same level as our copyright policy. So why don't we do something about it? rootology (C)(T) 16:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I support the bold move by ASE Unomi (talk) 15:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Probably as the most obvious POV pushers are highly uncivil at the same time - and so are blocked in that regard. WP is still crawling with civil POV pushers - and why are they still with us? Because they are not being uncivil and admins are flat out working that out - much less dealing with POV issues. Shot info (talk) 23:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

typically the problem with the polite pushers for admins is that the extent of NPOV violation is often debatable, and requires following a complex history and learning something about the subject--by which time one may not have a completely neutral POV oneself. In contrast, behavioural problems are much easier to target. If two sides are debating content, one of them may be completely right; if two sides are exchanging insults, one can simply block them both--as we usually do. To deal with content and POV problems we need a subtler approach than blocks. I'm not saying we shouldn't deal with them better--it's an urgent priority; I'm just saying it is not going to be easy. DGG (talk) 04:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The NPOV policy, a core policy, indicates that we include all significant (notable I would say) views.

Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.

So the aggressive censoring of content some find objectionable and other highly abusive behavior towards editors with minority viewpoints is totally unacceptable. There's been a move to get rid of criticism articles since Obama was elected, but there's been no willingness to merge any of the notable controversies and issues into any of the main articles. And in fact, despite DGG's statement, Arbcom punished those trying without success to advance content positions not held by the majority and ignored the marathon of incivility by the self-appointed "patrollers" and "protectors". It's been a vile business that's involved the creation of a hostile editing environment and has included actions to intimidate and harass many good faith editors in order to keep them away from those pages. Sadly, Arbcom's ruling reenforced and encouraged these behaviors, which has led to their being used even more widely since the result was rendered. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The NPOV policy says we must "represent fairly" all significant views, and "fairly" does not mean giving WP:UNDUE weight to views that are significant enough to mention but not significant enough to take over a large part of the main articles or split off into new ones. Please do not misrepresent NPOV policy in a way that encourages pushing a POV (that there is notable controversy where none exists, for example). DreamGuy (talk) 13:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Question regarding NPOV

I didn't see any mention of this in the guideline, but what do we do when we're covering the reception or reviews of artistic works? In Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Metacritic, GameRankings, MobyGames, TopTenReviews, GameTab, GameStats & Game Ratio the idea was put forth that we should only include links to reception from popular sources; but if there are multiple sources that each meet Wikipedia's reliability requirements, wouldn't this be a violation of the neutral point of view? The specific case in question involves services which aggregate review scores, providing a summary of reception across the board. Different sources don't necessarily provide the same scores. SharkD (talk) 05:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Problems over at The Hardy Boys

Hi, all. Since being featured on the front page a few days ago, the Hardy Boys article has attracted some editors who have repeatedly either eliminated content from the article or retitled an evidently controversial section. They have announced on the article's talk page that they are making their edits to reflect "the truth" and to correct the "bias" of the article (they are angry that some sources discuss homoeroticism in relation to the Hardy Boys). I have tried repeatedly to talk about NPOV, OR, and so on, but they just keep making the same edits and saying I don't "own" the article (even when I ask them to dialogue about their changes!). I would really appreciate some input; I understand it may go against me. Thanks, Ricardiana (talk) 17:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)