Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view

The project page associated with this discussion page is an official policy on Wikipedia. It has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. Before you update the page, make sure that changes you make to this policy really do reflect consensus.

The spoken word version of this page is part of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, an attempt to produce recordings of Wikipedia articles. To participate, visit the project page.

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

Wikipedia:Neutrality

How about renaming this page to Wikipedia:Neutrality (which already links here) and extending it with badly needed aspects on issues of relative coverage other than just the issue of POV pushing, which this policy page traditionally gives far too much attention? I think most non-neutrality in articles is due not to a POV mindset, but to a rather innocuous ignorance on many different aspects of article writing and layout.

Also, I'd welcome something on the imo hugely problematic POV issue of criticism sections. I dorftrottel I talk I 05:18, November 25, 2007

Nevermind. I dorftrottel I talk I 05:27, November 25, 2007

tags

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.

— message used to warn of problems

The neutrality of this section is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.

— tags only a single section as disputed

This article has been nominated to be checked for its neutrality. Discussion of this nomination can be found on the talk page.

— message used to mark articles that may be biased. (

This article has been nominated to be checked for its neutrality. Discussion of this nomination can be found on the talk page.

may be used for short)

The neutrality of this article's title and/or subject matter is disputed. This is a dispute over the neutrality of viewpoints implied by the title, or the subject matter within its scope, rather than the actual facts stated. Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page.

— when the article's title is questionable

1. ^{[neutrality disputed]} — when only one sentence is questionable

This article or section has multiple issues. Please help improve the article or discuss these issues on the talk page.

— When an article or section fails to abide by multiple Wikipedia content policies

Undue Weight?

Howdy. Having a bit of a disagreement on what is UNDUE over at Circumcision. The latest addition to summary a source from University of Chicago is in contention. Any thoughts would be appreciated. Garycompugeek (talk) 19:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

American (i.e. the United States, and not Anglo-American) POV

In the first paragraph of a recent featured article, Oil shale, you (roughly) read "Oil shales are located around the world, including the US." I read on to see if the US is particularly important as a resource. It isn't. For that reason I believe it is a NPOV violation and should be deleted from the article. It is probably caused by the common tone in the U.S. national surveys and reports that are--quite naturally--U.S. focused, but still a main part of the world's scientific literature.

The average English Wikipedia reader, who may or may not be a native English speaker, is not necessarily from the U.S., or particularly interested in where the U.S. stands re every subject. --Farzaneh (talk) 21:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

What the article does not say is that the US has tried to treat its oil shale reserves as a potential back-up in the event that it has no access to Middle East oil, and has spent gazillions of dollars to develop oil shale technology that has been exported worldwide, in the hope of becoming a number-one fossilfuel producer worldwide/energy independent. Some of the largest reserves in the world are in the US. All highly relevant to people around the world who want to know about oil shale.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 04:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

"Criticism of foo" articles

It's possible that I'm being overly literal in interpretation of the policy, but is an article that exclusively contains criticism of a topic capable of meeting the expectations on neutrality? For example, the criticism of Bill O'Reilly article is substantially longer than the Bill O'Reilly article. At what point is the "criticism" article just an excuse to only cover one side of a topic conveniently outside of an otherwise neutral main? A more carefully chosen article title, such as Michael Moore controversies, would give the expectation of a neutral coverage, whereas a "criticisms" article invites one-sided coverage. Somedumbyankee (talk) 04:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

If the subject matter of an article is a verifiable and noteworthy source of polarization, critique or dispute within a given society, subculture or institution, and writing about it is otherwise consistent with WP policy, then the motives for maintaining the content may not really be important.

It's definitely an "edge case" scenario, but the mere existence of an article that is primarily or even exclusively devoted to "criticism" does not by itself constitute a violation of neutrality. As for determining when the line has been crossed, that's a matter of case-by-case discernment, no? dr.ef.tymac (talk) 06:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess it's partially a question of whether an individual article is neutral or whether Wikipedia's treatment as a whole of the subject is neutral. All of the "criticism of foo" articles I've read show a clear bias against "foo", and the name of the article more or less condones that bias because "it's about criticism." Just glancing through, many of them are thinly disguised WP:SOAP, even if it is well-sourced. Naming disputes on these articles are common. This one is currently is in "move-pong" mode. This one is basically a WP:POVFORK.

I cannot see any case where a "Criticism of" article could not be recast as a "Controversies" article, a title that does not imply negative coverage. Somedumbyankee (talk) 15:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps. Those articles you linked to (especially the latter one) do seem to cross the line. Appropriately, the latter one is flagged as needing attention and may even merit removal or merging.

Nevertheless, replacing the terms "Criticism of" with "Controversies" seems like the kind of subtle distinction unlikely to dissuade people who are inclined to POV push. If the article content remains unbalanced and poorly referenced, a re-title offers little or no correction. dr.ef.tymac (talk) 17:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Fake images in aviation accident articles

I have started a thread on WT:NOR about fake images which involves both NPOV and NOR. Opinions are welcome. Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 12:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Moved to Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research/Archive_35#Fake_images_in_aviation_accident_articles --Enric Naval (talk) 03:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Undue Weight Criteria

Concerns about Undue Weight have been raised in the article about trophy taking during World war II. American mutilation of Japanese war dead A free downloadable scholarly paper on the topic is available here. Now despite the topic being well known at the time, see for example Life Magazine Picture of the week May 22, 1944, it "appears" that many authors of WWII literature either don't know about it, or consider it unimportant, or prefer not to mention it for other reasons, such as for the protection of veterans image.

Another example of possibly similar downplaying is another uncomfortable topic: rape:

An estimated 10,000 Japanese women were eventually raped by American troops during the Okinawa campaign. H-Net review of The GI War against Japan: American Soldiers in Asia and the Pacific during World War II. According to Peter Schrijvers, rape was "a general practice against Japanese women".H-Net review of The GI War against Japan: American Soldiers in Asia and the Pacific during World War II According to a New York Times article from June 1, 2000 regarding the 1998 discovery of the corpses of 3 U.S. rapists killed by Okinawan villagers after repeated rape-visits by the group: "rape was so prevalent that most Okinawans over age 65 either know or have heard of a woman who was raped in the aftermath of the war." "3 Dead Marines and a Secret of Wartime Okinawa" New York Times, June 1, 2000

Okinawan historian Oshiro Masayasu (former director of the Okinawa Prefectural Historical Archives) writes based on several years of research:

Soon after the US marines landed, all the women of a village on Motobu Peninsula fell into the hands of American soldiers. At the time, there were only women, children and old people in the village, as all the young men had been mobilized for the war. Soon after landing, the marines "mopped up" the entire village, but found no signs of Japanese forces. Taking advantage of the situation, they started "hunting for women" in broad daylight and those who were hiding in the village or nearby air raid shelters were dragged out one after another.

Japan's Comfort Women: Sexual Slavery and Prostitution During World War II By Yuki Tanaka, Toshiyuki Tanaka, page 111

Especially the New York times article is interesting for trying to understand why so little is mentioned of such massive raping in "war books for western consumption".

An even better example is the fate of the book on the suppression of the book on U.S. troops rape in Europe. (Publisher book summary available here) It is a disgusting topic, and it is understandable that "greatest generation" authors such as Stephen Ambrose seem to have chosen to ignore it completely.

But.... It raises an interesting question. Since it is a topic that most writers seem to choose to ignore for whatever reason, does it mean "Undue Weight" to write about it, and how should "Undue Weight" policy be interpreted in relation to such topics?

I may be stretching it with this comparison, but nevertheless. Imagine Germany had won World War II. Perhaps not much would have been written in scholarly literature about the Holocaust in the U.S., for example due to political and economic pressure not to antagonize the German superpower. How would "undue weight" then apply to the Holocaust article?

Or take this example: American troops 'murdered Japanese PoWs'. There are a number of works from the last decades or so that have started facing up to this topic. But if you look at the full body of literature written since 1945 they probably are a distinct minority, with the others either blissfully unaware or deliberately avoiding the sensitive topic. Does that mean writing about it on Wiki can be considered Undue Weight?

I would be very much interested in knowing how Undue Weight policy relates to "suppressed" topics, perhaps the policy needs finetuning?--Stor stark7 ^Speak 03:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I've considered a similar problem with Burmyanmar, where the change in name to Myanmar has been alleged to be part of an ongoing campaign of revisionism. What happens when all official documents reflect a history that the outside world knows to be false? Do we report the "official" history along with the "real" history? Frankly, I'm not qualified to make that decision. We have to rely on historians for history the same way we rely on scientists for science. Mainstream history has an opinion on these events, and since we are simply gathering information and not passing judgment on it, we must report what mainstream history has to say. Victor's justice is a longstanding problem for history, and wikipedia cannot fix it. We can only report that some historians have suspected that mainstream accounts are tainted by that problem, and let people make their own decisions on what to believe. Somedumbyankee (talk) 03:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Intesting, but isn't my question here not so much about contradicting statements from different scholars, but more about about some sources saying something that other sources says little or nothing at all about. I.e. not one opinion against another, but more a recently developed "new opinion" versus a possible larger accumulated body of "no opinion"?--Stor stark7 ^Speak 03:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

This topic is discussed in scholarly books on the experiances of Allied servicement in the Pacific published over the last 20 years: it's just not accorded much space, presumably as the relevant professional historians consider it not to have been all that commonplace. There seem to be only two scholarly papers on this topic which in turn heavily draw on the handful of pages in professional historians investigations of combat experiances in the Pacific War. It's not correct to state that historians have only started to write about the killings of Japanese POWs in the last decade - this has been discussed in histories for several decades, and was even included in the Australian official histories of the war which were written during the 1950s and 60s. Again, given that few Japanese ever tried to surrender prior to August 1945 (which is proven in countless histories of the war and attributed to the Japanese military's attitude towards surrender), it's not a major part of the war. Nick Dowling (talk) 07:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I presume you are here referring to the topic of mutilation of the dead and not the topic of mass rapes, or the policy of killing surrendering Japanese.

I think we should make it very clear that we represent two very different standpoints on the mutilation issue here. Ever since I started that article you seem to have been very antagonistic against it. And you have also made a number of very strange claims, such as ""In 1984 Japanese soldiers remains were repatriated from the Mariana Islands. Roughly 60 percent were missing their skulls" (cited, but there's no context given for this - why were the bodies being returned 40 years after the war? How many bodies were returned? Was this an example of the Japanese military custom of returning a body part to Japan rather than the whole body?). My question here is, which alleged Japanese custom are you referring to exactly? A scholar doesnt seem to be aware of any such "practice "[1]Also: "Everything I've read suggests the opposite: on the only occasions during the Pacific War when US troops encountered Japanese civilians (mainly on Saipan and Okinawa) the civilians were treated fairly well. The US occupation troops in Japan after the war also generally behaved well, and seem to have actually behaved better than the troops on occupation duties in Western Europe." This doesn't sound very convincing considering the rapes, which you later acknowledged. As to the "topic discussions" in literature that you refer to, and do some presuming about: My position is that snippets of information here and there, and the conclusions the individual authors draw based on their limited horizon, are woefully inferior to the conclusions drawn by scholars in peer reviewed journals who draw on all that information and much much more, to paint a complete and comprehensive picture. Given that we only know of 2 such articles, but that means little since we are hardly topic experts and how many on topic scholarly journals do we actually need?

As to the common practice of killing surrendering Japanese i wish to strongly challenge both your assumptions. It may have been mentioned here and there in the past, but certainly not that it was common practice, such as here[[2]. You state the following: "Again, given that few Japanese ever tried to surrender prior to August 1945 (which is proven in countless histories of the war and attributed to the Japanese military's attitude towards surrender), it's not a major part of the war." I guess this comes from your exhaustive experience with the literature. May I direct you to some sources collected here:

Allied_war_crimes_during_World_War_II#The_Pacific "Dower states that in "many instances ... Japanese who did become prisoners were killed on the spot or en route to prison compounds."[36] According to Aldrich it was common practice for US troops not to take prisoners.[42] This analysis is supported by British historian Niall Fergusson,[43] who also says that, in 1943, "a secret [U. S.] intelligence report noted that only the promise of ice cream and three days leave would ... induce American troops not to kill surrendering Japanese."[44]"Fergusson suggests that "it was not only the fear of disciplinary action or of dishonor that deterred German and Japanese soldiers from surrendering. More important for most soldiers was the perception that prisoners would be killed by the enemy anyway, and so one might as well fight on. U. S. historian James J. Weingartner attributes the very low number of Japanese in U.S. POW compounds to two important factors, a Japanese reluctance to surrender and a widespread American "conviction that the Japanese were "animals" or "subhuman'" and unworthy of the normal treatment accorded to POWs.[48] The latter reason is supported by Fergusson, who says that "Allied troops often saw the Japanese in the same way that Germans regarded Russians [sic] — as Untermenschen."[49]" It would seem that a very important factor for Japanese reluctance to surrender to the Allied troops was their tendency to get massacred if they were dumb enough to try it. Hell, there is even colour movie footage of massacres and mutilations[3]. Lets quote Harrison: Hoyt (1986: 391) argues that what he calls the ‘unthinking’ practice of taking home bones as souvenirs was exploited so effectively by Japanese government propaganda that it contributed to a preference for death over surrender and occupation, shown, for example, in the mass civilian suicides on Saipan and Okinawa after the Allied landings." I do believe all these topics deserve much attention, and statements such as "it's not a major part of the war" only reflect a very biased literature selection. To return to your first sentence "This topic is discussed in scholarly books on the experiances of Allied servicement in the Pacific published over the last 20 years: it's just not accorded much space, presumably as the relevant professional historians consider it not to have been all that commonplace." I think we only need look at the topic of rapes in Europe to get some nuance on that.[4].[[5]

"'Lilly reveals a different side to the myth of the wholesome GI of World War II. This is a well-researched and courageous attempt to throw some light on an ugly underbelly that has remained unexamined for far too long. His harrowing descriptions of numerous rapes from official records make Taken By Force an uncomfortable read. Nevertheless, this is an important book, and one that deserves a far wider readership than just those with a scholarly interest.' - Lucy Popescu, Tribune"

How much space has this topic been given in the past? What conclusion can we draw from the silence by other authors? That it was unimportant, that someone is lying through their teeth, or that certain historians have had an ugly tendency to underplay or ignore certain aspects of war?--Stor stark7 ^Speak 15:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

What is the point of a neutral point of view?

Is this political correctness? It extends to discussions as well as articles right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.4.239 (talk) 02:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

neutral point of view, as I understand it, primarily refers things that affect article content. talk page discussions should adhere to wp:civility, and the hope is that civil discussion on the talk pages will produce neutral perspectives in article content.

neutrality is not political correctness (which as I understand it simply avoids anything that might offend anyone); neutrality means that we are trying to present a view on the subject that either lacks a particular perspective, or offers all of the major perspectives without giving any undo preference to any of them. it's actually very difficult to achieve neutrality because none of us can really claim to be neutral, and there's no real objective guideline for when something is neutral, and sometimes neutrality means that a perspective some people find offensive has to be given. --Ludwigs2 20:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Terrible sentence?

Anyone agree that the following is a terrible sentence?

• "Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization."

-qp10qp (talk) 10:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

"radiate" isn't really lent to facts, opinions or stances.

well, terrible might be a bit strong, but it isn't great.  :-) let me see if I can fix it; I wanted to clarify something in that section anyway. --Ludwigs2 20:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Headings

What excatly is the policy of NPOV in headings?

My question comes about how band articles have History sections that a divided in ways such as: ===Mainstream success: 1992–1994===. First, isn't the heading somewhat ambiguous? What is the section talking about, the span of years, or mainstream success? Second, wouldn't it be POV if you had to mention both? I mean mainstream success is subjective, and then, there are no papers that can be cited where a historian has published that the years from 1992-1994 is the Mainstream success era for the smashing pumpkins. Where as History sections such as in United States can have the the Gilded age era because historians have written published work in peer-reviewed journals, the Mainstream success era DO NOT have historians that have written published work in peer-reviewed journals, where we have another problem, wp:or. Yet we have another problem, wp:notability, since it can't be cited, it can't be included. Years are objective, why Mainstream success, and other unnecessary discriptors, mind you, are subjective.68.148.164.166 (talk) 07:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I haven't seen the article your example is taken from (if it's from an actual Wiki article), so I can't decide how appropriate the heading is for the content of the section in question. The heading in your example is not ambiguous. It conveys quite clearly that the section is about the history of the band between 1992 and 1994, and that the band enjoyed mainstream success during that period.

The purpose of headings is to allow the reader to get a quick idea of the content of different sections, and to help provide the reader a mental map of the article. It is not intended to provide details. A heading like "Mainstream success: 1992–1994" contains some degree of vagueness and subjectivity, but that's not necessarily a problem. Most people have similar ideas about what mainstream success is, but they don't have the same threshold-criteria for when a band has achieved mainstream success. It would be counter-productive to try to redefine "mainstream success" in terms of clear-cut criteria, as such a definition would correspond less well with how people actually understand the words.

Presumably, if a band achieved "mainstream success" during a certain period, the article section will contain details of their achievements, e.g. sales of recordings & concert tickets, chart rankings, awards, etc. It is perfect acceptable to leave it to the readers to get such details from reading the text, and not just the heading, of the section.

--71.162.249.44 (talk) 11:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with you because that just subjective. I has been raised that success can never be measured. In any case, this is just one case, just an excample. But still, wouldn't it be better to just list the years?68.148.164.166 (talk) 12:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

fairness of tone revision

I recently revised the 'fairness of tone' section to read as follows:

Article tone can affect neutrality, sometimes in drastic ways, even where the article is otherwise unobjectionable. Many articles end up as partisan commentary even while presenting both points of view. Word choice in individual phrases can change the meaning of otherwise factual statements to imply endorsement or condemnation of the topic as a whole, and the particular arrangement and distribution of statements throughout the article can suggest or imply conclusions, creating an implicit and improper synthesis. In general, editors should consider the following:

Necessary and sufficient sourcing

References in an article should be sufficient to establish a point, but not excessive. An over-abundance of references (even properly sourced references) adds little of factual value to the article, but can bias the topic through sheer numerical weight.

Strength of statements

The strength of a statement can be a source of bias. In general, weak statements are preferable to strong statements - i.e. He dislikes... would be better than he hates... or he abhors... - because strong statements add an emotional charge that can influence the reader. However, overly-weak statements can also impose bias. For instance, referring to anti-semitism as a "dislike of Jews" does not capture the proper sense of the term.

Precedence, order, and repetition

In general, people remember most clearly the last thing said and the first thing said (see serial position effect), statements that appear as stark contrasts (see Von Restorff effect), and statements that are frequently repeated. Placing important points in the middle of an article effectively discounts them; placing secondary points high in the article effectively magnifies them. Further, placing contrasting ideas close to each other in an article can magnify the importance of each, which may be useful or may be inappropriate.

Structural issues

In general, Wikipedia articles should be structured into appropriate topical sections for easy navigation and reading, and the comments above should apply to sections as a whole, as well as to statements. In particular, creating sections that contain oppositional viewpoints can sometimes magnify one or another viewpoint. See criticism sections for more details.

Articles in Wikipedia should maintain in tone that all positions presented are worthy of unbiased and respectful representation (see wp:weight and wp:notability for information on when views should not be presented on Wikipedia at all).

it was (of course) immediately reverted, as are most of my posts on wikipedia <sigh...> :-) so I'm posting it here for comment and revision. the improvements this version represents are as follows:

1. it's far more developed than the current version
2. it avoids the current versions overlap with wp:weight and keeps focussed on topic
3. it spells out particular issues that might arise in editing, and how to deal with them

comments and revisions, please? --Ludwigs2 23:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Ludwigs, you have no support. Your recent revision actually deleted long-standing policy regarding giving weight to fringe issues. Notice how no one is giving support here. ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Orange, it's fairly clear that you don't like me, and that you base your responses to me more on the fact that you don't like me, and less on the question at hand. therefore, I really can't take any of your comments or actions seriously. You can continue to do and say what you like, of course, but - again - it's all just meaningless expressions of bile.

I may have to make a template of that phrase; I'm getting tired of typing it at you. lol --Ludwigs2 01:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't care about you one way or another--in other words, I have no emotional interest in you. However, your edits are troublesome. You have been reverted three times for the same thing. You have 0, zero, no support for a change, let alone consensus. By the way, three different editors of some stature have reverted your rather POV edits. ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

for someone who has no emotional interest in me, you do seem to spend a lot of time berating me...  ;-) regardless, I will continue to pursue what I think is correct in this matter, and hope that (somewhere along the line) I can discuss the matter with someone in neutral terms. --Ludwigs2 03:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I actually don't care about you, I care about the project and NPOV is a core ideal. Weaken it, and you may as well shut this place down. Changes to NPOV require significant discussion and consensus. What you are doing contains neither. You happen to be doing things in articles that matter to this project. So, again, your edits are what matter to me. You...I really don't care. ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Everyone please take it easy. Ludwigs2, this isn't going to get sorted out at 0400 UTC. I think if you start a new thread, tomorrow, about the one thing you want to improve/refine about the NPOV policy, here on the talk page, you might have the more neutral discussion you're looking for. Please do discuss things here before editing the policy page, given how much you seem to feel the policy needs to be shifted. Darkspots (talk) 04:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Darkspots. probably a matter of my worldview, but I didn't think my changes were all that extreme.  :-) plus, OrangeMarlin and I obviously have personal issues that need to be resolved (any help anyone can provide on that would be gratefully accepted). I'll come back at it tomorrow, as you suggest. --Ludwigs2 04:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

suggested changes to 'fairness of tone' section

here are the changes I'd like to make to the fairness of tone section, with explanations of why I think they are useful. I've put each in its own subsection for ease; subsections are in no particular order... --Ludwigs2 18:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

added line to first paragraph

I'd like to add a phrase such as this -"Word choice in individual phrases can change the meaning of otherwise factual statements to imply endorsement or condemnation of the topic as a whole, and the particular arrangement and distribution of statements throughout the article can suggest or imply conclusions, creating an implicit and improper synthesis." - to the first paragraph. this is a non-problematical (though possibly unnecessary) explanation of what tone is and how it can affect the sense of an article. I'm not too worried about the particular phrasing or sense, so even significant changes are welcome; I see this more as set-up to differentiate tone from more concrete characteristics of an article. --Ludwigs2 18:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

describing tone issues

this is a list of general issues that can affect tone. again, this is mostly non-problematical; it's the kind of thing I instruct students on as a normal facet of decent writing. Im not sure that the list is exhaustive of good writing points, but it's a start. the second and third statements shouldn't generate many objections (they seem pretty straight-forward); the first might stir up some issues with a particular cadre of editors who are accustomed to over-sourcing criticisms into articles. that will probably require some debate.

Necessary and sufficient sourcing

References in an article should be sufficient to establish a point, but not excessive. An over-abundance of references (even properly sourced references) adds little of factual value to the article, but can bias the topic through sheer numerical weight.

Strength of statements

The strength of a statement can be a source of bias. In general, weak statements are preferable to strong statements - i.e. He dislikes... would be better than he hates... or he abhors... - because strong statements add an emotional charge that can influence the reader. However, overly-weak statements can also impose bias. For instance, referring to anti-semitism as a "dislike of Jews" does not capture the proper sense of the term.

Precedence, order, and repetition

In general, people remember most clearly the last thing said and the first thing said (see serial position effect), statements that appear as stark contrasts (see Von Restorff effect), and statements that are frequently repeated. Placing important points in the middle of an article effectively discounts them; placing secondary points high in the article effectively magnifies them. Further, placing contrasting ideas close to each other in an article can magnify the importance of each, which may be useful or may be inappropriate.

these same issues should really apply to sections as well to sentences (that was originally a fourth point, but there are probably better ways to say it) --Ludwigs2 18:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

With regards to point 1. You're trying to invent a situation that's rare. And sometimes, it requires numerous references to make a complicated point. With regards to point 2, who's to decide what's strong and weak. That's highly subjective. 3. Maybe, maybe not. ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

actually, I don't think 1 is rare at all, but regardless, the 'necessary and sufficient' thing strikes me as a good guideline. I can understand your concern, I think - you don't want a restriction that limits sourcing - but that would be covered by the 'necessary' side of the phrase. 2 and 3 are actually well documented points in psychology, and they are meant to be subjective guidelines rather than concrete rules. basically, these were intended to give people a way of talking about tonal balance in an article (as sufficient, as strong or weak, as precedence) rather than specifying exactly how they should be handled. --Ludwigs2 01:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

"Overciting" has some downsides just from a style standpoint. Spamming a claim with twenty cites makes the writer look desperate to prove a point, which isn't very encyclopedic. "Quality, not quantity" is the obvious maxim. I don't know that it's really an NPOV problem, it's more of a style issue.

The question of order is a natural one and it's definitely something that I've run into, such as POV warriors trying to bury a mainstream argument (q.v. the MCS article). More of a question of WP:WEIGHT in that case, though. SDY (talk) 02:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

respect

the first line of the (current) last paragraph should read "We should write articles with the tone that all positions presented are at least worthy of unbiased and respectful representation" (emphasis mine, to highlight addition). I have been coming to the conclusion that one of the major issues on wikipedia is that editors get so tangled up in defending, exploring, and/or attacking the effectiveness, facticity, honesty, practicality, or etc of a subject that they forget that the topic needs to be respected, first and foremost, as a topic of knowledge. honestly, if I have an agenda, it's this - I'd like to encourage editors to spend less effort trying to construct a neutral evaluation of a topic, and more effort trying to construct a neutral description. 'Respect' is the best way I can think of to snip off that evaluative urge. --Ludwigs2 18:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

All positions? No, positions that are fringe, or give weight to fringe, shouldn't be included. Sorry. ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

you know I have to say, I'm having the hardest time understanding this perspective. maybe it's because I'm an academic, but it seems to me that knowledge is just knowledge, and it should be respected as knowledge. so I can easily understand you not liking fringe theories - that makes sense to me - but I can't understand why you seem to be against knowledge about fringe theories. if you could explain that to me it would go a long way towards helping me understand why you take the positions you do (because most of the time that eludes me). --Ludwigs2 01:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

delete last sentence

the last sentence of the current 'fairness of tone' revision reads "This does not, however, mean that all views should get equal space, nor that they should be presented as equal: Minority views should not be presented as equally accepted as the majority view, for instance, and views in the extreme minority do not belong in Wikipedia at all." while I don't object to the idea in itself, it does not belong in the tone section, because it has nothing directly to do with tone. it's merely a carry-over from wp:weight, where it is already thoroughly described. I'd have no objection to replacing it with something like "Article tone should be considered when assessing undo weight issues." --Ludwigs2 18:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Is there some reason why you're edit-warring to try to force these changes, which clearly lack consensus, into a fundamental Wikipedia policy? The proposed changes are overly prescriptive. They weaken WP:WEIGHT, which is the most-often-ignored policy snippet on Wikipedia. Not all positions are deserving of "respectful" presentation; if all available reliable sources treat a topic as undeserving of respect, then Wikipedia needs to go where the sources go. The bar for significant alterations to a fundamental policy like NPOV is, or at least should be, quite high. Less really is more here. I don't see these as significant improvements to the policy, even if there wasn't a distasteful overlay of edit-warring around them. MastCell ^Talk 04:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

is there some reason why you're resorting to massive hyperbole?

I don't disagree with you about wp:weight - it's an excellent policy. however, I think WEIGHT does an excellent job of saying what WEIGHT intends to say, and I see no reason to make an assortment of other policies duplicate what WEIGHT has to say. in fact, that's confusing, and that's pretty much why I replaced the repetition of WP:WEIGHT's statements with an actual link to WP:WEIGHT. if you think WEIGHT is under-appreciated, then the appropriate place to address that is in article content and talk pages, not by duplicating the content of the policy through other policies like a virus...

look, MastCell, I've given up on ever having a reasonable conversation with OrangeMarlin, but I have had reasonable conversations with you, and even though our positions are very different on some points I still feel like we can work together. maybe not on everything, but still... please don't read unnecessary agendas into my actions. I'm very up front about my agendas (as you can see from some of the other changes I suggested above); this just struck me as an appropriate kind of cleanup. you can still object to it on those grounds, mind you. but don't go bouncing off the walls about it. --Ludwigs2 05:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Not that MastCell needs me to defend him, but I didn't see the hyperbole; I saw succinct explanations of why he did not support your proposals. Mine is even more succinct (but with substantially less explanatory value), below. 05:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

oh, the hyperbole was with respect to the 'edit-warring' comment only, which was completely unwarranted. no biggie, though. --Ludwigs2 18:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Solutions in search of a problem

These are solutions in search of a problem. I don't have much more to offer; I just don't think that the suggested changes are as good as the current version. 04:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

not even the descriptions? those struck me as eminently reasonable... --Ludwigs2 05:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Those might be just fine for the Manual of Style. In fact, a couple of them, more or less, might already be there. 05:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I hadn't even thought of that. maybe I'll go and edit them in over there where they might be more appropriate. thanks!  :-) --Ludwigs2 18:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Removing a sentence

I am inclined to remove the sentence about undue weight applying to more than viewpoints. I recognize what the sentence is trying to do, but there's a fundamental problem with putting this, which is basically a copy-editing and style guideline, in our most fundamental content policy. There are other issues with appropriate weighting that need to be considered in articles beyond weighing of viewpoints, but this policy is about the neutral point of view, and should not instruction creep out to handle all cases of article parts not being of appropriate length. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up - I just realized what this line is supposed to be doing, which is that it's the line we use to keep a BLP from having every little scandal or negative thing that happened to someone included. I still think this line could use a clarification - what we're dealing with here is a sort of implicit viewpoint, not just the vague statement that "all facts should be appropriately balanced in weight," which, while not untrue, isn't really a NPOV issue as such. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

interesting - I hadn't thought of that use (though it makes sense). I'd always viewed that section as a way of keeping an article from being swamped by extended explanations of minor tangents. but you're right, I think; this section (and other parts of the NPOV policy) could use some clarification. what do you think would work for clarifying it?

by the way, thanks for pointing out that particular passage - on a closer reading, that will prove useful in some arguments I'm having elsewhere...  :-) --Ludwigs2 18:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the important hedge here is to switch to a readerly perspective. That is, what we're trying to take care of here is not just the weighing of things that are explicitly viewpoints, but also the weighing of the overall impression the reader will have of the subject. So what we need to do, essentially, is imagine the reader of the article and make sure that this imagined reader isn't going to get a misleading impression of what is important about the topic. A phrasing along this line would, I think, go a long way both towards fixing the odd phrasing and towards strengthening the overall policy. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

We could shove the parts pertaining to the relevant documents back to their originating documents? They only serve to lengthen this document, IMHO. (shorter is always better :-) ). That, and by having the undue weight information *here* we also get several situations where people fight much harder about where NPOV lies than they really have to (because they end up conflating the issues). Does that cover your concerns? --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Kim, can you be more specific? I don't know what you mean by "parts pertaining to the relevant documents...".

Phil - would something like this work? Undue weight applies to more than just the balance of viewpoints presented in the article; it means that the article should appear fair and balanced in the overall impression of an uninvolved reader.--Ludwigs2 23:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Things to do with BLP should only be listed under BLP, things to do with weight should only be listed under WEIGHT, and thus if you do that everywhere, pages in general will be shorter. All else being equal, Shorter==better ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

oh, man, I couldn't agree with you more. every time I make suggestions that way, though, people get upset. don't ask me why - I'm a fan of an ordered world.  :-) --Ludwigs2 01:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)