Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view: Difference between revisions
LeadSongDog (talk | contribs) add archive search |
LeadSongDog (talk | contribs) wow, search distinguishes " " from "_" |
||
Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
bgcolor= |
bgcolor= |
||
type=fulltext |
type=fulltext |
||
prefix= |
prefix=Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Archive |
||
break=yes |
break=yes |
||
width=20 |
width=20 |
Revision as of 16:03, 29 July 2011
The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Wikipedia. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic. |
Are you in the right place? For questions or discussions about the application of this policy to any specific article(s), please post your message at either the NPOV Noticeboard (any neutrality-related issue) or the Fringe Theories Noticeboard (undue weight given to a minority view). |
Spoken Wikipedia | ||||
|
- Archived discussions
- Archive_001 Discussions before October 2004
- Archive_002 Closing out 2004
- Archive_003 Discussions begun Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr 2005
- Archive 004 July to November 4, 2005
- Archive 005 to November 13, 2005
- Archive 006 to December 4, 2005
- Archive 007 to December 30, 2005
- Archive 008 to December 27, 2005
- Archive 009 to January 16, 2006
- Archive 010 to January 23, 2006
- Archive 011 to January 25, 2006
- Archive 012 to January 26, 2006
- Archive 013 to January 29, 2006
- Archive 014 to January 29, 2006
- Archive 015 to March 8, 2006
- Archive 016 to March 10, 2006
- Archive 017 to April 09, 2006
Note: Edit history of 001-017 is in 017.
- Archive 018: Apr 2006
- Archive 019: Apr 2006 - May 2006
- Archive 020: May 2006 - Jun 2006
- Archive 021: Jun 2006
- Archive 022: Jun-Jul 2006 (moving FAQ)
- Archive 023: Jul-Aug 4 2006
- Archive 024: Aug 4-Sept 21 2006
- Archive 025: Sept 22 - Oct 2006
- Archive 26: Nov - Dec 2006
- Archive 27: Jan - Feb 2007
- Archive 28: Mar - May 2007
- Archive 29: May – Sep 2007
- Archive 30: Oct 2007 – Feb 2008
- Archive 31: Feb – May 2008
- Archive 32: May – July 2008
- Archive 33: July 2008
- Archive 34: July – Sep 2008
- Archive 35: Sep 2008 – May 2009
- Archive 36: April – Aug 2009
- Archive 37: Aug – Nov 2009
- Archive 38: Nov 2009 – Feb 2010
- Archive 39:
- Archive 40:
- Archive 41:
- Archive 42:
- Archive 43:
- Archive 44:
When starting a new topic, please add it to the bottom of this page, and please sign your comments with four tildes: ~~~~. This will automatically place a date stamp, which will allow us to maintain this page better.
UAF
section refactored to Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#UAF
Does this project page WP:NPOV follow WP:MOSBOLD guidelines or not?
There is a dispute as to whether this WP:NPOV page and the WP:NOTHOWTO page follow the guidelines in WP:MOSBOLD or if they are even required to follow WP:MOSBOLD (which I think they are) and can therefore be used as examples of WP:MOSBOLD applied in Wiki use. I content that WP:NPOV and WP:NOTHOWTO (along with other WIKI project page articles) are following the WP:MOSBOLD guidelines of bolding the first term/phrase of section items which are in list form and are being defined. (WP:MOSBOLD states definition lists can be bolded, and there are other exceptions to the guideline.) For examples, please see WP:NPOV section titled "Explanation of the neutral point of view" where bulletpointed listed terms/phrases are bolded and then further defined. Please go see many examples of bolded lists on WP:NOTHOWTOO such as: "Wikipedia is not a directory" section and "Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal" section. These terms/phrases are obviously being bolded to improve readability and improve easy visual scanning of the article, therefore, does not violate WP:MOSBOLD, either in spirit or letter of the guideline. I would like some thoughtful comments on the questions I have raised. --RedEyedCajun (talk) 00:10, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
- First, the various MOS pages and sub-pages are not "rules" that must, in all situations, be followed (and thus enforced). They are guidelines that contain very good advice as to what we consider "best practice" to be. Second, the MOS pages apply to articles. Policy and guideline pages are not articles, so the MOS pages would not apply, even if they were firm "rules".
- Note: this does not mean we can't follow the advice given by the MOS guidelines on policy pages (should we choose to do so)... it simply means we are not required to do so. Blueboar (talk) 18:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
- Okay I get that, but are the WP:MOSBOLD guidelines being followed on those particular guideline pages I noted (even though they are not required to follow the guideline)? --RedEyedCajun (talk) 10:57, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Wordy vs. concise
I undid this addition:
- "Moreover, ensuring that a viewpoint is presented with adequate relative weight should never mean being wordy instead of concise."
I don't think it expresses a point particularly clearly. It seems to conflate a general interest in brevity with the relativistic concerns of balancing views from different sources. Can you explain what you intended? Ocaasi t | c 17:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- Sure. Suppose an article has two sections, one on a mainstream view, and the other on a small minority view. The two sections are equally long (same number of words). The solution is not to pad the mainstream section with a lot of wordy rephrasing. Doing so might superficially seem to ensure a more balanced article, but all it really does is make the article lousy. The better solution is trim facts from the minority section (perhaps creating a sub-article) and/or add facts to the mainstream section. Both sections should be concise.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:42, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- I have two concerns about this. One, I'm not sure it belongs in NPOV as opposed to a related guideline or style essay. Two, I'm not sure it's always accurate. If there are two stub-sections, one about the mainstream view and the other about the fringe view, it might be necessary to expand the mainstream section to achieve proper weight. So, two questions: does it belong here? and is there a way to say this so it covers all cases? Ocaasi t | c 19:13, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- Valid concerns, thanks. I'll think on it. Maybe what I was suggesting is common sense that doesn't really need to be specifically spelled out.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- I have two concerns about this. One, I'm not sure it belongs in NPOV as opposed to a related guideline or style essay. Two, I'm not sure it's always accurate. If there are two stub-sections, one about the mainstream view and the other about the fringe view, it might be necessary to expand the mainstream section to achieve proper weight. So, two questions: does it belong here? and is there a way to say this so it covers all cases? Ocaasi t | c 19:13, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- Sure. Suppose an article has two sections, one on a mainstream view, and the other on a small minority view. The two sections are equally long (same number of words). The solution is not to pad the mainstream section with a lot of wordy rephrasing. Doing so might superficially seem to ensure a more balanced article, but all it really does is make the article lousy. The better solution is trim facts from the minority section (perhaps creating a sub-article) and/or add facts to the mainstream section. Both sections should be concise.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:42, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Res ipsa loquitur
Maybe I am thinking of something else but I thought I recalled a long time ago that this guideline included something about letting the facts speak for themselves. Regardless, I think it is valuable to include an explicit statement about this, perhaps in the Impartial tone section. It is frequently the case that editors include valid, referenced facts but present them in inappropriate places with a clear agenda in doing so. One example of this is presenting a controversy where only the opinions of one side are supported by the experts on the subject. Editors sometimes see this as justification for simply characterizing the controversy from the outset as one side that knows what it is talking about and one that doesn't (essentially a misinterpretation of the [[WP::UNDUE]] policy). Obviously in such cases it is simply better to present the two sets of opinions, present who are the primary supporters of each side, and then get into what the experts have to say. Perhaps another way to put that is not to conflate the facts in a way that presupposes a judgment. --192.88.165.35 (talk) 19:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
RfC for the explicit auditing of DYKs for compliance with NPOV policy
An RfC has been launched to measure community support for requiring the explicit checking of DYK nominations for compliance with basic WP policies—including NPOV policy—and to improve the management of the nominations page through the introduction of a time-limit after which a nomination that does not meet requirements is archived. Tony (talk) 04:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
BBC Trust on due weight
The findings of the BBC Trust - Review of impartiality and accuracy of the BBC's coverage of science includes among its main points, summarised in its press release;
When considering 'due impartiality' under the new Editorial Guidelines, the BBC needs to continue to be careful when reporting on science to make a distinction between an opinion and a fact. When there is a consensus of opinion on scientific matters, providing an opposite view without consideration of "due weight" can lead to 'false balance', meaning that viewers might perceive an issue to be more controversial than it actually is. This does not mean that scientists cannot be questioned or challenged, but that their contributions must be properly scrutinised. Including an opposite view may well be appropriate, but the BBC must clearly communicate the degree of credibility that the view carries.
A Trustee's comment discusses how "in some instances the 'presentational style of coverage has continued to suggest that a real scientific disagreement was present long after a consensus had been reached'" and some areas involved. This bears an obvious resemblance to weight policy, and could be cited or reviewed for possible improvements to the wording of the policy. . .dave souza, talk 12:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, this would help cover a weak spot in the policy. The current fallback clause (predominance in sources) is absolutely un-usuable in real life, and would often mis-fire if it was actually usable. North8000 (talk) 17:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, indeed! What Dave quoted is a great improvement for news reporting (long overdue!) and a good pointer for Wikipedia too. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- I could see putting that quotation verbatim with attribution in a quote box alongside UNDUE. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, this would help cover a weak spot in the policy. The current fallback clause (predominance in sources) is absolutely un-usuable in real life, and would often mis-fire if it was actually usable. North8000 (talk) 17:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC)