Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view

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.

SlimVirgin's request to disrupt discussion

Harald88, MonkeeSage, Iantresman and Bensaccount what do you think of SlimVirgin's request. Don't worry! A break is not a problem, if it can help. Just tell me whether you feel it will be better for our progress that I take such a break.-Lumière

Yes, -Lumière, please stop cluttering up the policy talk pages. I skip over your comments because I do not find them useful. You are not engaging in useful discussion, but you do give the appearance of trying to beat everyone down by your incessant posting. We are not going to change these policies because you say so, no matter how many times you say it. Give it a break! -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 11:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

A break merely delays the time when discussion will begin again. And again, And again, until the issue is resolved. If people can't be bothered to participate and EXPLAIN their points of view, then don't winge when others decide things in their absence.

Clearly, not participating is a tacit acknowledgement that the status quo is satisfactory. THIS IS THE STATUS QUO... post after post after post. --Iantresman 11:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

No one is trying to CHANGE policy. People are trying to clarify it. --Iantresman 11:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

People have participated, read the archives. They've all come to the same conclusion that some here aren't interested in actual discussion, but in furthering their own views and so are completely resistant to reason. Opinions already expressed here by some the project's long-term, credible contributors indicate that they fail to see a problem that needs fixing and that these proposals are not acceptable. The only problem here is that a few are unwilling to accept it. Enough editors have objected over the months to the incessant droning on about this alleged "issue" that any further ignoring of requests to take long-winded, one-sided discussion on this same topic to user talk pages can and will be moved to free up this page for other discussions. FeloniousMonk 20:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

My experience is that responding to these kind of discussions doesn't make any difference. The proposers know what they want and don't listen to my opinions. It has been explained that many of the 'clarifications' will just open loop-holes. There is a good reason why we are told to avoid instruction creep. I've also seen editors spend a lot of time and effort tidying-up a policy, only to see most of their work overturned when it comes time to put it into effect. These policies have been around for a while, and IMO don't need 'clarification'. Three or four editors getting together to try to change a policy like this one is just not going to fly. I am not contributing to the discussion because I think the proposed changes are not needed, but I will step in to oppose any such changes if someone actually attempts to insert them in the article. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 14:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

So since I suggested a clarification of the Undue weight policy, where is/are your suggestion to it? Please give ANY example, real or made up, where clarification of a policy introduces loop-holes, rather than removes them? Please indicate where "instruction creep" forms part of policy? Making changes without discussion and forming consensus is against Wiki policy. No one said that the existing policy is broken, only that it can be improved. --Iantresman 23:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Why would users be pre-opposed to any changes which try to clarify the policy, regardless of whether they succeed? My guess is that as Lumiere has aptly noted, it feels safer for those who have a "firm grasp of the policy already" to keep it vague (see above). Lumiere does not need to be suppressed, just more succinct. Bensaccount 15:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Anyone who wants my support for fixing this policy is going to have to do a much better job of convincing me that it is broken. And I don't respond well to hearing the same arguments made over and over and over and... -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 16:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Donald for such a succinct expression of exactly my position. — Saxifrage ✎ 17:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Seconding this approach --Francis Schonken 21:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem is not that the policy is broken, but that some users find it unclear. When your screen door breaks you need to fix it. Unfortunately, this is not a screen door. Bensaccount 00:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The very fact that this discussion has been ongoing for so long demonstrates that there is a problem. That it has been demonstrated that there is an ambiguity in the policy, demonstrates that there is a problem. That the policy is open to interpretation, demonstrates that there is a problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iantresman (talk • contribs)

Not really. The only reason for these discussions is Lumière's relentless posting in these pages, despite comments by countless editors to leave it alone. You may want to refer to your RfC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/-Lumière. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Circular reasoning is not very convincing. — Saxifrage ✎ 01:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Users find the policy unclear. Your solution is telling the to shut up. But this only works until another user comes and asks the same question. Bensaccount 01:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Take it to Lumiere's talk page and stop trying to continue this fruitless project here. — Saxifrage ✎ 01:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know anything about Lumiere, nor do I wish to go to his/her talk page. I am rather annoyed that my section (What is a "prominent adherent"?), which simply requested for the community to define and clarify the terms used in the policy with regard to "significant minority," was moved to a personal talk page. But if the editors here wish to leave the terms ambiguious and open to misuse for POV-pushing (where "prominent" can be taken to mean anything from "I like them" to "respected by their peers" to "alot of people know about them" to "they were mentioned in my school paper" and so on; and "adherent" can be taken to mean "person" or "idealogical group"), because of a grudge against some editor or whatever the case may be, then so be it. I wash my hands of the matter. --MonkeeSage 11:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not a grudge. The reason for not defining those words is because Wikipedia policy runs on common meanings of words, not technically-defined meanings. Further, defining them in an technical way would make the definitions policy, not clarify the existing policy. Since the definitions were not and never have been a matter of policy this would be a change of the policy itself (not just its wording), and changes to core policy require the overwhelming support of the entire community. — Saxifrage ✎ 17:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Disrupting discussion

Per numerous requests from the community to either drop the issue or take it to his personal talk pages and his constant refusal to abide by the wishes of the community, this discussion has been moved to User_talk:-Lumière#Discussion about the Undue weight section of Neutral point of view FeloniousMonk 21:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:POINT: [1] FeloniousMonk 21:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Let us not fight them. Anyone interested is welcome to continue the discussion in my User talk page or we can move it elsewhere. We will come back when we will agree amongst us. -Lumière 21:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I am part of the community, and I do not object to Lumière's attempt to engage in discussion on its proper page, so your statement is false. Wiki policy, that "Our policies keep changing, and their interpretation as well. Hence it is common on Wikipedia for policy itself to be debated on talk pages," [2], so I assume that moving the discussion is against Wiki policy. --Iantresman 23:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

FM didn't say that the community was unanimous; he said (rightly) that many members of the community have asked (over some considerable time) that the handful of editors who have been tirelessly nagging the rest of us to change one of our central policies in order to let them edit in a way that is currently not allowed should give up and go and do something constructive, or at least witter about it among themselves on their own Talk pages. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Right. Jkelly 18:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Shortcuts to sections

... don't work, so personally I'd propose to omit WP:NPOVUW entirely from the policy page. Maybe it should better be proposed for MfD or so, per Wikipedia:Redirect#When should we delete a redirect?, reason 2, that is: "confusing" (it creates the confusing, and incorrect, idea that the shortcut actually links to the UW section, someone not knowing that was the intention can only be more confused when reading the "NPOVUW" acronym, and when clicking arriving at the top of the NPOV page, where the "UW" is nowhere explained). And overall, i think NPOVUW to be a horrendous acronym, in the WP:WOTTA meaning. --Francis Schonken 21:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

If they don't work, then delete them. I seem to remember them working in the past, but that was sometime ago. FeloniousMonk 21:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, at RfD now, see Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion#WP:NPOVUW → Wikipedia:Neutral point of view --Francis Schonken 22:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

It would be nice if the software would support redirects to sections. Not for NPOVUW, but to create e.g. WP:WEIGHT. AvB ÷ talk 12:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Sanity check

Would it be ok if I were to tag chinese ctities under Category:Taiwan as the goverment of Taiwan (Republic of China) claims to rule mainland china? --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 09:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

1. Seems like a question you could easily answer for yourself... if not, maybe after reading Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial#Categorisation, and other guidance linked from there.
2. If still not being able to answer that question for yourself after reading all that, maybe ask your question at wikipedia talk:categorization, or start an RfC (but I think you may assume that the outcome of such RfC would be pretty much predictable - only encouraging you to try to find a sensible answer to your question yourself - if you'd try to find it yourself, I'm convinced the eventual answer will stick better) --Francis Schonken 09:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)