Wikipedia talk:Article point of view vs NPOV

First Comment

Is there a need for this policy? The understanding I have from my first reading of the proposal is that it instructs editors to limit what they put in an article to things that are pertinent to that article's topic. That may not be what this proposal is intended to do, but as I said, that's what I'm understanding it to mean. And if that's what it does mean, well, I'd hope that's something that editors would be treating as too obvious for words. The Literate Engineer 05:21, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on most points made above. Also, the wikipedia policy on NPOV itself implicitly hints at the proposed policy. However, we should also consider the possibility that a viewer would want to get as much as info possible in one page view rather than look at several articles. Most of the NPOV problems, imo, occur not on articles about concepts but people. e.g. see Mother Teresa. If we were to have a separate Criticism of Mother Teresa article, it wd only become a magnet for vandals or more possibly, an additional target for edit wars. --Gurubrahma 06:57, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder whether "wikipedia policy on NPOV itself implicitly hints at the proposed policy" is the problem, as some people don't take the hint, and it needs to be spelled out? --Iantresman 08:45, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you go over the existing policy carefully and try to identify what sentence(s) you think The Literate Engineer and Gurubrahma are thinking of, when they claim that it is implicit in the policy. Then ask yourself: should this (these) sentence(s) be reworded? Or placed somewhere else in the policy page? If your answer to either one of these is yes, propose the change (in wording or location) on the talk page of the policy. If you cannot find any such sentence(s), politely ask The Literate Engineer and Gurubrahma what they are referring to. Personally, I agree with them that it is implicit and that most people if not all understand this — even the most strident creationists have not demanded that half of the evolution article provide the creationist POV, and none of the experts on evolution have asked that half of the Creationist article be devoted to the theory of evolution. This is a very hot topic in the US so I think it is a pretty good test-case — and the results of the test are good. Be that as it may, insofar as I agree with your point (Iantresman) I have two comments. First, I do not think that the issue is that some pages primarily express a particular point of view; rather, they are about a particular point of view (the difference is subtle but real and significant). Second, I think the issue is a matter of proportion: articles that are primarily about one point of view should mostly be about that point of view but should have links to all related articles (including alternative or opposing points of view) and provide a concise summary of what those linked pages say. This by the way is the understood template for all articles. Look at Jesus, which is mostly about the NT version of Jesus but which has links to and summaries of a host of articles about other points of view, or Martin Luther (see the current discussion on ML and the Jews). Slrubenstein | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 00:51, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, Slrubenstein. For example, reading from Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view:

"Wikipedia policy is that articles should be written from a neutral point of view, representing all majority and significant-minority views fairly and without bias."

I am suggesting that this is fine for general articles, but does not work where an article is about a minority point of view. The confusion arises from the interpretation of "neutral point of view". If I am trying to convey the minority point of view, I can still do so in a neutral mannner (ie fairly and factually), but this surely does not mean that I counterpoint most statements with the majority view?

Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view qualifies by writing:

"Instead it says to fairly represent all sides of a dispute by not making articles state, imply, or insinuate that only one side is correct"

Now this is more accurate, and in line with your view that "the issue is a matter of proportion: articles that are primarily about one point of view should mostly be about that point of view, but... "

I would suggest that it is not obvious whether points are mutually exclusive, and perhaps these points should be itemised in order to stress them. eg.:

All articles must be neutral in the sense that they are factual and fair.
General articles must present a balance of views, with majority views tending to receive the majority coverage, but not with the exclusion of minority viewpoints.
Articles about one point of view should mostly be about that point of view. They should acknowledge other points of view and have links to all related articles, but they need not counterpoint all statements.

I see 2 and 3 above being significantly different, and not obvious from the current description of Neutral Point of View. --Iantresman 13:37, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your interpretation on point 3, there. There are two competing interests: the interest of producing a whole and unbiased argument of a topic and the interest of including more specific information without the loss of NPOV, or at least Neutral style.

I see it as a heirarchy where the most general article must adhear to the full degree of NPOV, but the specialized articles simply have a nod in the direction of other theories in way of a link and a statement stressing the importance of alternate opinions.

In this way a reader looking for the general argument can stumble across a specific page (perhaps they were looking for Cosmology, but simply searched with "Big Bang") and still arrive at a balanced discussion and someone searching for specific information may also quickly navigate to the subtopic and recieve relevant information that only contains what bias they should already be expecting while focusing their readings. --Eyvin 20:25, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]