Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/FAQ/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Regarding terminology

It has become apparent that the above 'Proposed change to policy on ambiguous words in religious articles' has failed to gain consensus. The thread lives on, however, due to FimusTauri (talk · contribs) and Til Eulenspiegel (talk · contribs) objecting to the following section in the FAQ:

Regarding terminology: Several words that have very specific meanings in studies of religion have different meanings in less formal contexts, e.g. fundamentalism and mythology. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia articles about religious topics should take care to use these words only in their formal senses in order to avoid causing unnecessary offense or misleading the reader. Conversely, editors should not avoid using terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and notable sources on a topic out of sympathy for a particular point of view, or concern that readers may confuse the formal and informal meanings. Details about some particular terms can be found at WP:WTA.

In a nutshell, the above asks editors to respect terminology - use it if the majority of reliable sources on the topic do, but don't abuse it one way or the other.

I believe this section is necessary since it addresses the all too frequent question of "I don't like the way blah is described, why can't I use some other term?" and the all too frequent problem of people using Wikipedia to right great wrongs in the literature, for instance, "x might be called y in the reliable sources, but it shouldn't be" or similar. I believe it is sufficient since it does this as simply and clearly as possible by allowing editors to resolve the usage of terminology on a case by case basis - often on an article's talk page. In particular, it does not burden itself with prescriptions of how to handle certain terms, does not rule out any terms, make it unnecessarily hard to use standard terminology or preclude discussions of disputes in terminology, and does not attempt to undermine any existing policies, for instance WP:UNDUE.

I won't try to characterise Fimus or Til's objections, as I'm sure they will below, but I would like to get some sort of idea about how others feel about this section. Cheers, Ben (talk) 07:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments

I think this section is superfluous. This is as simple as stating that we will use whatever terminology our academic references use. Til & friends are trying to build a case that "npov" means that a devotional "pov" shoud be treated on equal footing with an academic "pov". This is flawed from the outset, and must be addressed in the distinction of primary vs. secondary sources. "Npov" means that one academic pov will be discussed alongside another academic pov relative to its notability. Devotional or religionist notions are primary sources detailing the tenets of faith of the respective churches or religious communities. Trying to place them alongside academic opinion ist the tactic of the "Intelligent Design" attempt to undermine education in the United States. It is clear with or without the section on "mythology" under discussion that this is a complete non-starter which we shouldn't need to waste any time over. Wikipedia is a secular project, period. This holds for Muhammad pictures just as much as for Biblical literalism. There is really nothing to negotiate here. --dab (𒁳) 08:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The case I see being built is that the viewpoint of religions who regard these texts as canonical is considered, to use Ilkali's term, "inadmissible" to article on the texts. This also redefines "academic" in a new way that applies a new litmus test for reliability: if the scholar is secular, or else agrees with the secular scholars, only then that scholar is "admissible". For centuries, these same secular scholars have attempted to dictate to members of these faiths how they are supposed to interpret their own canon, thus competing with the more "devotional" scholars/ Are we to pretend that there is no "point of view", here because the centuries-long matter has now just been suddenly pronounced settled to "everyone"'s satisfaction by very biased partisans in the debate? Our policy has always been that if there are reams of documented controversy about a subjective and disputed categorization, we also document the controversy and explain it for the benefit of all readers, rather than look the other way and pretend there is no controversy. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

"...to use Ilkali's term...". Diffs, please. And then an explanation for why my month-old conversations are relevant here, in this conversation that I'm not even a part of. Ilkali (talk) 14:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Just search this page for the string "inadmissible". It's still up there. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I already did, and I concluded that either I'd used the term somewhere else or you were flagrantly lying about what I'd said. I wanted to know which. Ilkali (talk) 15:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

It's useful to have a place to refer users though. Saying "see the NPOV FAQ" is a much better use of my time (and sanity) than having to debunk it every time someone wants to call NPOV foul. I'm sure others feel the same. Ben (talk) 08:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

This thread is superfluous. The debate is already going on in an earlier thread and will not stop there just because Ben wants it to. I will be debating there, not here.--FimusTauri (talk) 09:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The thread above is too long, too diffuse and too unfocussed. See WP:TLDR. Some editors appear to be under the illusion that "historical" is good, "myth" is bad: an interesting shift from the time when claiming that the Bible was history was heretical, reflecting one particular religious viewpoint. If the proposal is that we should cite sources for the academic terminology we're using and briefly explain it in the lead of articles, that seems not unreasonable and worth discussing as a possible clarification to the policy. If it's anything else, that should be restated to be clear about the proposals. dave souza, talk 10:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Despite the claims of some editors, that is not far off what is being proposed. I just wish we could discuss it without the constant "No!"s of certain editors (that have caused that thread to become so long). If anyone who has not yet been involved in the debate (and thus not "tainted" in the eyes of either side) wishes to put forth a concrete proposal and restart the debate, then I am willing to give that a go. At present, the debate is being continually stifled and genuinely interested editors are being put off.--FimusTauri (talk) 10:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Dave, there is no problem mentioning that we should cite sources for the academic terminology we're using, but isn't that made perfectly clear in other policy pages? Ben (talk) 10:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

If its so clear in other policy pages, then why do you refuse to do it for the word "myth"?--FimusTauri (talk) 10:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Fimus, if you're going to accuse me of such ridiculous actions, bring a diff with you. Otherwise, shh. Ben (talk) 10:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• "editors should not avoid using terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and notable sources on a topic out of sympathy for a particular point of view, or concern that readers may confuse the formal and informal meanings."

In other words "don't worry how people will read it - just so long as you know what you mean, it doesn't matter a fig if the word could be read a million different ways." That is why the current wording stinks and the debate above is going on. I advise everyone to "see above".--FimusTauri (talk) 10:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, so I didn't do what you just accused me of? Anyway, thank you for your feedback on the current text. I think "write well" covers your concern, and is not something that needs to be enshrined in policy. We also have wikilinks to guide users to more detail if they're not sure about a term. Cheers, Ben (talk) 11:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: the accusation. See the lead of Noah's Ark. "myths" added at your insistance - no citation.--FimusTauri (talk) 11:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

"wikilinks" pah! see the discussion above--FimusTauri (talk) 11:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for adding a ref, Ben. Now, if we can get them added to all of the various definitions around wikipedia we may start to get somewhere.--FimusTauri (talk) 11:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Oops - seems that there is a dispute over that ref's reliability. Still - I suspect that debate would happen anywhere anyone tried to add such a ref.--FimusTauri (talk) 11:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I stoped editing that article because you wanted to take the issue to the Village Pump. I glady agreed to that here and you've never stopped campaigning since. You knew all that (because that reply was to you, and I explained it again yesterday), so don't accuse me of refusing to do anything. Ignoring your childish accusations, I add a ref. Til reverts me. On top of that, you were worried I never sought comments on my revisions of this FAQ, so today I try and end that complaint and do just that. Immediately you refuse to participate. You two need to lay off the holy water. Trying to satisfy you is a waste of time. Ben (talk) 11:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Ye Fludde appears to be the subject of Creation myth and of Cosmogony attempting to provide mechanical or scientific explanations of the myth. References: flood myth and cosmogenies. Suggest these links are added to the lead, and cited to these references, or better references as appropriate. Anything challenged has to be cited as WP:V, that's basic policy. . dave souza, talk 12:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I just tried adding a ref to the article but was reverted by Til. Getting back to the text in the FAQ though, do you think it is necessary to explain WP:V again in the section about terminology? I not opposed to it, I just feel it would be unnecessary. Ben (talk) 12:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I haven't refused to participate. I just see no point in this thread when there is a debate already going on above.

The cessation in editing of NA was agreed and I am glad to see it was maintained. However, you made no attempt to insert a valid ref during all the time that the debate was going on there. You simply insisted that "myth" was the right word and that (implicitly at least - I am not going over old ground to see if it was ever explicit) therefore there was no need for a ref.--FimusTauri (talk) 11:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a little comment to dab's "There is really nothing to negotiate here" => There is indeed nothing to discuss, argue, negotiate or whatever here. This says it all. DVdm (talk) 12:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

So please explain the 20 definitions posted above that contradict each other and often contradict the one you wish us to look at. Which one do we believe? Which one do we assume when "myth" is used without further clarification? And can you cite a source that says that definition is definitive?--FimusTauri (talk) 12:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

For those who don't understand what dictionaries are and how they are used, maybe this helps. DVdm (talk) 13:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

For Dvdm - see here for why a dictionary definition does not suffice.--FimusTauri (talk) 13:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Presumably you meant universal or some such. A definition is definitive by definition of definitive. And the answer to your question would be no, because there does not exist a universal definition of any word. It doesn't mean we turn our encyclopaedia articles in laundry lists of dictionary definitions - we can certainly discuss the term in an article devoted to it or its wiktionary page. In the case of myth, a wikilink to mythology would suffice. Ben (talk) 12:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

That is sheer nonsense. Take your beloved example "Theory". Ignoring the "common" meaning (as we are currently doing for "myth"), all of the examples broadly add up to "a statement or model that explains some aspect of the universe that is not contradicted by experiment or observation". There are certainly some discrepancies in some definitions, but all of them broadly agree. Not so with "myth". There are definitions that require god(s), there are definitions that require great antiquity; there are definitions that require the story to be true; there are definitions that require the story explain some natural phenomenon or a culture's worldview. There are countless fundamental discrepancies between the definitions that mean that some stories are included in some definitions and not in others. Some definitions include the whole Bible, others exclude it completely. At the very least, wikipedia needs to apply uniformity to the application of "myth". Until we get a definitive statement as to what editors mean when they use the word, we cannot even achieve that.--FimusTauri (talk) 12:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Your theory discussion is junk. Group theory? Classical mechanics? Need I go on?

And I have a question. Your first post to this forum contains this:

"There is no doubt that it is appropriate to label some religious stories as ‘myth’"

What definition of myth did you have in mind when you wrote that? Ben (talk) 13:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

That is an easy one. There is a very specific term : Creation myth. --FimusTauri (talk) 13:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

That definition uses the term myth, so you haven't answered my question. What definition of the term myth did you have in mind when you wrote the above? Ben (talk) 13:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't - I had in mind the term "Creation myth", which basically covers Genesis 1-2 and nothing else. In that context (remember that word? Its quite an important one) it is appropriate to label the creation story and the garden of eden stories as "myths".--FimusTauri (talk) 13:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• In mathematics and abstract algebra, group theory studies the algebraic structures known as groups.

Oh look - context! Works for "theory", but isnt necessary for "myth"? "Double standards" springs to mind.--FimusTauri (talk) 13:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

It is only reasonable you hold yourself to the same standards as you hold everyone else. With that in mind, please define the term 'creation myth' for me without relying on the (as yet) undefined term myth. If you rely on the term myth in your definition (as you did by linking to creation myth), please define it. You said there was no doubt that it is appropriate, so this must be easy.

I will discuss your context comment after we get to the bottom of this - lets not derail ourselves. Ben (talk) 13:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Creation myth is a specific term with a specific meaning that applies context within its own definition. I do not require a definition of "myth" because "creation myth" has a specific definition. Look at the page linked to - there's your definition on line 1.--FimusTauri (talk) 13:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I agree that creation myth is a specific term and it is possible to give it a specific meaning. However, you have failed to give me a specific meaning that doesn't rely on knowledge of the term myth (it's one of the first few words in the sentence you pointed me to), but let's drop it for now (though expect it to come back up if you prattle on about definitions again). We'll move onto the context you want to talk about. You said the term 'creation myth' establishes some context. Can you explain what you mean please? Ben (talk) 13:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The word myth is used as part of the phrase "creation myth" which has a specific meaning. By being part of a phrase with a specific meaning it is placed in context. If you don't get that, you'll have to live with it, because this is a pointless digression. The fact is this: there have been numerous reasons given why the unfettered use of the term "myth" in religious articles must stop. The current usage is violating a raft of policies and guidelines, yet you just don't get that. Or rather, if you do get it, you are refusing to admit it. Unless the NPOV/FAQ is worded in a way that stops the violation of policy/guideline, this debate will go on ad infinitum or until there is some decree "from above". There are simple suggestions that do not require a great deal of work on the part of editors. I suggest you start working on those rather than trying to bog the debate down in side issues and accusations.--FimusTauri (talk) 14:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Myth has a specific academic meaning, and one you do not seem to understand if you dispute its use in religious articles. This is an encyclopedia, so we use that academic meaning. If anyone mistakenly uses it to mean something else, then we change the wording in those cases to be more accurate. When someone calls something a myth when they mean a falsehood, then change it to "falsehood" instead. When they say myth but mean legend or folklore, then say that instead. It's just a matter of using the actual terms the way real encyclopedia use them. We do the same thing with, say, evolution, in which some people get all confused and thinks it means something other than what it does. Ditto for, say, schizophrenic, which does not mean multiple personalities despite the ignorance of some people. All we do is use the terms the way they are supposed to be used and provide a link to the article so ignorant people can educate themselves. That's all we can do. This has been our policy for years, and for good reason. Most of the complaints above are very clear attempts to give WP:UNDUE weight to the confusion of people who don't know what they are talking about so that they can push their own POV onto the article. We do not change what encyclopedias exist to do just to cave into whining by people who can't be bothered to educate themselves. If they are having problems following along, maybe the problem is that they should be using the Simple English Wikipedia project instead of this one so they don't have to learn any new words. DreamGuy (talk) 14:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

"Myth has a specific academic meaning" - so what is it? No-one seems willing to pin their mast to a particular definition, yet they insist we use "it". What is "it"? How can we use "it" when no-one tells us what "it" is?--FimusTauri (talk) 14:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

(←) Well I don't get it, so help me with some more examples. What about flood myth? Greek mythology? Ben (talk) 14:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

What about concentrating on the real issue? See here for numerous examples of how each of the various definitions offered in the various pages of WP affect each of the various Bible stories. With such a variety of meaning, impacting so variedly on religious stories, the term is weasel. "Academics use it" is a weak argument, because you refuse to specify how they use it. For every instance in which it used on WP, there is an "academic" definition that would exclude that use. WP:V and WP:RS have been your main pillars of support in this argument, but even they are falling down.--FimusTauri (talk) 14:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I am concentrating on the issue - your hypocrisy and disingenuity. You open with lines like "There is no doubt that it is appropriate to label some religious stories as ‘myth’". Then you demand we supply a universal definition of the term myth or append every article that uses the term with a dictionary definition of the term. When called upon to satisfy these requirements for your own doubtless assertion you fall in a heap. Hypocrisy strikes again - you offer me a wikilink to creation myth after ridiculing that same practise for the term myth just hours earlier. You accuse me of refusing to cite facts, knowing full well I had provided many, ready to add to the article as necessary. I add one to satisfy you, only to be reverted. You accuse me of stifling your debate, yet we're sitting on a thread that is well over 300KB's - one of the largest I have ever seen - and that is just this forum. You accuse me of editing policy pages then using them to support my arguments, yet I never quoted my own edits. You complain that I didn't discuss my changes to this FAQ before making them, but neither did you. In fact there is nothing wrong with being bold and no-one complained for over a month until you came looking for more forums to vent to. Still, to satisfy your complaint I start a thread to discuss that particular issue (this one), and you throw a tantrum and assert you won't participate. You claim myth is a weasel word because it has multiple definitions and you're arguing manual of style issues (how to introduce the term myth) on a neutrality forum. I'm forced to conclude you don't have much of a clue, or you're determination to hinder usage of the term is blinding your reason. You've been a member of the project for a few months now and your contributions sum to little more than arguing on talk pages. You are a net drain on this project. If your real life contributions are a reflection of this, I really do feel sorry for you. Ben (talk) 15:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

For a few seconds I thought about making a point-by-point rebuttal of that rant, but then I realised how futile that would be, because you are (yet again) refusing to see that there is any problem and (yet again) employing a diversionary tactic.

There have numerous policies and guidelines cited that show that using "myth" in the way you want is a violation of Wikipedia's principles. You have yet to rebut any of them - certainly not with anything convincing. I have demonstrated that your sole argument is built on falacious foundations, yet you cannot rebut that. I will give you another chance to prove that you are not gaming the system before I assume bad faith and take this elsewhere. --FimusTauri (talk) 15:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Do what you need to do. Ben (talk) 16:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I concur, Ben. There's simply nothing wrong with the existing version of the page. "Suchandsuch could be interpreted to be pejorative" isn't an NPOV problem unless the pejorative meaning is intended. It could still be a problem with the quality of our prose, but the simple demands of good writing already force us to address this: If we have a sentence that will be frequently misinterpreted then we weigh that ambiguity against the benefits of using the terminology in question - in this case, the dominant academic terminology. The kind of specific anti-myth proposals offered by Fimus et al are firstly unnecessary and secondly problematic, in that they imply this term is a special case demanding special treatment. Ilkali (talk) 14:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

"anti-myth"? Get your facts straight.--FimusTauri (talk) 14:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• the section ben offers above just doesn't work. allow me to point out the obvious errors.
  1. "Several words that have very specific meanings in studies of religion have different meanings in less formal contexts, e.g. fundamentalism and mythology. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia articles about religious topics should take care to use these words only in their formal senses in order to avoid causing unnecessary offense or misleading the reader."
     1. The vast majority of wikipedia readers will not know the 'formal contexts' of these terms, but only the 'colloquial' meanings. using the 'formal context' exclusively (and particularly using it without attribution, as is the normal case) will in and of itself mislead the reader and cause unnecessary offense.
     2. the "in studies of religion" phrase generates a clear bias. academic and scholarly sources are not the only reliable sources for any topic, and for something that has been as thoroughly discussed and debated as religious issues, academic sources would not even constitute a majority of reliable sources. Of course, Ben makes the argument that non-secular sources are by their nature primary, partisan sources, which is worth discussing, but even if they are they represent notable and prevalent viewpoints that deserve to be weighted and included along with secular sources. to show how absurd ben's argument here is: apply it to baseball, and we'd be required to remove every reference that doesn't come from an academic physicist (because baseball is a game of physics, and every other viewpoint is a partisan primary source).
  2. "Conversely, editors should not avoid using terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and notable sources on a topic out of sympathy for a particular point of view, or concern that readers may confuse the formal and informal meanings."
     1. if readers are likely to be confused between formal and informal meanings of a term, it is essential that wikipedia clarify the informal and formal meanings in order to clear up any confusion, and if we can't do that, it is necessary that we avoid the terminology. anything else would be close to an intentional lie, in which we create a false impression by using a contested term and hiding important clarifications and distinctions. I'm sorry, but this passage is just plain stupid.
     2. including a notable position is not "sympathy to a particular PoV". avoiding unnecessary insult to someone's deeply held belief is not "sympathy to a particular PoV". the apparently deeply held secular beliefs that Ben and others are advocating here have a lot to recommend them, but Wikipedia is not the correct place to try to advance one set of beliefs over another, particularly not through what amounts to a low-grade smear campaign. --Ludwigs2 15:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your 1.1: That is a ridiculous claim. I'm not a biblical scholar and I know the difference. Why not other non-biblical scholars? Noah's Ark gets around 2k hits per day if I recall correctly, and no-one has complained about the term myth on the talk page in the months that it has been in place. I'd say the converse of your claim in closer to being demonstratable.

you are hardly typical of the readers of that page: you have a pronounced interest in the topic, and have put effort into studying the matter. most readers are going to take what's written there at face value, and if the face-value impression is that wikipedia has a bias, that's what they'll take away. further, no one except editors use the talk page. there are maybe 200-300 people (including IPs) on a decent page who ever bothered to comment. it is a huge ecological error to assume that people who don't talk on the talk page agree with the content of the page; it makes no logical sense. on pages where there are vast and sweeping changes in content, there's no upsurge in numbers of editors on the talk page: does that mean that people agree with the first version, and then uniformly decide to agree with the second version as well?

Regarding your 1.2: I made no such argument.

in fact, you did, just above. shall I give you a diff of your own words?

Regarding your 2.1: I hold they're not likely to be confused, and there is a wikilink in place in case they are in exactly the same way as for every other notable term used on Wikipedia, theory and vector are my examples of the day.

you can 'hold' onto whatever you want; but holding on to a favored preconception in the face of reason and common sense to the contrary is the sign of a fanatic, not of a reasonable editor.

Regarding your 2.2: We don't exist to avoid insult, and very few people would be insulted by the term anyway. Certainly much less than Muhammad images appearing in that article. We're an encyclopaedia, and we play that role.

you do not exist to avoid insult; I have no problem saying something that's potentially insulting when it's reliably sourced and essential to the content. the fact that you can't or won't see that distinction between those two statements is your problem, not mine, but the fact that you want to insist that wikipedia as a whole be blind to that distinction id our problem. if youwant to push your secular POV on people, that's fine by me; just do it somewhere other than an encyclopedia.

Thanks for your feedback. Ben (talk) 16:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure. you'd do well to listen to it. --Ludwigs2 18:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Myth is a "loaded" term which cannot be neutral. Myth certainly has a connotation of a fairytale to many people. It is vital that WK maintain objectivity. The label of myth is not neutral: It involves a judgement by the editors of whether they consider a story to be true or not. Whether we agree with someone's ancient story or not, we must not cast judgement. Grantmidnight (talk) 02:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Reasons why change is needed

The word "myth" has a plethora of meanings. We have a situation where different meanings alter the list of stories that can be included under the definition. The differences are so extreme that one definition might include the whole of, for example, the Bible, whereas another definition would exclude it all. For a list of some of the definitions offered in Wikipedia and the effect on the classification of a selection of Bible stories, see here.

The following is a list of some policies and guidelines which are currently being violated by the way that the word "myth" is used on Wikipedia.

1. WP:SOURCES - "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made". As made clear above, there are numerous definitions of the term and it is applied and defined differently by the various sources. At present, the term is being added to articles with the claim that "this is the term used by academics", but we are not told which definition is being used. If we do not know which definition is being used, how can we know if the source directly supports the information as it is presented in the article? How can we determine if it is appropriate?
2. Also from WP:SOURCES - "All articles must adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view." An editor may be using one definition of "myth" to justify using it, yet there exist many other (equally well sourced) definitions that would preclude that story from being called a myth. By refusing to specify a definition an editor is using the word weaselly; however, once a definition is included, the edit is open to accusation of WP:UNDUE or {{WP:NPOV]].
3. From the quote above, there are editors who refuse to acknowledge that theologians have the same (or any) value as secular writers. A theological viewpoint is still a viewpoint, even if it is not "grounded in science".
4. From WP:NPOV - "Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions." Simply stating that something is a myth is denying the readers this opportunity.
5. From WP:NPOV - "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves" Since we do not have a definition of "myth", any assertion that a story is a myth is an assertion of opinion, not fact.
6. From WP:NPOV - "The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view" Unless it is clear what is meant by the term "myth", the user will assume whichever definition of the term they are used to. In the majority of cases this will mean a "made up" story.
7. WP:MORALIZE has the statement, with regard to Saddam Hussein, "You won't even need to say he was evil". It is equally true that, with regard to religious stories "You do not need to say they are myths."
8. From WP:MORALIZE - "Let the facts speak for themselves." Asserting that a religious story is a myth is not allowing the facts to speak.
9. From a previous ArbCom case - "The Wikipedia policy of editing from a neutral point of view, a central and non-negotiable principle of Wikipedia, applies to situations where there are conflicting viewpoints and contemplates that significant viewpoints regarding such situations all be included in as fair a manner as possible." At present, all religious viewpoints are dismissed.
10. From a previous ArbCom case - "No perspective is to be presented as the "truth"; all perspectives are to be attributed to their advocates." At present, the word is often used without attribution. To simply state that a story is a myth is to fail to attribute.
11. From a previous ArbCom case - "Sweeping generalizations which label the subject of an article as one thing or another are inappropriate and not a substitute for adequate research regarding details of actual positions and actions which can speak for themselves." Speaks for itself.
12. From WP:NPOVREASON - "To write from a neutral point of view, one presents controversial views without asserting them; to do that, it generally suffices to present competing views in a way that is more or less acceptable to their adherents, and also to attribute the views to their adherents" There is no doubt that contriversy exists over the classification of religious stories as myths, yet this controversy is almost universally ignored.
13. From WP:UNDUE - "In articles specifically on the minority viewpoint, the views are allowed to receive more attention and space; however, on such pages, though the minority view may (and usually should) be described, possibly at length, the article should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view" Religious articles are on religious subjects; the scientific (even if majority) viewpoint should be given appropriate reference - the article should not be about debunking the story from a scientific perspective. It is totally unnecassery to assert that a story is a myth in the lead when that question is addressed in the appropriate section.
14. From WP:JARGON #Related guidelines and templates - "do not assume that the readers know anything about Wikipedia." The current guidlines on the NPOV/FAQ page tell editors to go ahead and use a word so long as they stick to the "academic definition", utterly ignoring the fact that readers will not necessarily know that definition - or even which of the many definitions is intended.
15. From MOS:BEGIN - "The article should begin with a short declarative sentence, answering two questions for the nonspecialist reader: "What (or who) is the subject?" and "Why is this subject notable?"" There are almost no circumstances in which adding "myth" to the lead on a religious article will further enlighten the reader as to the answer to those two questions. See Noah's Ark for a glaring example of an editor insisting on adding "myths" to the detriment of the lead.
16. From WP:LEADCITE - "The lead must conform to verifiability and other policies." A bald statement that a story is a myth does not conform to a whole host of policies.
17. From WP:MTAA - "Articles in Wikipedia should be accessible to the widest possible audience. For most articles, this means accessible to a general audience." Assuming that the reader knows the "academic definition" of the word myth is not making the article accessible, unless context explains what is meant by the word. very often the word can be left out or substituted to make the article more accessible.
18. From WP:WEASEL - "Weasel words are generally considered to be words or phrases that seemingly support statements without attributing opinions to verifiable sources. They give the force of authority to a statement without letting the reader decide whether the source of the opinion is reliable. If a statement can't stand on its own without weasel words, it lacks neutral point of view; either a source for the statement should be found, or the statement should be removed." If we do not know what is meant by the word then it is weasel.

I am sure there are other examples.

Now, Ben refuses to do it, but I invite anyone to try to rebut all of the above.--FimusTauri (talk) 16:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh man. Can anyone work out what the next in his list was so I can pay tips? I need some sleep. Cheers, Ben (talk) 16:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Rebuttal of the above: here and here. DVdm (talk) 17:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

1. WP:SOURCES - "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made".

Do you suggest that there are no sources to call a myth a myth?

1. From the quote above, there are editors who refuse to acknowledge that theologians have the same (or any) value as secular writers. A theological viewpoint is still a viewpoint, even if it is not "grounded in science".

Yes, so please edit Sun and add that it is not a star, as that's untenable from a theological viewpoint.

1. From WP:NPOV - "Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions." Simply stating that something is a myth is denying the readers this opportunity.

Yes, and saying that the Sun is a star denies readers the possibility to think it could be a divine candle.

1. From WP:NPOV - "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves" Since we do not have a definition of "myth"...

Stop it, people have put enough links to a dictionary. That's ridiculous.

1. From WP:NPOV - "The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view" Unless it is clear what is meant by the term "myth", the user will assume whichever definition of the term they are used to.

You go on supposing that Wikipedia readers don't speak English. I assure you: most of them do. Otherwise they would use other Wikipedia editions in their own language.

1. WP:MORALIZE has the statement, with regard to Saddam Hussein, "You won't even need to say he was evil". It is equally true that, with regard to religious stories "You do not need to say they are myths."

Myth is a scholarly term for a religious story. Evil is a moral assertion. If you can't even distinguish both, maybe YOU are at the wrong Wikipedia edition.

1. From WP:MORALIZE - "Let the facts speak for themselves." Asserting that a religious story is a myth is not allowing the facts to speak.

Because the fact is that a religious story is sheer truth, isn't it?

1. From a previous ArbCom case - "The Wikipedia policy of editing from a neutral point of view, a central and non-negotiable principle of Wikipedia, applies to situations where there are conflicting viewpoints and contemplates that significant viewpoints regarding such situations all be included in as fair a manner as possible." At present, all religious viewpoints are dismissed.

They are included. They are included in Noah's Ark (scroll down) and the only concern is the extension in deference to WP:Undue Wight. What are you complaining about?

1. From a previous ArbCom case - "No perspective is to be presented as the "truth"; all perspectives are to be attributed to their advocates." At present, the word is often used without attribution. To simply state that a story is a myth is to fail to attribute.

You may challenge that in every article. What you are advocating here is to exclude the myth word beforehand, and THAT'S not correct.

1. From a previous ArbCom case - "Sweeping generalizations which label the subject of an article as one thing or another are inappropriate and not a substitute for adequate research regarding details of actual positions and actions which can speak for themselves." Speaks for itself.

Speaks for itself if you don't know that hundreds of scholars have studied and researched thousands of myths during centuries, including Noah's Ark.

1. From WP:NPOVREASON - "To write from a neutral point of view, one presents controversial views without asserting them; to do that, it generally suffices to present competing views in a way that is more or less acceptable to their adherents, and also to attribute the views to their adherents" There is no doubt that contriversy exists over the classification of religious stories as myths, yet this controversy is almost universally ignored.

You can discuss that in Myth, but not in every page that uses this term. That is was hypertext was invented for.

1. From WP:UNDUE - "In articles specifically on the minority viewpoint, the views are allowed to receive more attention and space; however, on such pages, though the minority view may (and usually should) be described, possibly at length, the article should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view" Religious articles are on religious subjects; the scientific (even if majority) viewpoint should be given appropriate reference - the article should not be about debunking the story from a scientific perspective. It is totally unnecassery to assert that a story is a myth in the lead when that question is addressed in the appropriate section.

There is a broad scholarly consensus that certain religious stories ARE myths. The Bible literalist view should be discussed in appropriate space, but to ban the word myth from the lead would in fact "rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view".

1. From WP:JARGON #Related guidelines and templates - .(...) utterly ignoring the fact that readers will not necessarily know that definition - or even which of the many definitions is intended.

I doubt that there is any WP user dumb enough as not to use hypertext.

1. From MOS:BEGIN - "The article should begin with a short declarative sentence, answering two questions for the nonspecialist reader: "What (or who) is the subject?" and "Why is this subject notable?"" There are almost no circumstances in which adding "myth" to the lead on a religious article will further enlighten the reader as to the answer to those two questions.

What is Noah's Ark? A flood myth. A short, well-defined anser. It is not a poem, nor a ballad, nor a novel, nor a shopping list. It is a myth (if you click on this term, it will be explained, in case you have no dictionnary at home).

1. From WP:LEADCITE - "The lead must conform to verifiability and other policies." A bald statement that a story is a myth does not conform to a whole host of policies.

Give me any source not written by preachers that says "Noah's Ark is not a myth". And don't refer just to people saying "Noah's Ark tells the truth" - a myth MAY very well contain truth.

1. From WP:MTAA - "Articles in Wikipedia should be accessible to the widest possible audience. For most articles, this means accessible to a general audience." Assuming that the reader knows the "academic definition" of the word myth is not making the article accessible.

Assuming that the reader does not know the "academic" definition of the the word myth is assuming a very low intelligence - even non-English speakers generally know this word and it's meanings, as it is very similar in a broad range of languages.

1. From WP:WEASEL - "Weasel words are generally considered to be words or phrases that seemingly support statements without attributing opinions to verifiable sources...(...) If we do not know what is meant by the word then it is weasel.

This is a weasel argument, as there a lot of examples in [WP:Weasel] as how to avoid them, and none tells us to avoid a scholarly defined well-sourced term.

I vote for closing the thread, I think there is nothing new to be said. Whoever wishes should open another one at WP:Sources and try to push through a new policy on religious-motivated writers and preacher handbooks as fully reliable sources alongside the academic authorities. Because that's the matter, not the use of the the myth word. It has been made very clear in this thread that some editors try to ban this word because it is opposed by religious motivated people or offends their feelings. This is a different debate and we can spare ourselves this long wannabe-arguments as above about what a word may or may not mean. Go ahead. Thanks--Ilyacadiz (talk) 19:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I vote against. --Ludwigs2 20:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Ilyacadiz' reasoning is entirely flawed by a blatantly false, hypothetical analogy. He submits that acknowledging theologians' viewpoints on an article about theology, is somehow equivalent to going to Sun and adding theological viewpoints there. This kind of gross fallacy is no substitute for a logical argument. It might also be pointed out that nobody has even attempted to intrude theological viewpoints into science articles, in the way secular viewpoints are being given precedence on some disputed Bible-interpretation articles. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Ilyacadiz' reasoning is flawed in so many ways. There is no attempt being made to ban the word; he manages to completely ignore the fact that many religious stories are actually (undisputedly) historical; Noah's Ark is a vessel, not a flood myth - it appears in the Deluge; different sources use different definitions; links to dictionaries are utterly meaningless when every article uses a definition that differs from the dictionary; the sarcastic inference that anyone may be trying to claim that all religious stories are truth is beneath contempt and ignores the fact that some such stories are true; "a scholarly defined well-sourced term" is simply untrue as demonstrated so many times here - it cannot claim to be "defined" when there is no definition agreed upon. If you are going to claim it is "defined", then tell us what that definition is.--FimusTauri (talk) 09:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

(indent) FimusTauri: many stories in religion are fiction, to label them "myth" is just a courtesy really because they have no historical accuracy as written (hence the range that "myth" has from historically true to complete fiction). Your example for instance (Noah's ark) is fiction, there was no global flood as far as the various historical records (fossils, ice core samples, sediment layers etc), even the last pope indicated that literal genesis interpretation was "intellectual suicide".

How can you say that dictionary definitions are meaningless when they are the correct source for a word's meaning. It's our duty to use the correct definitions. We have a myth box to remove whatever doubt could remain. This could be used for other such "forbidden words" that may offend religious people (still wondering why we're pandering to this notion when the muslims are in a onstant rage over at Mohammed over pictures and the like..) It's perfectly acceptable for wikipedia to do as say, Encyclopaedia britannica does and use dictionary definitions for words like mythology (rather than "it offends me to have an accurate word used so we can't use it" meaning we have to avoid using it). Otherwise we could never have anything labelled as hoax, pseudo-science because that would be making a judgement. Stop bucking for exceptions for religion to appease religious beliefs. NathanLee (talk) 14:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

NathanLee is quite correct; and Consensus should never trump V, but support V. Consensus is how we implement V. "Idontlikeit because I give the vulgar definition weight over the scholarly use, in a scholarly work, and in fact reject the scholarly use" is nonsense, so sorry. This is the same as arguing that we change all instances of the word "Mohammed" to "Mohammed, pbuh". Go edit Christianopedia if you cannot handle the accurate use of the word "myth" (snce it seems all the arguments involve some Christian article, its clear this is Christian POV pushing with ignorance.) KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

It is clear to me that some editors do not understand my position, have not read what I have actually said and/or have utterly incorrect preconceived ideas of what I am trying to achieve. Since they cannot assume good faith there is little point in trying to talk to them or rebut their arguments. Ben has suggested that we have a "cooling off" period on this issue. I am becoming more inclined to believe that that is a good idea. With luck, such a period will allow editors to examine what each other are actually saying, actually trying to achieve and what their actual motives are, rather than going off on cock-eyed rants about nonsensical arguments that have very little basis in reality. All this crap about trying to push POVs (christian or otherwise), trying to ban words, failing to understand policy etc ad nauseum is just so much vitriolic rubbish being spouted from a short-sighted, preconceived view of other editors' motives. If other editors with a rational view of this are willing to "hold off" the arguments for a time, I will happily join them. The others can spout their nonsense into thin air in the meantime.--FimusTauri (talk) 16:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

"Myth" means one thing. You object to it. If you're not Christian POV pushing, you're Christian POV-pandering, whether you realize that or not. As recently noted on the Noah's Ark FAR, "the myth thing is a non-issue." KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, KC, I'm not even a frigging Christian, and I agree with most of FT's points. don't accuse me of pandering or pushing a PoV that I don't share. The fact of the matter is, there are a few editors in this debate who've decided that NPOV means promoting a secular viewpoint above all others, and they've further decided to pursue that agenda at the expense of reason, common sense, and common decency. While I can understand the confusion (it's not easy to see that you're promoting a viewpoint when what you think you're doing is opposing other viewpoints), I can't understand the persistent arrogance, or the complete refusal to engage in reasonable discussion. you want to debate the issue, I'm all for that, but as of this moment you're the one pushing a POV (whether you realize it or not); don't throw that accusation at me. --Ludwigs2 19:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Piffle yourself, Ludwigs. This overlong tendentious discussion about a term which can reasonably be used in a religion-neutral way to describe beliefs that are more than "stories" or "histories" has spread to far too many venues, instead of getting the content dispute resolved at article talk page level. Existing policies allow due weight to be given to academic terms, while also noting any properly sourced minority views. Workable proposals on the article talk pages can resolve this, trying to change policy to get your way isn't a good way to get agreement.. .dave souza, talk 20:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

you can piffle and tsk me all you like, but it doesn't change the facts; the tendentiousness here is from editors who keep demanding the use of the term 'myth' while refusing to support it with reliable sources. You yourself used the term 'belief' just above, and yet you were one of the people defending the term 'myth' in the lead of Noah's Ark; that tells me you're aware that the word is problematic, and are actively trying to advocate a problematic interpretation. fact: on that article, using the word 'belief' would be perfectly appropriate to content, completely unobjectionable to both scholarly and non-scholarly sources, and would close the debate about this issue on that page instantly and permanently; and yet you and other editors aggressively and tendentiously cling to a more problematic word for absolutely no good reason (aside from some malarky about it being the 'scholarly' term, which we're just supposed to take your word for because you won't provide sources). the most amazing thing is that you don't seem to have any shame about it.

you want to play these kinds of silly games, I can't stop you, but this argument will continue and continue and continue, ad infinitum, because other editors will continue to object to the implied insult. or you can have a little heart, use a little common sense, and bend a little on something that other editors (rightly) feel insulted by, thereby resolving the entire issue. heck, if you get no other value out of doing the decent thing, consider that it might surprise me enough to shock me into a heart attack. that would be worth it, no? --Ludwigs2 21:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Ludwigs2, you really must learn to assume good faith and stop making personal attacks. As it happens, my recommendation was finding sources, a source was provided, and modified by an "anti-myth" editor in clear breach of NPOV without any source supporting the claim you appear to favour. To repeat, this content dispute is best resolved by suitable sources and discussion on the article talk pages. Be clear there's no consensus for attempts to skew NPOV/FAQ, and policies already cover the issues involved. . . dave souza, talk 22:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

yes, yes, accusations of bad faith and personal attacks are yet another step in this tired old game. predictability is something, I suppose...

If you have a source, I haven't seen it; please point me to a diff. if it was modified, and you didn't like the modification, point me to that diff as well. If you don't point me to these diffs, I will assume you were mistaken that such sources were ever offered, and disregard the substantive portions of your post as good faith errors. --Ludwigs2 23:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The Bible scholar Carl F. H. Henry has devoted the entire third chapter of his 1999 book God Who Speaks and Shows: Preliminary Considerations to discussing how various prominent theologians have reacted to certain literary critics of mythology, such as Bultmann, who have attempted to broaden the definition of "myth" to include Scriptures of modern faiths. To assert that there is anything like an agreed-upon "academic definition" is just plain deception, and it's the word of a few POV editors using only half the dictionary definition, versus that of abundant reliable sources that say there IS no agreed-upon definition. The words of one scholar whom Henry quotes, Giovanni Miegge, are particularly powerful, and I can almost hear them ringing out loud as I go on my road: ""the supposed neutrality of those who offer only a formal definition of myth itself conceals a presupposition... The question of neutrality has now gone way beyond just use of "myth", it is a question of, how can you assert you are "neutral" and at the same time pretend you have authority to deny this referenced, significant and widespread POV from being covered per our policy, simply because these are theologians who disagree with you? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 23:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Ludwigs2: Although Til tried to censor the reference, twice, it is currently in the Noah's Ark article - first sentence. I chose a reliable source that gave the most details with respect to usage of the term, so I recommend you read the referenced page and material that follows it. It should be illuminating.

Til: You just quoted someone who signed the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (WP:QS anyone?), who quoted someone else that died in 1961, whose partial quote you have given means nothing. Stop embarrassing yourself. Ben (talk) 07:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Ben: You're embarassing yourself. It doesn't matter if I disagree with him, and all the other prominent theologians he referenced, or if you disagree. It's a significant and very widespread point of view. You know what our policy says. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

see, this is why I like scholarly work. I wish we all would spend more time looking at what they say, and less time arguing about what they mean...

so, I found the Oden chapter in question here and a fairly balanced review of it here by a seminarian (yes, seminarians are considered scholarly sources...). so a few points.\:

• the quote I think you're referring to (at the very end of the link I provided) says: "Today, it is not just the flood story in Genesis 6-9 or ... that are seen as mythical". While this isn't iron-clad, it's a good indication that (within Ogden's discipline) the flood story is referred to as a myth.
• earlier (on pages 52-3) Oden says

  Although the Greek word from which our term myth comes at one time meant only a story ... by the time of the birth of the New Testament it had come to be used as a label for something false - for a story and then later for any information that is not true. We still use the word myth in this sense, ... Within scholarly circles, however, myth has long been used in a more restricted sense to refer a particular kind of story rather than to fabrications or to ideological smoke screens

This is the problem that I've been trying to point out all along. Oden is very careful to delineate the common pejorative sense of the word, acknowledge that it's still current, and then specify that scholars have a different, idiosyncratic sense of the term which is what he himself will be using. I suspect Oden would be annoyed that his words are being used without the careful framing that he himself made.

• It's clear that Oden is engaged in primary research: he is trying to convince other scholars that the term 'myth' should be more broadly used in biblical studies than it is. and in fact, it seems he's made at least a half-way decent argument - Ollenburger (the reviewer) thinks that Oden's work is 'interesting and instructive', if not quite as revolutionary as Oden claims it to be. Ollenburger's basic summation is that Oden is doing good academic research of the traditional sort, but is failing to make any innovations, or even to demonstrate that 'theological tradition' Oden is opposing even exists. Heck, I'm putting this book on my reading list, because it looks interesting, but I think it's clear that this is still an ongoing debate in the field, not a 'done deal'.

so, upshot: if you want to use this term, you should take care to source it properly, and frame it the same way that academics frame it. Oden clearly doesn't want to risk having people think he's using the term 'myth' in the common pejorative sense; we shouldn't risk that either. --Ludwigs2 18:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree. And of course Oden could have saved himself some effort by simply pointing to "myth" as it is defined in the standard dictionaries. DVdm (talk) 19:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

he actually does. there's a long section in that preview where he discusses how the term has evolved historically, and how the meaning and use of it have changed over time. he even says outright that there is a common belief in his discipline is that the word is essentially undefinable. Oden - like a good academic - is being very careful with his use of words because (like a good academic) he knows that an early misconception can destroy an otherwise good argument for the reader. like I said, I like this guy; he's sharp. --Ludwigs2 19:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

While there are countless sources that classify the Noah's Ark narrative as myth, I chose Oden specifically since he offered such a wealth of information to curious readers, and I'm glad you like it. I also appreciate (very much!) that you took the time to read and evaluate it, something that few, if any, 'anti-myth' folks were interested in doing for any references (and Oden is but one) that I provided that have since disappeared into the depths of the Noah's Ark archives. While I don't agree with everything you wrote, I'm happy for you to take up discussion at Talk:mythology (where related discussion is already happening) so we can finally lay this thread to rest. Cheers, Ben (talk) 20:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

A final word on this from me

This debate is not going away. Even if those currently involved leave it alone, there will always be others that come along and re-open it. There is no consensus either way - there are simply two sides who utterly disagree with each other and will always disagree with each other. On that basis, discussion is irrelevent; arbitration is irrelevent; and the only forum with the power to impose a solution is not mandated to deal with this kind of issue. I see no way forward with this - we can either continue to shout the same old stuff at each other or we can edit-war ad infinitum. I, for one, am going to do neither.

For the time being, I am stepping right back from this particular dispute. However, if a mechanism by which it can be resolved is found, I will be back. If Ben wishes to archive this thread, I have no further objection. --FimusTauri (talk) 09:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:NPOV policy demonstrates a pretty firm site-wide consensus on issues of this nature. We provide information from reliable academic sources using the terms as defined by leading experts and make sure that if there is any room for confusion that the information to clear it up is readily available at a click of a mouse button. It'd be different if the word as used in the articles actually were offensive, or if it were aimed at a specific minority group in some way, or if there were no easy way for a reader to educate themselves. I don't doubt that there always will people who won't give up on this, just as there always will be people who want to push some other inherently POV position out of disagreement with Wikipedia's core principles. DreamGuy (talk) 14:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

You illustrate my point perfectly, DreamGuy. It is my opinion that NPOV policy quite clearly demonstrates the opposite. We will never agree; an many others hold equally strong views on either side.--FimusTauri (talk) 14:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Dreamguy wrote: WP:NPOV policy demonstrates a pretty firm site-wide consensus on issues of this nature. Is this some new definition ofthe word "consensus"?

Dreamguy wrote: We provide information from reliable academic sources using the terms as defined by leading experts -- More double talk. "Leading experts" as defined by you, not consensus. You presume to have the authority to disqualify anyone who disagrees with you, that's the POV problem. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom

To all interested parties: see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration #Use of "myth" in religious articles--FimusTauri (talk) 14:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Locked

Should this page still be locked? Cheers, Ben (talk) 18:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why it's still protected, and I don't see why it's still a policy. There's been sufficient time to move anything that should be policy to WP:NPOV and leave this as a proper FAQ. A page with "Frequently Asked Questions" really shouldn't be a policy, it should be a guide to the actual policy it's a FAQ of. Dreadstar † 07:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Since the material at the center of the policy dispute has been moved by consensus to an actual Policy page, I've requested the page be unprotected so the FAQ can be chaanged to a Guideline rather than a Policy. Dreadstar † 19:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Your failure to see why is not a consensus for changing these important provisions from policy to guideline. If you're so fired up to move them to the NPOV policy page, you're welcome to get started, but there's a lot more to this policy than the pseudoscience section which has rightly been moved there. Do let me know when you're moving the various parts, and I'll try to assist when time permits. . dave souza, talk 22:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The "policy" material has already moved to NPOV policy, so there's nothing to make this FAQ a policy. FAQ's aren't policy, period. Dreadstar † 23:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

It still remains a policy as long as it remains content that was spun off a policy page, which it is. That's not a hard concept to grasp. And the content here content was present in and central to the very first versions of Wikipedia's core content policy, so it's only doubly so that it remain policy. Furthermore this content was only allowed to be spun off the main policy page on the condition that it remain policy, the archived discussions there show. This page has documented longstanding policy for years it seems. There's no reason to change that now. Odd nature (talk) 23:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

And I strongly disagree with your assertion as well as your facts, as has been discussed ad nausium. This FAQ should not be a policy, especially in its current state. Dreadstar † 23:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Why is this FAQ a policy?

• For a historical perspective, WP:NPOV/FAQ was spun off the main WP:NPOV policy. Shortly thereafter, the policy tag was added [1], apparently based on this discussion according to the edit summary; but that discussion acually seems to indicate the FAQ was spun out of the policy because "these are really essays and "chat", rather than policy". This "policy" looks to me to be more along the lines of a guideline or even an essay if even one of those and not just a basic, informative FAQ page. For those who may be interested, here are the previous discussions on this issue. Dreadstar † 23:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The page was spun out by FT2 at 23:42, 26 June 2006 without a heading, nine hours later it was headed as policy by by Francis Schonken (at 08:41, 27 June 2006),[2] and at 13:07, 27 June 2006, FT2 edited the page leaving the policy tag in place.[3] It's a longstanding policy with provisions which were inadequately covered in the main NPOV page, three of these provisions have now been moved to the main page which lessens the need for this to be a policy. . dave souza, talk

I know what was done, I read the section - as should everyone involved here. What was done by Francis, suggested by JesseW, and seemingly accepted by FT2, does not lessen the impact of the original statements that material was moved to the FAQ because it was not policy material, and was essays and chat; a FAQ page that was made policy by essentially one or two individuals with completely inadequate discussion about the impact and precedent of a FAQ being a policy. One of the problems with a FAQ being a policy is exactly why this page appears to be "longstanding policy," as Nathan points out below: "Inevitably a FAQ is going to draw less attention and scrutiny than the main policy, which has an impact on the level of consensus a FAQ can enjoy". We do not want pages with "less attention and scrutiny" to be Policy.

If the material in this FAQ is policy, then you should have no trouble moving it into a highly trafficked Policy page like WP:NPOV. If NPOV policy is too long, then it's certainly inappropriate to move actual Policy off onto a FAQ. "Longstanding" is never an excuse for inappropriateness. Dreadstar † 17:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

sections to transfer

I reverted these additions (twice now). these sections were never in serious consideration for addition to policy. see the original proposals here (proposals 3 and 4). the 'religion' and 'writing for the enemy' sections could be included in policy; the 'equal validity' and 'making necessary assumptions' sections are (a) badly written (b) limited in scope to pseudoscience issues, and (c) not particularly neutral.

as I said, I've reverted these additions to policy twice, and I expect a few more skeptical editors will come out of the woodwork to push them in again, because these two passages are central to their particular POV (and as a class they are not given to participating in consensus discussions). that being the case, we might want to revive the proposals I made earlier (now archived with the others here, and include them in the above discussion, or in a new one. is that acceptable? --Ludwigs2 12:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

This discussion should take place on the NPOV policy talk page, in fact they have already started there. As a "fringe" editor you have your own view, but when weakening this from a policy we shouldn't lose the good policy parts that should be put back into the policy. I find your unprovoked personal attack on the NPOV talk page, and the lack of AGF you are displaying in your post above, say something as to your view of NPOV. This contrast quite markedly with the approach Dave took, and I have followed. I feel you should apologise and revert. Verbal chat 12:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I stand by my reasoning. your wp:uncivil and mindless assertion that I'm a 'fringe editor' (which seems to be your only actual argument here) merely reflects your personal prejudices, and is not a substitute for proper discussion of the issues. make a reasoned case for the inclusion of these sections in policy so that we can discuss the matter; or if you can't, then please don't stink up the place with mere name-calling.

The discussion is here, because it's about the NPOV/FAQ - let's keep it here so that we don't get things spread out all over the place. --Ludwigs2 13:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

You said "I've reverted these additions to policy twice, and I expect a few more skeptical editors will come out of the woodwork to push them in again, because these two passages are central to their particular POV (and as a class they are not given to participating in consensus discussions)", which is a huge failure to assume good faith, not including the attacks you have made on the NPOV talk page. My reference to you as fringe was both ironic, and backed by your editing history. I added quotes to make this clear. This FAQ currently has status as policy. I agree FAQs probably shouldn't, but we should retain the good parts of this policy FAQ and simply move them back over - as they are already policy this isn't making new policy, or an addition to policy. The move was justified above and on the NPOV talk page. It might be best if you take a break and come back when you've calmed down. Verbal chat 13:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Verbal said: "I agree FAQs probably shouldn't, but we should retain the good parts of this policy FAQ and simply move them back over". This far, I agree with you completely, but I disagree with you about which parts are the 'good' parts of this FAQ. as I noted above, he 'religion' and 'writing for the enemy' sections have a lot to recommend them, but the two sections that got moved over suffer from the following failings

They are specific to pseudoscience issues

perhaps they belong on the Fringe Theories page, and maybe on the FAQ page (without policy status) as clarifications of NPOV for PS issues, but they aren't suitable for inclusion on the broader NPOV policy page. If they could be rewritten to have general scope, they might be acceptable, but that would take a lot of consideration and effort.

The are written in a rambling, 'talky' style

this just isn't suitable for a policy page. they are written in such an explanatory style that I can only see them as FAQ material.

They are not particularly neutral

one is a pointed statement to the effect that pseudoscience issues can be criticized more harshly than other topics, and the other is nearly an incitement to engage in wp:OR. I can see some value in both points, mind you, but as they are written they are a good bit over the top.

I hope that clarifies things. --Ludwigs2 14:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that, and I don't entirely disagree. (I would still appreciate it if you struck parts of your earlier comments) Verbal chat 14:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Style and precise wording can be reviewed and discussed at TALK:NPOV, these policy statements give clear guidance on a wider range of issues than pseudoscience, as is clearly stated in their wording. They concern matters that are covered less clearly in the other NPOV policy statements. As stated in the section above, they are both useful and necessary. . . dave souza, talk 14:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

And I do agree with that, and that conversation should happen there. Verbal chat 14:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this FAQ does have the current status of policy, and I don't think it would be right to assume without discussion that text elements from the FAQ can be moved to the NPOV page over objections. My sense is that the issue of whether FAQs should be policies hasn't been ironed out in the past, and the RfC above (which is probably not in the right place for the general question) indicates that they probably should not be. The best approach to adding wording from NPOV/FAQ to NPOV, then, is to propose changes on WT:NPOV and discuss them there. Nathan ^{T (formerly Avruch)} 14:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

According to the page it does have the force of policy, and that seems to be practice as well. However, the situation isn't optimal and I agree that conversation about what should be moved should take place on the NPOV page before the policy tag is removed from this FAQ. Verbal chat 14:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Verbal. . dave souza, talk 14:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Verbal is right. Nathan, have you read the archived discussions that lead to the creation of this page? I played a key role in creating this page originally, spinning these clauses off the main policy, and maintaining it, and the original intent was to pare down a policy page that was getting too long without losing or downgrading key elements of policy. This specific clauses have historically been targets of fringe POV pushers, pseudoscience in particular, because they prevent them from presenting fringe views as being equally valid to mainstream views. The fact is that they has remained policy and not deleted or downgraded because they are strongly supported, seen as key clauses to NPOV. And they are found verbatim in the original formulation of the NPOV policy more than 6 years ago. As someone who has been maintaining the NPOV policy for historical consistency for 5 yeard, they will remain policy here, and be rolled into the main policy at some point, of that I am sure. FeloniousMonk (talk) 15:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I totally disagree with your reversions Ludwigs and reasoning given here to downgrade this page to guideline and support Dave's noble effort in the name of reason to roll what were key clauses from the original formulation of the NPOV policy that go back at the very first versions of the policy and have stood as policy for 6+ years now, here and in the main policy page. FeloniousMonk (talk) 15:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

To clarify the history:The FAQ was spun off with this discussion as support. [4]. Labeling the removed material seems to have been based on this single opinion and comment

I also think it's a good move, but we probably should put the policy tag on the FAQ page also, as I know a number of pieces of that material is cited as policy, and has had the detailed discussion to justify identifing it as that. Otherwise, great work in dividing it. JesseW, the juggling janitor 05:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

despite FT2's final comment here:

Policies aren't essay or debating articles really -- especially not when the essays are discussion-chats 18 KB long. Thats not sensible. A list of questions with a bolded header saying "answers and discussions in /FAQ"... I don't think anyone's going to miss the point. Those who understand NPOV will understand it, those who don't will see where to go for more information on whatever their pet concern is. What's for sure is that 18 KB of chat just doesn't belong in the main policy. FT2 (Talk | email) 18:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest that moving material back and forth in and out of policy, and the actual and initial labelling of that material as policy needs a much wider community consensus as per WP:POLICY, and this statement, "Policies and guidelines describe standards that have community consensus" than is the case here.

Seems we have several points for discussion :

• whether the material should have been moved in the first place... no one seems to disagree with FT2's initial move
• whether the material should have been labeled policy at that point... seems that only one editor suggested that
• whether the moved material is/was policy
• and now whether that material should be moved back onto the original policy page

Since all of these moves affect a "cornerstone" policy, I'd like to suggest we slow down here on moving this stuff around and get some strong community wide discussion and consensus before any moves are made as probably should have been the case from the beginning(olive (talk) 15:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC))

It's been policy for 6 years... If people disagreed they could have reverted the tagging of this page as policy, including FT2. This page is currently policy. If anything should be removed from policy is the question, and I, and others, think the parts DS has moved should remain policy. To strip them of policy status would require broad consensus in the usual manner. Nothing has been moved in and out of policy, it is being put back into the NPOV page (policy to policy) so that the odd situation of a FAQ being policy can be fixed. Verbal chat 16:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

so your argument is "The mistake has been around for 6 years, and so we should continue to respect the mistake?" yeah, well, that's charming, but I haven't been here for six years, and I'm raising an objection to this mistake now (and have been since I noticed this issue), and so I expect the matter to be discussed reasonably now without reference to bureaucratic errors of the past. do you have a better argument than this, or is this it? --Ludwigs2 16:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Moving "chat" off a policy page is obviously a clean up move to remove non, policy-like material. Deciding to label that material as a policy was the opinion of one editor. Discussion as to whether that was an appropriate move, that is, whether this material is policy or not has been reopened a couple of times at least, and no consensus seems to have been reached. The argument that material that is policy is being moved back into policy cannot fly, because we haven't determined the base line information; that the material being moved is policy to begin with . This is a cornerstone policy we're mucking about with. It deserves discussion and consensus on a community wide basis. This isn't to negate in any way Dave's efforts but why the rush. I'm a little suspicious when "rush" enters the picture. As well, we are now in the middle of a RfC. The proper procedure is to wait and see how the community weighs in. A few editors does not a community make. What's the hurry? (olive (talk) 16:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC))

The RfC is about a sudden rush to downgrade this policy, after a couple of months waiting for Ludwigs to pull together proposals for discussion. No need to rush at downgrading the policy, we can discuss and review which parts are moved into the NPOV main page, appropriately at that page as part of a change to that page. Once that's accomplished we can come back to the issue of whether what's left of the FAQ should remain policy. Oh, and the editor who moved this into a new page edited it the next day without removing the policy tag, indicating consensus about the policy status. . . dave souza, talk 16:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Nah...I don't buy that. I checked Dreadstar's user talk page, and the tag there says he/she is busy in RL... so he/she comes back in and asks for an RfC - perfectly legitimate. This FAQ has been discussed before and there was strong concerns about the FAQ being named/used as a policy. It would appear those concerns still exist. Moving material around without waiting for the RfC to expire isn't appropriate procedure, and makes me question motive. Not removing the policy tag in one day doesn't indicate consensus in anyway. It indicates that an editor didn't remove the tag. Notifying the larger community, asking for comment, and then keeping or removing the tag based on that input is consensus. As well we all know consensus is not an infinite. It can change. We have editors legitimately asking to discuss and clarify the base line definition of this FAQ. That shouldn't be ignored because this is a cornerstone policy and no small group of editors has the right to "own" the policy and what is put in or out of it.I won't edit war over this, but I note that an RfC and notification at the Village Pump for input in this discussion are in effect being tossed aside -not respectful of the encyclopedia, the other editors, and the process. And how in the name of any kind of common sense can material removed from a policy because it was chat and extraneous to the policy be called policy itself.(olive (talk) 17:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC))

The FAQ is currently policy. If you want that to change that's fine, but currently this is policy. The moving of things around doesn't seem to have anything to do with the RFC, except in some comments about not losing good policy. If you want anything to be removed from policy you have to show consensus for that - see WP:NOT for an example of removing things without consensus, even if there is a good argument that it doesn't have consensus! The FAQ being a policy is suboptimal, and that is what we are in the process of fixing. You are, and correct me if I' wrong, in effect advocating removing things from policy (The NPOV policy, given by this page and WP:NPOV) without consensus. The NPOV FAQ isn't "chat". I find the "sudden rush" to get this stuff removed from policy, rather than the simple housekeeping that has in fact happened, strange. Verbal chat 17:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Now Verbal. Look what you've done. You've asked me if I was advocating moving material from NPOV without consensus and without waiting for me to answer suggested such a desire on my part was strange. :o)

Now the truth is, as I hope my posts indicate, I am begging for consensus. My concern has more to do with the order in which things are being carried out. Simple housekeeping implies there was no big mess to begin with. However, the archives of this page indicates lots of mess on the topic of whether NPOV/FAQ should be considered policy or not. I would suggest that the logical first order of things to consider before anything was moved should have been to establish that base line, and to do it with community wide discussion. Although Dave has already made a rather substantial move of material into the NPOV policy from the FAQ (and I can't seem to find consensus for that move in the discussion .... maybe someone could point me to it), I would suggest we stop all further housekeeping duties and settle the issue of policy/not policy once and for all. Once we've cleaned up the big mess, then what follows could be the smaller "housekeeping" issues. Right now the procedure is backwards. The assumption is that we can move material back and forth because we are moving from policy to policy, but the suggestion as noted in the archives is that the FAQ because it contained nonessential information to the original policy may not be truly, in itself, policy, in which case we may be moving nonessential material right back into the policy again. If there is a serious question as to whether the FAQ is a policy or not, then assuming we are moving material from policy to policy is wrong, and assuming its just housekeeping is wrong as well. I'm asking to halt the move of material ... to look at what has already been moved.... to make a decision on the policy issue....and then and only then, to begin movement again of material that, dependent on consensus should go back into the NPOV policy. "Chat" is the term FT2 used which I concur with, indicating the nonessential nature of material in terms of the policy itself. If it was essential it would probably still be there.(olive (talk) 18:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC))

There's nothing more I can say really (famous last words). I have no desire to get into an edit war over this, but if there is discussion on the FAQ itself and what is to be moved, I'll be happy to throw in my two cents.(olive (talk) 18:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC))

I don't agree with your take on the issues. Among those who have maintained both this policy page and the NPOV policy page historically, IOW, for more than the last year, there is strong consensus that the clauses being challenged by Ludwigs and dreadstar are policy by having been spun off the main policy page. The fact that "suggestions have been made" or that "some have challenged" is not sufficient cause for downgrading multiple paragraphs that have stood as policy for more than 6 years (here and at the main policy page), no matter which page they appear on. Odd nature (talk) 19:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, olive, you refer to the fact "the archives of this page indicates lots of mess on the topic of whether NPOV/FAQ should be considered policy or not." But you need to understand and acknowledge that most of that "mess" was caused by pseudoscience POV promoters, most now banned, trying to remove the main stumbling stone from them being able to promote their pet POV as having equal validity as mainstream science. Should key policy suffer because POV pushers try to game the system? No. So don't them the same weight as good faith contributors. Odd nature (talk) 19:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, this section is titled "sections to transfer", not "let's bash each other". Can this section be refactored or moved so the discussion can stick to the main point, which is to identify and decide on what in this FAQ is actually Policy and should be moved to an actual Policy page and off this FAQ - which should not be policy. Dreadstar † 19:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The RfC asks one question that is really two - (1) should FAQs have the weight of policy and (2) does the text in this FAQ have policy status. I think both questions are unresolved, but Verbal and others operate under the assumption that the answers are no to (1) and yes to (2). I think folks may have difficulty over at WT:NPOV arguing that no one should be permitted to object to inserting new text into that page because the text is already policy, but given that we seem to agree that FAQs shouldn't be policy anything that ought to be policy should certainly be merged into WP:NPOV somehow. The reference to NOT#PLOT is on point - some in the arbitration request have argued that a new consensus is necessary to change a policy, and demonstrating that the current policy lacks consensus isn't sufficient to downgrade or remove it. I find that reasoning a bit strange I suppose, but its relevant mainly to WT:NPOV and not this page.

In any case it may help us to separate these two questions, with the general issue of FAQs and status returned to VPP and the issue of NPOV/FAQ specifically left to hash out here and on WT:NPOV. Nathan ^{T (formerly Avruch)} 20:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree. Whatever is in this FAQ is already considered part of NPOV Policy and should be able to be moved there without question. Once moved to WP:NPOV, then consensus can be gauged on whether or not to remove it. I don't advocate merely reducing current Policy to the status of Guideline, Essay or anything less than Policy. I haven't involved myself in the minutia of what specifially should be moved, and have instead focused on the overall goal of Wikipedia having a solid heirarchy of documentation that has distinct boundaries and purposes. I think the initial tagging of the FAQ as policy was ill-considered and we need to address it clearly and fairly rapidly.

This same discussion has been ongoing since February, and while there has been good progress made, it needs to be finalized. I disagree with anyone arguing that material from the FAQ shouldn't be considered current policy; and as such, it can be handily transferred to a proper Policy page instead lingering here where it creates a strange, confusing gray zone of documentation heirarchy. We have plenty of FAQ Pages that are based on Foundational and Policy principles, yet none of those FAQs are considered Policy. Dreadstar † 22:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Is a FAQ a Policy

• Should a "Frequently Asked Question" page for a Policy also be a Policy, or should it be a Guideline to the relevant Policy? Dreadstar † 23:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

To SlimVirgin's point below, maybe it shouldn't even be a guidiline, but instead just a helpful FAQ page. Dreadstar † 01:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• Guideline. Inevitably a FAQ is going to draw less attention and scrutiny than the main policy, which has an impact on the level of consensus a FAQ can enjoy. There is also the potential for conflict between a FAQ and the policy it covers (for those who parse the text like lawyers, and there are many!). There should be no question as to which document controls, and so no policies that are essentially direct duplicates of existing policies in different language. Nathan ^{T (formerly Avruch)} 23:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• Guideline, or less. An FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions, in case anyone needs a reminder) is explanatory by its nature, and subject to more-or-less frequent change. anything that is policy-worthy should be on the main policy page, not on an FAQ; nothing on an FAQ should be dealing with issues that aren't spelled out on the main policy page. Frankly, common sense would dictate that this page should not have any status at all; it should just be a conventional list of standard answers to questions that get asked with some regularity. --Ludwigs2 00:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• Guideline at most. Preferably nothing, just a helpful FAQ page. In case of inconsistency between it and policy, the policy should take priority. Anything important enough to be regarded as policy should be on the policy page itself. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• Addendum. The material was originally removed from the policy page because it wasn't integral to that policy. How can that same information now be policy in and of itself. It can't. The FAQ helps define and explain the policy beyond the primary explanations the policy includes, an addendum to the policy page, but cannot be considered policy itself, an important distinction.(olive (talk) 03:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC))

• FAQ format not ideal for policy, but within 9 hours of being moved out the policy tag was added to the previously unheaded page, and as a policy it has contained essential clarifications of important aspects which were inadequately covered in the NPOV page. The pseudoscience section was duplicated on this page and the NPOV page by someone, I subsequently deleted the duplicate from this page. Having reviewed the remaining sections, I've moved Making necessary assumptions and Giving "equal validity" to NPOV with minimal modifications as statements rather than Q & A. They can now be deleted from this page, unless someone really wants to keep the questions or add further guidance. On that basis I've no objection to this page being made a guideline or simply a FAQ, but others may wish to review the other sections. . . dave souza, talk 11:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • sorry Dave, those sections simply don't qualify as policy material; see the discussion below. other sections do, and these might with some drastic rewrites for balance and generality, but as they stand - no. --Ludwigs2 12:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

These sections are policy, they work and they're general. "Giving equal validity" to fringe views isn't balance, as has repeatedly been discussed with Ludwigs2 amongst others, and "making necessary assumptions" is a common issue on a number of pages. Any proposed changes should be discussed at TALK:NPOV to ensure context. . dave souza, talk 14:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse Dave Souza's view above (Guideline/FAQ) having a FAQ as policy isn't ideal, but the important parts should be moved across. Verbal chat 12:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse Dave Souza's view above - and the important parts should be moved across. Dougweller (talk) 15:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
• This page describes and elucidates important points of policy - NPOV is a many-headed beast with multitudinous and subtle ramifications some of which should be explicitly explored at the policy level. Rewriting out of the FAQ style would not actually require that much effort, and I agree that it is not really ideal format for presenting matters of policy. Given that this issue seems to flare up with depressing regularity, it might be worth changing the style purely for that reason. Not that keeping two well-watched pages in harmony is all that difficult, but we might consider redirecting this talkpage to the main one to facilitate managing the pages as one. - 2/0 (formerly Eldereft) (cont.) 19:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
• Another who agrees with Dave Putting the relevant policy matters in NPOV deals with these issues well. Having a FAQ as a guideline then might make sense in addition to that. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
• It's fine as policy. Why? Because the content of the FAQ that dreadstar refers to are clauses found in the earliest versions of the NPOV policy all the way until it was spun off as a policy subpage, and the consensus then was that it remain policy, serving to explain policy. It stood that way for years. These clauses were and continue to be historical targets for pseudoscience POV promoters, most now banned, some new ones now around. They have been trying remove it because it is the main stumbling stone from them being able to promote their pet POV as having equal validity as mainstream science. Should key clauses from our policy suffer because POV pushers try to game the system? No. I agree that the clauses would be better rolled back into the NPOV policy proper, but failing that, they should remain at their FAQ page where they've stood for years without meaningful challenge. Odd nature (talk) 20:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
• I prefer that this page be considered policy because in practice the clarifications given here are treated like official policy. I'm under the impression most of the content of this article would be migrated over to the main page if this page were to become just a guideline. I think it would ultimately be more beneficial to save the work and the bickering over what to move and what not to by just leaving it as is. I really have no opinion on FAQ format; I really don't care if it the format is changed as long as the content remains. In articles where the discussion is hot, these clarifications are vital to prevent articles from becoming lengthy catalogues of debate and rebuttals where deluges of information obfuscate the big picture and ironically prevent the article from being informative. Sifaka ^talk 01:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
• Not policy. A FAQ answers questions about the policy, it provides helpful community discussion clarifying application of policy, but it is not the policy. Why include policy-level content in a FAQ and omit it from the actual policy? If any material from the FAQ is needed as policy and is not substantively included in the policy, it should be added - by consensus - to the policy. If it meets the community's requirements for policy, consensus would agree to include it in the main policy page, or it does not in which case the policy designation is not appropriate. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
• Agree with Dave Many parts of the FAQ were actual policy and worked as such. It's nice to have a FAQ page as a guideline, but only after moving the policy parts to WP:NPOV. We must take care that parts of the policy aren't moved or kept here to "weaken" them. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
• Agree with Dave, Enric. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
• It isn't policy, and tagging it "policy" doesn't make it so. It's clarification about what the policy means and how it works. It is more than essay but less than guideline. Perhaps it would help to make this part of Wikipedia:Help, because that's really what it is and should be. Rd232 ^talk 18:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
• Not policy; Agree with Jack-A-Roe – I don't know about the historic perspective of this page, but it reads as a document that explains a policy—answering confusion people may have with the policy—but not as a policy itself. I was not aware that this page existed, and if it contains important policy information regarding NPOV, the info should be included on that page. This is more like a help page for NPOV and would be better represented as a guideline or essay. Users shouldn't have to come to a FAQ for policy; they should visit a FAQ to gain clarity on the policy if they have addional questions. —Ost (talk) 20:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Material to be transferred to a Policy page

• Alright, let's use this section to list and discuss the merits of material that editors believe should be considered Policy and therefore moved to an actual Policy page instead of this FAQ. Please take into consideration that a FAQ helps to explain existing policy and this should not be a duplicate of actual Policy, but instead help to answer questions and provide further information on said Policies. Thanks! Dreadstar † 19:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• This is a policy page, so this should be thought of as "material that should be retained in the policy" or simimar. What this page currently contains is current policy, even though it is a FAQ. I endorse Dave's view below (and above, and elsewhere), and feel that these long-standing points of policy should be retained, and that a broad consensus would be required to remove them from policy (though not this page). I agree that this state should change, by moving the policy points to the main NPOV policy page, but denying the facts of this situation doesn't help. Verbal chat 20:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

It's temporarily a policy page as far as I'm concerned - if even that. I would have to laugh at anyone saying someone or some material is violating WP:NPOV/FAQ policy, when in actuality they may be violating WP:NPOV policy. This is a silly argument - there's no consensus that a FAQ should be policy, it doesn't even make sense. I'd recommend focusing on the material that needs to be moved instead of continuing to hawk this FAQ as a policy. Dreadstar † 21:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• From what I see in the above, here is a start to the listing. Let's list then discuss the merits of each one for moving to a Policy page. Please feel free to add to the below list anything from tis FAQ that you believe should be on a Policy page. Dreadstar † 21:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• #Wikipedia:NPOV#Making_necessary_assumptions - Now included in WP:NPOV Policy.
• #Wikipedia:NPOV#Giving_.22equal_validity.22 - Now included in WP:NPOV Policy.

Discussion of Policy material

• No bashing. Please.  :) Dreadstar † 19:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• Making necessary assumptions covers numerous situations where a controversy is best explored in depth in one article, and it's fully appropriate for sub articles to refer to that as necessary without thrashing out the same argument every time. It's useful, and fits well as a part of WP:NPOV#Neutrality disputes and handling. dave souza, talk 20:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• Giving "equal validity" is a common problem, particularly where an article is focussed on an extreme minority view and we must ensure that this proper attention does not obscure the majority opinion on the subject. The section is a usefully clear explanation of WP:WEIGHT issues in that regard. . dave souza, talk

• Ok, these are included in NPOV policy. What else from here needs to be there? Dreadstar † 01:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

• "Religion" would probably make sense. It's a perennial dispute - hell, aspects of it are ongoing at Noah's Ark right now (not that I intend to mention it). Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

If someone can rewrite the Religion section into a concise Policy statement, we can move it over. Any volunteers? Dreadstar † 19:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Religion section rewrite

• Original:

Disrespecting my religion or treating it like a human invention of some kind, is religious discrimination, inaccurate, or wrong. And what about beliefs I feel are wrong, or against my religion, or outdated, or non-scientific?

NPOV policy often means presenting multiple points of view. This means providing not only the points of view of different groups today, but also different groups in the past.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. One important task for encyclopedias is to explain things. In the case of human beliefs and practices, explanation encompasses not only what motivates individuals who hold these beliefs and practices, but an account of how such beliefs and practices evolved. Wikipedia articles on history and religion draw from a religion's sacred texts. But Wikipedia articles on history and religion also draw from modern archaeological, historical, and scientific sources.

Some adherents of a religion might object to a critical historical treatment of their own faith because in their view such analysis discriminates against their religious beliefs. They might prefer that the articles describe their faith, or classify various parts of it, as they see it, which might be from a historical perspective (e.g. the way things are is the way things have always been; any differences are from heretical sects that don't represent the real religion; or, e.g. this story is historical.) Their point of view must be mentioned if it can be documented by notable, reliable sources, yet note that there is no contradiction. NPOV policy means that Wikipedia editors ought to try to write sentences like this: "Certain adherents of this faith (say which) believe X, and also believe that they have always believed X; however, due to the findings (say which) of modern historians and archaeologists (say which), other adherents (say which) of this faith now believe Z."

Regarding terminology: Several words that have very specific meanings in studies of religion have different meanings in less formal contexts, e.g. fundamentalism and mythology. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia articles about religious topics should take care to use these words only in their formal senses in order to avoid causing unnecessary offense or misleading the reader. Conversely, editors should not avoid using terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and notable sources on a topic out of sympathy for a particular point of view, or concern that readers may confuse the formal and informal meanings. Details about some particular terms can be found at WP:WTA.

• Rewrite as concise policy statement:

I've taken the liberty of doing some minor copyediting and moving the religion policy content to this section of NPOV Policy. Dreadstar † 20:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

FAQ as Policy

Consensus from the above discussions appear to show that a FAQ, including this one, should not be Wikipedia Policy. Consensus also seems to be that since this FAQ was considered Policy for so long and that it contained material considered Policy, that this FAQ should remain policy until all the Policy content was moved to WP:NPOV or other Policy pages. Most, if not all of this content has been moved, and what remains does not appear to be Policy material. But, in order to alleviate any concerns that material from this FAQ might still be Policy, I propose that while we downgrade this FAQ from being Policy, we also keep the door open to moving any content from the current version to Policy without dispute. Any new content added to this FAQ should not be considered Policy, but instead any new Policy material should be placed on another, more appropriate WP Policy page. Any objections? Dreadstar † 20:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Alrighty, this proposal has been up for ten days without any further objections. In keeping with the above consensus, and since this proposal covers any future requests to move material from the current version to another, appropriate Policy page without dispute, then I think it's very safe to 'downgrade' this from Policy to juat a FAQ. I'll go ahead and do that shortly if there are no further objections. Thanks! Dreadstar † 03:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Um, no. This was always policy ever since it was spun off from the NPOV article since 2006. And read the archived discussion in 2006 at Talk:NPOV on the spin off; it was only allowed to be spun off on the condition that it remain policy or else it was to be folded back in. Odd nature (talk) 15:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

The history of the spin-out of this FAQ from NPOV Policy was discussed at WP:NPOV/FAQ#Why is this FAQ a policy?, and followed up by a discussion at WP:NPOV/FAQ:Is a FAQ a Policy, which led to discussions on what to move to the actual NPOV Policy page Material to be transferred to a Policy page, and finalized by moving the Policy material from the FAQ to the actual Policy page, FAQ as Policy. Dreadstar ☥ 16:24, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Hang on a sec - are you saying there should not be a FAQ for this policy? I'm unclear on what the reasoning is. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I was part of the original discussion to spin this off and party to the original compromise. And that compromise called for the content spun out of the NPOV policy to the FAQ to remain policy or to be rolled back into NPOV. This stood since 2006 and Dreadstar's unitlateral demotion of this page. Dreadstar, if you want to make such sweeping changes to part of the project's core policy, you're going to need the broad consensus of the community. Until you have that, please stop acting unilaterally to degrade this policy. FeloniousMonk (talk) 16:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I did not 'unilaterally' do anything, as I've indicated above and in my edit summaries, there were discussions that led to consensus that a FAQ shouldn't be a Policy and that the Policy material be moved to an actual Policy page instead of remaining on a FAQ page. Please do not mischaracterize my actions. Dreadstar ☥ 16:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

It *was* on a policy page - the same NPOV page there is a heated discussion going on right now about the gutting of. Not seeing that because someone has removed content from the policy page without consensus, that suddenly the FAQ, which no longer reflects the policy due precisely to that gutting, should *also* be removed. IOW, you didn't move the FAQ contents back to the policy page; you're just talking about removing the FAQ. Or did I miss something here? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, with consensus a year ago,[5] material deemed as Policy was moved from this FAQ to the NPOV policy page,

• FAQ Religion section moved to NPOV Religion section,
• FAQ Giving 'equal validity' section moved to NPOV Giving 'equal validity' section
• FAQ Making necessary assumptions section moved to NPOV Making necessary assumptions section
• FAQ Pseudoscience section moved to NPOV Pseudoscience section

After the Policy material was moved, then the FAQ was 'downgraded' from a Policy to a FAQ, [6]. (If I missed any content of concern, please let me know.) Any 'suddenness' was in restoring the FAQ's policy status and older material from a year ago just because the NPOV policy page is under dispute. One of the main purposes of putting policy on a Policy page is as I described it previously:

"One of the problems with a FAQ being a policy is exactly why this page appears to be "longstanding policy," as Nathan points out below: "Inevitably a FAQ is going to draw less attention and scrutiny than the main policy, which has an impact on the level of consensus a FAQ can enjoy". We do not want pages with "less attention and scrutiny" to be Policy. If the material in this FAQ is policy, then you should have no trouble moving it into a highly trafficked Policy page like WP:NPOV. If NPOV policy is too long, then it's certainly inappropriate to move actual Policy off onto a FAQ. "Longstanding" is never an excuse for inappropriateness."[7]

Dreadstar ☥ 17:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Dreadstar's assessment of the 2009 discussion. The present issue appears to have arisen when two of the key provisions that were moved by consensus back to the policy page last year, WP:GEVAL, WP:MNA (plus "Fringe theories and pseudoscience") were removed from the policy page about a week ago. Though, they've since been replaced, with no present consensus to again remove these from the WP:NPOV page. So long as these important provisions remain part of the policy, consistent with last year's carefully arrived-at consensus on this page, and also in the absence of a broad community consensus to remove them from the NPOV page, there's simply no need for this page to regain its earlier policy status. And lacking a new consensus for this page to regain policy status, the carefully worked-out consensus of roughly a year ago still controls the status of this page. I hope Odd nature and FeloniousMonk find this is a satisfactory explanation. ... Kenosis (talk) 22:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Ok, that makes sense. Thanks much for the detailed explanation, Dreadstar. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 03:24, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Wording of "Anglo-american bias"

"The Anglo-American focus is in part a reflection of there being so many U.S. and European Anglophone people working on the project, which in turn is a reflection of the fact that so many of them have access to the Internet."

I don't think latter part is a good formulation. It seems to imply that English-speaking people have a better access to the Internet than others. But this is not true: according to statistics, French- and German-speakers have an equally good access to the Internet. The wording should be changed to something like which in turn is a reflection of the fact that so many English-speakers like to edit the English Wikipedia. Offliner (talk) 13:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

WikiLaurent has removed it; good call. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 03:26, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

No such thing as objectivity

For the thinking behind this change, please see WT:NPOV#Fundamental problem: "neutral".--Kotniski (talk) 07:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The edit was not more objective. You added your own personal opinion to the page. QuackGuru (talk) 16:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I restored the well written text. Personal opinions of NPOV should not be part of FAQ. QuackGuru (talk) 16:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have restored another personal opinion. I don't know what "well-written text" you are referring to, but when you find it, perhaps we can try. Meanwhile let's remove the point altogether for now; it's not necessary and it's embarrassing to have that text on a major FAQ.--Kotniski (talk) 18:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I restored to the version that before you added your personal opinion to the FAQ page. It smacks WP:POINT your deletion. QuackGuru (talk) 18:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

It's your repeated reverts of anything I do that are becoming POINTy. Maybe it was my personal opinion, but no-one's yet argued against it despite being linked to the discussion, so apparently no-one disagrees. And the text you restored was even worse than someone's opinion; it was someone's personal disingenuous, patronizing nonsense. We don't particularly need either, but we certainly shouldn't have that text that you put back.--Kotniski (talk) 18:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

No, it smacks WP:POINT your deletion. QuackGuru (talk) 18:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I've explained my thinking at the thread I linked to above. Please respond to it if you have some objection. If you don't see why the text you restored was hideously bad, I'll explain it when I come back tomorrow. Meanwhile goodnight.--Kotniski (talk) 18:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

You've made it clear you don't like the current NPOV policy or this FAQ page without any logical explantion. QuackGuru (talk) 18:56, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

All right, here's the section in dispute:

• Everybody with any philosophical sophistication knows that. So how can we take the "neutrality" policy seriously? Neutrality, lack of bias, isn't possible.

• This is probably the most common objection to the neutrality policy. It also reflects the most common misunderstanding of the policy. The misunderstanding is that the policy would have said something about the possibility of objectivity. It simply does not. In particular, the policy does not say that there even is such a thing as objectivity in a philosophical sense, a "view from nowhere" (in Thomas Nagel's phrase)—such that articles written from that point of view are consequently objectively true. That is not the policy and it is not our aim! Rather, we employ a different understanding of "neutral" and "unbiased" than many might be used to. The policy is simply that we should characterize disputes rather than engage in them. To say this is not to say anything contentious, from a philosophical point of view; indeed, this is something that philosophers are doing all the time. Sophisticated relativists will immediately recognize that the policy is perfectly consistent with their relativism.

• If there is anything possibly contentious about the policy along these lines, it is the implication that it is possible to characterize disputes fairly, so that all the major participants will be able to look at the resulting text, agreeing that their views are presented sympathetically and as completely as possible (within the context of the discussion). It is an empirical question, not a philosophical one, whether this is possible; and that such a thing is indeed possible is evident simply by observing that such texts are written daily by the most capable academics, encyclopedists, textbook writers, and others. Neutrality does not compel us to introduce inaccuracy when something can be directly verified. Neutrality dictates that there can be multiple prominent interpretations to the meaning or validity of a work, but often the contents can be objectively verified, especially in the case of modern documents.

Surely we can see that what this "answer" is doing is simply playing with words (ha, we don't call the view from nowhere "objective", we call it "neutral" or "unbiased", which apparently means the impossible suddenly becomes possible just through a simple name change), and denigrating objectors (the reason you don't accept this policy is that you're not clever enough to understand it - the first line of defence for any dodgy theological dogma; then the tone of the start of the second paragraph continues to patronize). This "answer" to a perfectly reasonable objection says nothing of value, and I hope it won't be restored again until someone rewrites in a saatisfactory manner.--Kotniski (talk) 11:21, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The text is telling the editor to think and strive to edit from an objective view. You can't force editors to rewrite it. I didn't see any text that was better than what was in FAQ. If no specific proposal is better than what was in FAQ it should stay in the page. You can ask the village pump or start a RFC to get different opinions. Please don't mass delete text again. See Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Content changes. QuackGuru (talk) 18:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

You don't seem to have any arguments - I don't udnerstand why you're restoring this text if you can't defend it from the criticism I've presented. This isn't a policy or guideline, and we don't need an answer to this objection if we have no answer. If you think the text is telling the editor to "think and try to edit from an objecgtive view", then let's say that. PLEASE don't restore the philosophically dishonest text again unless you can defend it.--Kotniski (talk) 03:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be best to explain both schools of thought. QuackGuru (talk) 05:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I trimmed the most disputed part of the text. QuackGuru (talk) 05:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Improper addition to the FAQ

QuackGuru recently added this to the FAQ

Requiring an inline qualifier for widespread consensus of reliable sources on the grounds that it is "opinion" would allow a contrarian reader to insist on an inline qualifier for material about which there is no serious dispute, using the argument that the material is an "opinion". This would mean, in the end, that all material in Wikipedia would require an inline qualifier, even if only one Wikipedia editor insisted on it, which is not the goal of ASF. Presenting a "fact" as an "opinion" is needlessly attributing uncontroversial statements, and so creating the appearance of doubt or disagreement where there is none.

There is no consensus for this addition, and QuackGuru knows this, as this has been disputed many times, with many editors. There is no reasonable situation where "all material in Wikipedia would require an inline qualifier". When this bold edit was reverted, QuackGuru editwarred it back in again, something he has been blocked for in the past. QuackGuru, please realize that you have reverted to your tendentious editing style. DigitalC (talk) 03:02, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Editors consider adding inline-text attribution (so-and-so says) where no serious disagreement exists is kind of aburd. This is not typical for material to require an inline qualifier for uncontroversial factual statements. Presenting a "fact" as an "opinion" is needlessly attributing uncontroversial statements, and so creating the appearance of doubt or disagreement where there is none according to this comment. QuackGuru (talk) 07:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

One comment does not make consensus. "Presenting a "fact" as an "opinion" is needlessly attributing uncontroversial statements, and so creating the appearance of doubt or disagreement where there is none" is patently false. DigitalC (talk) 14:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Your missing the point. When it is an uncontroverisal fact, converting a fact into an opinion to create the appearance of doubt or disagreement where there is none is against the intent of ASF. QuackGuru (talk) 01:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Rewrite/Copy-edit for Brevity, Clarity

Ludwigs suggested the FAQ might need to be brought in line with recent changes to NPOV. I wanted to just do a non-policy clean-up first to get a better idea of what we were dealing with. I generally just shortened phrases and clarified the language to be more direct. I left ASF and Pseudoscience alone, since they are more touchy at the moment. QG made the comment that the FAQ had been "weakened", but I think that is a misreading of the change. I'm curious if there are some more specific comments or other observations. Ocaasi (talk) 05:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

What is this?

Why is this essay linked from from the policy as if it's got some kind of wide spread consensus? Gigs (talk) 17:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea where it came from but it it's been around a while, and it seems to be a spillover for extraneous bits and a clarification area for common objections. I assume it has 'essay' status, as in whatever it says is only supposed to explain NPOV and any difference between them would obviously defer to NPOV. Wouldn't it be weirder not to link to the NPOV faq from NPOV? Ocaasi (talk) 03:53, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I dug around and it was originally part of the NPOV policy proper. It was semi-boldly spun out which drew no objections, since it's very essay-like. At one point someone tagged it with a policy tag which was challenged by quite a few editors after someone finally noticed the tag. This became the subject of an RfC that drew very poor participation, and it was eventually untagged because there was no real consensus to keep it tagged as policy. The main arguments for it were based on its coverage of fringe pseudoscience, which seems to have been subsumed both back into NPOV and other guidelines. I'm not sure it's kept up with consensus since it was spun off. Gigs (talk) 05:18, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you did dig. As the above section mentions, I did a pretty major non-policy copy-edit to the FAQ last month or so, and I didn't notice anything 'out of consensus' except for ASF which was removed/refactored from the NPOV policy but is still in the FAQ. That one was a bit too controversial to get into at the time, and probably needs some broader editor input before updating to reflect the current policy. I don't think there's a 'legal' problem per se, since the policy itself is presumed to be binding and not the commentary on it. Then again, it's weird to have an FAQ question about a section that has substantially changed or been moved around. So, in response to your initial question, do you think the FAQ is ok to be linked to? Ocaasi (talk) 05:53, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

If it can be edited to be a bit more sensibly worded, then it's OK to link to it (just as we often link to essays and various other pages from policy pages - it doesn't give them the status of policy). But there are certainly many problems with this page, and the best solution might be just to merge it back in to the policy page - I don't think this issue of neutrality is so complex that explaining it needs to generate so much text as we have now.--Kotniski (talk) 10:43, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I think if it isn't merged, we need to be careful how it is linked to from the main policy. We'd want to avoid any implication that the policy is deferring to the FAQ, which I kind of sensed a little of prior to my first message in this thread. Gigs (talk) 17:19, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

RE: Calling "attention to the problem publicly"

Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Dealing_with_biased_contributors reads Unless the case is really egregious, maybe the best thing is to call attention to the problem publicly, pointing the perpetrators to this page...(etc)

This it means to me the first step is: discuss at the talk page per WP:Dispute, even start a new section on biased editing if necessary, quote the policy and list evidence of bias, like explicit biased statements by the editor. However, some editors will complain of personal attacks if you do it just once, not to mention if you need to do it again in that or another article. So any guidance on whether having to do it repeatedly because of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is a problem. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 15:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC) [Updated after no responses, 7/31/13]

Yes.

I almost never mention editors by name, if possible. I just say that I rm "xxx" which has been replaced by "another" editor. I would like to explain my reasons here... New editors may not even respond. I would then call their attention to the discussion page on their page. No answer? Rm again. Then when replaced, announce on editor's page that s/he may discuss this on article's page, but if it happens again without first discussing, you will be (forced) to treat it as vandalism. Then proceed to do so, if editor fails to defend his/her edits. Escalating up through 3= reverts. Then notify an admin to block them. The main thing here is patience. It may take a week or two. The admin will note your caution with more pleasure than s/he will regard your speed! Keep the remarks npov. Don't respond to jibes, though it's okay to request WP:AGF please. Admins will look at your language if editing is not obvious. Student7 (talk) 20:23, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I hve done it that way before and started that way with new couple editors, but then the editors started boasting about their POVs/academic credentials/blah blah and engaging in a lot of problematic behavior which had to be brought to noticeboards and then it became more relevant. I guess like anything else it's a judgement call - and can you defend that judgement if brought to task! User:Carolmooredc 01:52, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

What is ASF?

Many moons ago, there was "a simple formulation" (abbreviated WP:ASF) which basically said, "assert facts and facts about opinions, not opinions"). This is generally adhered to, but it has been removed from the main NPOV page, and I think rightly so, because it speaks more to style rather than to philosophy. However, the section of the FAQ remains and is useful (and is still the link here). Referring to deprecated policy, however, is pretty poor form. So I tried to remove those references. What I found, though, was that in doing so there was missing a lot of the main explanations and clarifications that people coming to Wikipedia might benefit from seeing. So I did a major overhaul while attempting to keep all the content properly.

Here's the megadiff.

I hope I did a good job, but I understand if someone got upset at my boldness. I do think that this is better than the previous way this was being written, but I'm just one guy and there are many who watch this page.

As it stands right now WP:ASF stands for "ASsert Facts" rather than "A Simple Formulation". WP:ASSERT might be nice to redirect here too as WP:YESPOV takes a slightly different angle on the subject (more philosophical, less stylistic).

jps (talk) 14:02, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

These horses go only one way

I have removed the bit from WP:NECESSARY suggesting that it would be appropriate to mention Creationism in an article Evolution of the horse. That article makes no such mention, correctly sussing out that it would be off topic, and we should anyway not be dictating content from a policy page. Our articles on similar topics, from Human evolution to Phylogeny of insects right down to Galaxy formation and evolution, likewise do not consider it an appropriate part of their respective topics. We might replace the text with something differentiating articles discussing the process itself from articles about the development or the social impact of the theory, but the section seems to stand fine without it. - 2/0 (cont.) 10:19, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

ASSERT

There is a discussion taking place about ASSERT at Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view#ASSERT about how we could clarify this section so it doesn't counter or subvert the spirit of NPOV, which I think it does. Morphh ^(talk) 21:50, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Related discussion

There is a discussion at Talk: BLP PRIMARY regarding WP policy and assertions supported by public documents. – S. Rich (talk) 20:14, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

not policy

My understanding is that this FAQ is not policy per se. In fact, it may even be contrary to policy in places where it misunderstands policy (or includes text which interprets policy in some peculiar way but which has been inserted without community's approval). There should be a notice to that effect on the top of the page.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:04, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikis without NPOV

Are there similar projects that do not have NPOV policies, for those of us who dislike the policy? (I adhere to it while I'm here; at someone else's house, you play by their rules; but it's a rule I dislike) 68.156.95.34 (talk) 03:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Meta's information page on NPOV lists whch projects have such a policy, and which ones don't. See the opening sentence. Stickee (talk) 04:17, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps I misspoke. I meant a project like Wikipedia, not any of the other various Wiki-foundation-spinoffs, but that does away with NPOV (or, for that matter, any of the other "pillars"). 68.156.95.34 (talk) 07:37, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:PRESENTISM

See current discussion at WP:VPP#How to write on moral/ethical acts/behaviors that are treated negatively today but not during the time of the original topic? --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:00, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:In the marketplace of ideas, Wikipedia is an index fund

I wrote this essay in the spirit of "What neutral point of view means". St. claires fire (talk) 20:05, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Majorities and minorities

Wkipedia states that each article must represent viewpoints in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely published aspects. That way Wikipedia is equating repressed minorities, either ethnic, sexual, political or others with "fringe theories", which is I may say a disgrace. This way Wikipedia reproduces discrimination and if the question is raised, just another policy is quoted, naimly WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, as if we are again talking about some personal beliefs and quirky original researches. It is not about righting wrongs in the world, but simply improving the wiki project. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 14:38, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Strong Agree, and it gets worse when you realise that many very reasonable viewpoints are entirely oppressed on Wikipedia because the status quo doesn't like them. Lack of representation can often be enforced by a blunt majority who have no interest in truth. This is something that lets POV run rampant on the site. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 09:33, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Strong Agree, I've long been bothered by "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint", but I pretty much stay off of project talk pages. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:31, 9 January 2022 (UTC)