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 - September 2007
- Archive 30: Oct 2007 - Feb 2008
- Archive 31: Feb - May 2008
- Archive 32: May 2008 - July 2008
- Archive 33: July 2008
- Archive 34:
- Archive 35:
- Archive 36:
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.
UNDUE
At least once a day and usually more often, I see UNDUE cited by editors to justify removing material they simply don't like. Because they don't like it (or, often, because they've never heard of it), it jumps out at them as UNDUE, but that's simply a result of their own POV or lack of knowledge. I'm not sure what we can do about this, but it's so prevalent, and such a misuse of this policy, that it's worth raising to see whether we can tweak the wording to reduce the chances of it being abused in this way. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 01:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- Obviously I don't want to turn this into a rehash of any specific content dispute, but would it be possible to give 1 or 2 examples of the problem you're seeing? It might be useful in terms of deciding what, if any, policy changes would address the issue. MastCell Talk 17:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- I'm in agreement with SlimVirgin. This is not using policies in the spirit of how they were meant or perhaps someone is under the impression that their view is more in the majority than it actually is (systematic bias). Quoting from the text (emphasis added):
- In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, a view of a distinct minority.
- 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.
- The "support" in this case is generally tribes and communities secluded from the rest of the world. In this case it is simply a fact for them and to be quite frank they really don't care as it makes no impact on their lives one way or another. I think we can agree that everybody who reads it is educated enough not to hold a different view so there's not any real problem there. Anybody who continually tries to "push" a view that the earth is not flat would just antagonise me as that is NOT the information I am looking for in an article on the flat earth.
- But then we get to the more contentious articles. I think the "allowed" should be changed to "should" first of all. Then the second paragraph I quoted is ambiguous and contradictory. It's simply not possible to properly deal with an article if someone feels they have to continually state that it is the minority view. More than that it's quite easy, as I already said, for someone to thik their view is more prevalant than it actually is.
- Then there's the problem of how to deal with articles of a scientific nature. Some think that only the scientific opinion is valid, I disagree. Some issues are as much in the public realm as they are in the scientific and if the public opinion varies much from the scientific one an article should state so or it can't be claimed as expressing a neutral view. More than that is the issue of what happens if the public lose faith completely in the scientists. Should everybody continue to insist that the scientific view is the only relevant one? That's not neutral, it's bias. Unfortunately the nature of wikipedia makes it unable to be unbiased. The US is NOT the world and consequently the opinion of the US scientists or groups of scientists for that matter is not the only opinion that exists. If scientists start setting up conditions to exclude other scientists and only include themselves somebody has to play the referee and the only one that makes sense is public opinion. Biofase flame| stalk 19:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- The section n Pseudoscience has been part of policy since the day this became policy. It was spun off to a sub-policy for a while, but recently remerged as part of a reworking of the sub-policy. Much of it is still identical to then. So, yes, science is privileged; otherwise, we would not be writing anything that could reasonably be called an encyclopedia. Britannica does not present evolution as a lie by Satan, and neither do we. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
- Peh. Translated from User:SlimVirgin-speak to normal language: She's upset that her ideas of what undue weight means contradict with the vast majority of other editors, including the Arbitration Committee's rulings on pseudoscience and the paranormal, so she sticks her fingers in her ears and claims nobody but her understands what undue weights means, and the problem couldn't possibly be her so she wants to change policy to reflect her rather skewed ideas. See, for instance, her complaints over on Talk:Ian Stevenson where she claimed that the term "pseudoscience" is "meaningless" and that only "ignorant" people use it... despite the fact that plenty of reliable sources use it and ArbCom specifically stated outright that the term is appropriate when cited. Nothing to see here except an editor grasping at straws to try to push her already soundly rejected views onto the project. DreamGuy (talk) 00:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- Nah, attacking people seems to be the norm around here and AGF is only pushed onto the noobs so "established" editers can continue pushing their warped views without criticism. Absolutely no good faith was shown to me when I started so I'm no longer assuming, if someone wants it they have to prove to me that they deserve it. And if someone attacks me I will attack back, afterall in every normal place I have been before it's the instigator that's wrong and not the people simply defending themselves. I suggest wikipedia falls in with the rest of reality. Biofase flame| stalk 15:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- With respect, this is a project page and it therefore seems inappropriate to name and criticize specific editors in such a fashion. If you feel you have a valid complaint about another contributor there are several more appropriate venues to discuss it. Please do consider redacting the personal portion of those comments so that discussion can more productively focus on the topic at hand. Thanks, Doc Tropics 15:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- Never said this was appropriate. My comment is meant more as a criticism against the way things are usually done. I would like for DreamGuy to rather substantiate his ideas than to throw around wild unsubstantiated accusations. Simply removing stuff will not solve anything and only protects the people that made the comments. There's the old adage you can't unring a bell. SlimVirgin raised a valid issue I think and I don't see anyone besides me really trying to address it. Shoemaker's Holiday similarly discussed another tangent rather than the real issue. But while he brought it up I see no reason not to comment on it as a perfect example: No Britannica does not "present evolution as a lie by Satan" but I haven't seen anybody here suggesting we should. What I do see is that real and professional encyclopedias like Britannica and Encarta don't have a need to call creationism pseudoscience but here it is labeled as such in the second paragraph. Can anybody else see the simple fact that while wikipedia claims to be an encyclopedia "its" policies do not reflect those of a real one? Biofase flame| stalk 16:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Btw. this is called neutral point of view and not neutral scientific point of view. ONLY a policy that is itself non-neutral would demand scientific "consensus" to be the deciding factor while public opinion that is much more widespread is thrown to the wayside or not mentioned at all. Biofase flame| stalk 16:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- It seems quite proper that science articles (and all related science-type topics) are governed by mainstream scientific consensus because quite frankly, only the opinions of scientists count on these matters; other people may have opinions, but they are not informed opinions. If Creationism supporters refered to the topic strictly as a religous belief, there would be no need to label it psuedoscience. Only because the supporters insist on claiming it is scientific does it become necessary to clarify the subject as psuedoscience. This is entirely proper because Creationism is not only unsupported by evidence, it fails to define itself in terms that admit the possibility of scientific treatment. Possibly Creationism isn't the best example of Undue Weight issues, because I'll willing agree that I have seen the problem SV describes in other areas. Doc Tropics 17:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
How do we flag an article to dispute its neutrality?
I have moved my question about a specific article to the Noticeboard. But I would still like to know where those notices come from, such as "the neutrality of this article has been disputed" or "this article does not cite any sources". MelanieN (talk) 18:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)MelanieN
- For articles, you add {{POV}} to the top of the article. But you also need to go to the article talk page and describe how you think the article is biased. A tag without discussion helps no one and will usually get removed. FYI: here is the general link to article templates, and here is the link to POV templates. Hope that helps... Auntie E (talk) 18:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Mental reservation
It seems that one of the most common criticisms of the NPOV policy is that it gives editors the feeling that they are under a kind of forced mental reservation, which is a Jesuit doctrine that is meant to create doctrinal orthodoxy. Maintaining a feeling of prolonged mental reservation can actually be bad for your health, and I think this is one of the reasons that so many conflicts have erupted on Wikipedia. ADM (talk) 05:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
A bold proposal
In an attempt to turn a divisive RfC into something productive I have created a new page. I believe people who watch this page have valuable perspectives and I hope you will look at this new page, and do what you can to help make it work: Wikipedia: Areas for Reform Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 15:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Scientific consenus
My edit was reverted.[1] I request that someone put the words "of scientists" back in. The Scientific consensus article linked in that sentences states, "Scientific consensus is the collective judgement, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study." A section I added that sought to explain how scientific consensus is related to the mainstream view of society was also reverted.[2]. --Atomic blunder (talk) 16:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- Not all mainstream views of society are influenced or related to scientific consensus, a point which I still have to get across in another thread. If it is to be readded in should be expanded to also make this clear and I will support such an attempt. On your first point I agree though that scientific consensus is the majority view of scientists (and ONLY scientists) towards a topic. Biofase flame| stalk 17:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- The best anchor for additions to any article is reliable sources. Any good faith editor will think twice before deleting content that has a strong reference. Doc Tropics 18:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- I gave a reference: Scientific consensus. --Atomic blunder (talk) 18:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- The best anchor for additions to any article is reliable sources. Any good faith editor will think twice before deleting content that has a strong reference. Doc Tropics 18:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Mainstream view of scientific topics
Scientific consensus is a point of view of scientists and is usually the mainstream view of society or becomes the mainstream view of society. Does Wikipedia emphasize the point of view of scientists or society on a scientific topic when they do not coincide? --Atomic blunder (talk) 14:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- That seems to be a point of disagreement. And it doesn't help for anybody to say that "of course we should emphasize the point of view of scientists" because that IS itself only their point of view. I would like for this to stay generic on the topic but I don't doubt somebody will bring in another specific example that will derail it. My point is that some issues become very much society issues and then it may happen that the public opinion varies considerably from the opinion of the scientific community. It then frankly looks quite stupid when an article keeps on referring to "the scientific opinion" when the real mainstream opinion has considerably more to say about the issue. Biofase flame| stalk 18:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
A Minor Problem
I recently noticed an interesting comment on a webcomic called xkcd. It postulated that there could be some events that Wikipedia could not cover neutrally, and gives an example.[3] I think that there may need to be a provision for the possibility that a Wikipedia article may affect the very subject that it describes. While the given example is admittedly unlikely, the premise itself remains valid. Bennoman (talk) 18:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Request to have WP:UNDUE updated to reflect proper etiquette concerns
I wonder if those who run Wikipedia might consider updating WP:UNDUE to indicate that, although giving undue weight to the claims of actual Holocaust deniers is, of course, a good example of what this policy is trying to prevent, it nevertheless is bad Wikipedia etiquette to imply that a person who is advancing a claim thought to be WP:UNDUE is somehow a supporter of Holocaust denial or engaging in anything akin to Holocaust denial. What I'm concerned about is that some editors invoke this in order to put a chill on debate on the Talk pages, e.g., "No one believes that but you, you're just like a Holocaust denier." A Holocaust denier is someone who wants to spread the manifest falsehood that millions of people were murdered. The average person whose edits manifest a potential issue over WP:UNDUE are people who have merely not sufficiently demonstrated that a substantial minority of people agree with some specific statement. I'm okay with the principle of WP:UNDUE, it's the tenor of the discussion that I have a problem with. We shouldn't be here to belittle people's edits, but to tell them what will fly and what won't. In the specific case I've confronted (on the 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis page) I've found that some elements first criticized as WP:UNDUE turned out not to be as reliable sources began to report on those elements in more detail. In other words, the "Holocaust deniers" turned out to be people trying to report a dimension of the crisis but simply not having enough evidence yet to make their point. It was legitimate of people to make edits citing WP:UNDUE until those sources emerged. It was not legitimate of those people to compare their adversaries in an editing dispute to the Nazis. Is there something that can be added to this policy to make it clear that name-calling and guilt by association are not okay according to WP:UNDUE? Zachary Klaas (talk) 18:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- Actually this is already covered by WP:Civility. Somehow some people still get away with this form of attack causing numerous good editors to be driven away so only the uncivil POV pushing cabals remain. Ironinally the best way to deal with this is to ignore WP:Civility and call a spade a spade like it's done in the real world. Fortunately wp is losing it's grip and credibility more and more in the real world. Many of us no longer accept any reference to it in debates so the cabals have essentially only succeeded in driving people away from their articles. Biofase flame| stalk 20:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comment, and I agree it is covered elsewhere. What I'm saying is that I think the suggestion to be more civil should also be right in the text of WP:UNDUE, because this is the policy people are citing as they blast people with guilt-by-association innuendo. Zachary Klaas (talk) 21:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- Actually I have seen people fly right past one paragraph and refer only to the next. Your intention is good but if you are hoping that duplicating some of the information here will work I can tell you now it simply won't. The problem editors know very well that they should not be doing what they are doing, unless they are new which happens very rarely. This is more the unwillingness of the people in charge being too soft to do anything about it than the ingorance of the editors. Biofase flame| stalk 22:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- From what I've seen, I don't doubt it...but it would help me to be able to say "Your invoking of the Holocaust in this completely unrelated context is defamatory, and look, it says right there in WP:UNDUE, the very policy you're citing that using the policy to invoke guilt-by-association is not allowed. Zachary Klaas (talk) 22:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- Actually I have seen people fly right past one paragraph and refer only to the next. Your intention is good but if you are hoping that duplicating some of the information here will work I can tell you now it simply won't. The problem editors know very well that they should not be doing what they are doing, unless they are new which happens very rarely. This is more the unwillingness of the people in charge being too soft to do anything about it than the ingorance of the editors. Biofase flame| stalk 22:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comment, and I agree it is covered elsewhere. What I'm saying is that I think the suggestion to be more civil should also be right in the text of WP:UNDUE, because this is the policy people are citing as they blast people with guilt-by-association innuendo. Zachary Klaas (talk) 21:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Less emotionally-charged example
While I think that ZK is misreading the policy, I do agree that it would be better to use a less emotionally-charge example to illustrate the principle. Thus I changed the statement from denying that the Holocaust occurred to denying that the Apollo moon landings occurred. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- That is completely separate from this. ZK is also talking about another policy and not misreading this one. Biofase flame| stalk 01:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- Well, yeah, I find it hard to figure out just what he's talking about. But the point remains that mentioning Holocaust denial tends to bring emotional reactions, so it would be better to use a more mundane example. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- My concern is that WP:UNDUE doesn't contain within it an express warning not to condemn other editors to guilt-by-association. My point was that calling someone a "Holocaust denier" when the debate concerning content on a particular page has nothing to do with the Holocaust. I would have the same problem if someone were called a "moon landing denier" when discussing content on a page having nothing to do with the moon landing or even space travel in general. The point of that kind of language is to stigmatize the editor and conduct argumentum ad hominem, not merely correct a page so that it doesn't give undue weight to theories supported only by a tiny minority. If this is said in other policies, fine, but I see editors using WP:UNDUE as something which sanctifies their incivility.
- In the particular case of the page 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis, upon which I've been working, I've seen WP:UNDUE brought up reasonably, with positive effects on the page, when people were not able to demonstrate that opinions are held by a more sizeable minority. However, when people have been able to find sources backing up their claims, they receive no apologies for being unjustly labeled Holocaust deniers. I'd like a policy that allows people to make the proper WP:UNDUE criticisms while reining in the bullies. Zachary Klaas (talk) 04:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- I think that the Apollo moon landing hoax is a good choice: I added the example (as part of a minor attempt to clarify the wording), and merely wanted to choose something almost everyone could agree was clearly an extreme minority view and wrong. But if it's giving the impression of an accusation of anti-semitism when the policy is linked to, it's not serving its purpose very well, and a different clearly-wrong minority claim - without the emotional baggage - will be better. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- In the particular case of the page 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis, upon which I've been working, I've seen WP:UNDUE brought up reasonably, with positive effects on the page, when people were not able to demonstrate that opinions are held by a more sizeable minority. However, when people have been able to find sources backing up their claims, they receive no apologies for being unjustly labeled Holocaust deniers. I'd like a policy that allows people to make the proper WP:UNDUE criticisms while reining in the bullies. Zachary Klaas (talk) 04:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- Zachary, do you have any diffs that establish that someone is "calling someone a 'Holocaust denier,'" or of "people ... being unjustly labeled Holocaust deniers"? I'd hate to think you're writing something that's clearly untrue.
- Please, show us a diff where an edit has "impl[ied] that a person who is advancing a claim thought to be WP:UNDUE is somehow a supporter of Holocaust denial".
- Please provide the diff for this direct quote: "No one believes that but you, you're just like a Holocaust denier."
- Please provide the diff that shows how "those people," "compare their adversaries in an editing dispute to the Nazis."
- What y'all are not being told, is that there was a military coup in Honduras. Members of the coup-spawned government[4] denied that it was a coup. Most Interested Persons have been fighting for the elimination of the word "coup" everywhere it appears in Wikipedia, even though all the reliable sources -- that I have seen (WP, the Times in Britain, AP, Reuters) -- have been regularly, simply referring to the coup as a "coup", knowing that the de facto government denies it was one.
- The Most Interested Persons fought for changing the name, and a single admin changed it, and it was whitewashed.
- I -- as one of "the bullies" -- have argued that there are more people that deny the Holocaust, than that deny the coup, but we have an article called, The Holocaust. Zachary Klaas was on the other side of that "extremely small minority" argument.
- I've not been "bullying", by making this argument -- and there's nothing "defamatory" about it. There has never been any "accusation of anti-semitism." You're being conned. Klaas has written about what he thinks I think, or why I've posted things, and his mind reading has been inaccurate, both times.
- Helping Zachary Klaas censor people's valid arguments is an extremely poor reason to change a 5P. Klaas admits, here, that this is his reason for wanting NPOV policy changed: "it would help [Zachary Klaas] to be able to say 'Your invoking of the Holocaust in this completely unrelated context is defamatory, and look, it says right there in WP:UNDUE, the very policy you're citing that using the policy to invoke guilt-by-association is not allowed.' " -- Rico 18:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- Re: "He did not campaign to 'change policy' ".
- He wrote, "updating WP:UNDUE to indicate that, although giving undue weight to the claims of actual Holocaust deniers is, of course, a good example of what this policy is trying to prevent, it nevertheless is bad Wikipedia etiquette to imply that a person who is advancing a claim thought to be WP:UNDUE is somehow a supporter of Holocaust denial or engaging in anything akin to Holocaust denial." -- Rico 18:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- It's awkward wording, but I think he just meant that people were interpreting being linked to that as saying they were, or were as bad as, Holocaust deniers. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- That may be -- I don't buy it -- but it does request a change to a 5P policy.
- I haven't seen anyone "imply that a person who is advancing a claim thought to be WP:UNDUE is somehow a supporter of Holocaust denial" but I'm satisfied to wait for the diffs.
- And -- to be more truthful -- the claim was "extremely small minority," not just "WP:UNDUE". -- Rico 18:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- I personally don't have an issue with changing the Holocaust denier text to the Apollo Moon Landing Hoax text. However, in principle, I agree with Rico that we should try to establish a community consensus before changing one of the 5P policies. No big whoop. Somebody start an RfC (or whatever) and let's get this ball rolling. -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ ssnɔsıp 19:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- It's already policy so there's no net change in policy. And please try to make less edits and use the preview button, it's hard being bombarded by edit conflict alerts. Biofase flame| stalk 19:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
(unindent)There's only one change made Holocaust -> moon landing. 4 agree with the change, you seem to be the only one not agreeing and on the point that we shouldn't "make changes without consensus" rather than giving an opinion. While there's no problem let it stand. And there's no reason to tell me not to revert again when I have only reverted once and you have reverted twice. Also please as I already asked use the preview button instead of making 10 edits per comment Biofase flame| stalk 20:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- Consensus is not in numbers. Read WP:Vote. Levine2112 believes we should get community consensus. There's not been time to achieve that. We've only been discussing this for an hour and a half.
- I wouldn't have had to have rereverted if you hadn't violated Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. -- Rico 20:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- There is no reason to refer me to anything you think I should read. I did not violate anything: BOLD, revert, discuss cycle is an essay NOT a policy. You are the ONLY one opposing the change on the "merit" that "there is no consensus". No voting is needed when nobody has opposed it. Biofase flame| stalk 20:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- No, I am not the "ONLY" one that opposes the change, because Levine2112 wrote, "we should try to establish a community consensus before changing one of the 5P policies. No big whoop. Somebody start an RfC." Do you have some problem with giving other editors a chance to chime in? We've still only been discussing this for under two hours. -- Rico 20:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- Please quote people fully or not at all. He does NOT oppose it as he also wrote "I personally don't have an issue with changing the Holocaust denier text to the Apollo Moon Landing Hoax text". So far you ARE the ONLY one opposing it because you think "there is no consensus for the change". If you want an RfC then start one, I dont see a need to waste other editors' time over non-controversial changes. Biofase flame| stalk 20:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- Well then we two just disagree, then, don't we?
- I agree with Levine2112, who wrote, "we should try to establish a community consensus before changing one of the 5P policies".
- You are the ONLY one that seems to have a problem with this.
- So far, what I see, is an editor coming in here and trying to trick people into changing a WP:5P, by posting lies -- and also by posting that he wanted these changes for himself, personally, to help him censor another editor.
- I'd think the community would like a chance to discuss such a thing, and come to a consensus, before making a controversial change to a major policy.
- Establishing a community consensus before changing one of the 5P policies isn't a waste of time.
- Read the box at the top of the policy page: "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. Before editing this page, please make sure that your revision reflects consensus." (emphasis added)
- You seem to be ignoring the very small amount of time we've been discussing this.
- Trying to rush through a controversial change to a 5P looks like a WP:OWN violation.
- I don't know if an RfC is required, but certainly a certain amount of time is. Either of us can start one, as long as it's worded neutrally.
- NPOV is a heck of a thing to try to WP:OWN. -- Rico 21:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- There is already 4 editors supporting the change. You are disagreeing not with me but with an already established consensus rather than supporting or constructively arguing why the change should not be made. You have NOT shown that there isn't a consensus and please don't refer to WP:VOTE again, non-controversial changes are made regularly without any discussion. Zachary has not been trying to trick anybody here. He has made it clear why he wants the change. But that's a completely SEPARATE issue and no use trying to bring in consensus when the change hasn't been made anyway. For the record I DO regard your insinuation that I am trying to WP:OWN anything as a personal attack. Biofase flame| stalk 21:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- No, there are not, 4, editors supporting the change -- because Levine2112 wrote, "we should try to establish a community consensus before changing one of the 5P policies. No big whoop. Somebody start an RfC."
- That's not "supporting the change." That's supporting exactly what I'm supporting.
- What you have, after a couple of hours, is exactly 2 people supporting the change. That's a drop in the ocean of Wikipedia editors.
- Klaas has asked for something different. Klaas wrote that "it would help [him] to be able to say 'Your invoking of the Holocaust in this completely unrelated context is defamatory, and look, it says right there in WP:UNDUE, the very policy you're citing that using the policy to invoke guilt-by-association is not allowed'."
- I don't think that has a snowball's chance in hell of getting into the policy.
- The way you count suggests that maybe you should read WP:Vote.
- And speaking of counting, I only count one person that's suggesting that we should violate Wikipedia policy, and the box at the top of this page, before we "make sure" that consensus is to eliminate Holocaust deniers as an example of an "extremely small minority" that has no place being in Wikipedia.
- And, yes, I seem to be arguing just with you.
- I think that Holocaust denial is a great example of a viewpoint, held by an "extremely small minority," that should not be in Wikipedia.
- I don't believe it should be expunged from everywhere it exists in this policy.
- That looks too much like sweeping under the carpet something that should never be
forgottendenied. - I think other Wikipedians might feel that way too.
- Re: "You have NOT shown that there isn't a consensus". That would be something someone wanting the change would have to do.
- Please tell me why you want to make the change so fast that other editors will not have time to discuss the change in question, too.
- Why, after two hours, are you declaring "an already established consensus"?
- One look at this talk page establishes that these are not "non-controversial changes" -- and that is not your sole decision to make.
- If these are such, "non-controversial changes," why is it so important to you that they be made?
- I'm 100% willing to abide by consensus. Aren't you willing to wait and see what it ultimately is?
- Your contributions history goes back one month. How can you be so sure you're right? You're already reverting reverts to WP:5P policies??
- A lot of people care about the 5Ps. We must give people a chance to contribute to the discussion, so that we can come to a community consensus.
- Re: "Zachary has not been trying to trick anybody here."
- Read between the lines. I gave him a chance to substantiate five different allegations -- or that he was not able to, because they weren't true.
- If he can't substantiate his very serious accusations, then what we're left with is a request for changes to a WP:5P, to try to help Zachary censor editors with opposing viewpoints.
- Re: "He has made it clear why he wants the change."
- He came in here and lied his rear end off to people to get NPOV changed for his own personal purposes -- to try to censor one side of a debate concerning an article.
- Re: "no use trying to bring in consensus when the change hasn't been made anyway".
- Two changes had been made. I reverted the last one of them.
- I wrote, "Trying to rush through a controversial change to a 5P looks like a WP:OWN violation" -- and it looks to me like you're still arguing for that to be done. I wrote, "NPOV is a heck of a thing to try to WP:OWN."
- These reflect on your editing, your revert revert, and your continuing argument -- not on you personally -- so they don't qualify as personal attack(s). -- Rico 00:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- I was writing about what you've been writing, not about you personally. Arguments like, "an already established consensus" (after two hours) are open to critique -- and it's incivil to accuse people of personal attacks where there aren't any. Accusing someone of levying a personal attack, that hasn't, is a personal attack in and of itself. -- Rico 01:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Accusing people of trying to WP:OWN an article (or policy actually) is considered a personal attack under the very policy you are using to make the accusation. Saying you were writing about what I've been writing doesn't change this fact. And as I already stated, I'm not interested in discussing other changes of other contributors so please stop referring to them in comments directed to me in this thread. If I want to discuss them I'll do it in their own thread. So far Short Brigade Harvester Boris, Shoemaker's Holiday, Levine2112, and me support the change, that's 4 people. I think Levine2112 might be misreading the issue (apologies if you're not). So far your position is that "change should not be made without consensus", fair enough, but nobody opposed the change in the first place and you still haven't even indicated if you agree with the change or not. Biofase flame| stalk 01:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- And it was done at 01:21, 28 July and commented on several times since then including 15:15, 28 July, not merely the '2 hours' that you mention. During that time there was no objection from the large amount of users that monitor this page which is enough to consider consensus for a non-controversial change. Biofase flame| stalk 02:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Before I saw that Klaas was being taken seriously, something I hadn't expected, no one here knew they were being snowed. People may have gone for Klaas' specious argument, not realizing that all these things that Klaas said were happening, hadn't happened.
- The people that you claim "support the change," wrote what they wrote before I jumped in to blow the whistle on Klaas' lies. (Klaas may still be looking for those diffs, and OJ may still be looking for the real killer.)
- It would be enlightening to hear from them again, now that I have challenged the truth of statements that were made as if they were facts.
- The argument that we need these changes was based, in large part, on false statements that gave a false impression.
- I know that a lot of people mightn't like to admit -- even, maybe, to themselves -- that they've been bamboozled. But I'd still like to hear from them again.
- Levine2112 has made it clear, twice now, that s/he supports an RfC to get consensus. Levine would not oppose the changes, if there is consensus for them -- so stop adding Levine2112 into your
countwp:Vote violation. - I would also be fine with an RfC to determine consensus.
- Your repeated counting suggests a lack of respect for wp:Vote. Is that your whole argument for making these changes?
- I just read the wp:Own policy and it doesn't say what you say it does. -- Rico 03:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Nobody was snowed. The change was made because people agreed it is a better "less emotionally-charged" example to illustrate the principle, not because of Klaas' comments. Levine2112 has clearly stated even after you misquoted him that he supports the change so I won't stop citing his support until he withdraws it and your most recent remark of a WP:VOTE violation can be taken as another attack towards me. The section I pointed you to clearly states: "Accusing other editors of owning the article may appear aggressive, and could be perceived as a personal attack". As I already said I have no problem with an RfC but please stop attacking editors by accusing them of lying and conning people. Biofase flame| stalk 03:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Due to archiving, I don't see any of Rico's original contents on the talk page for 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis, but an example does still appear ( [5] ) in the section marked "Top", along with my response at seeing the Holocaust language I had already seen plenty of elsewhere. If someone can go through some of the archived Talk pages for 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis, you'll see similar comments to this. Zachary Klaas (talk) 20:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- Would please you point out where I:
* "Call[ed] someone a 'Holocaust denier'"?
* "Unjustly labeled" "people" "Holocaust deniers"?
* "Impl[ied] that a person who is advancing a claim thought to be WP:UNDUE is somehow a supporter of Holocaust denial"?
* Wrote: "No one believes that but you, you're just like a Holocaust denier."
* "Compare[d] my adversaries in an editing dispute to the Nazis"?
That is what you would need to show that what you wrote, while trying to get a 5P changed -- to help you censor the argument of an editor with whom you disagree -- wasn't deceiving. -- Rico 20:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Oy vey. Let me be absolutely clear about this. I have no problem with the change as described here. If there was an RfC asking if it was okay to change Holocaust Denial to Apollo Moon Landing Hoax, I wouldn't be opposed to that change (barring the possibility of any convincing arguments). I think when changing a 5P policy - even in a way that seems innocuous - it sure isn't a bad idea to get input from the community. We've tried the WP:BOLD approach and per WP:BRD we are now discussing the merits of such an edit. There still seems to be a dispute - even if it is only one versus four (or whatever). So per WP:DR, now is the time to actively seek outside opinions. This talk page alone might not be enough to attract others. Try listing a simple RfC and see what happens. That's my advice anyhow. -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ ssnɔsıp 00:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Diffs requested (from the Honduran coup debates)
- Someone "calling someone a 'Holocaust denier'"
- Showing "people ... being unjustly labeled Holocaust deniers"?
- Where an edit has "impl[ied] that a person who is advancing a claim thought to be WP:UNDUE is somehow a supporter of Holocaust denial".
- This direct quote: "No one believes that but you, you're just like a Holocaust denier."
- One that shows how "those people," "compare their adversaries in an editing dispute to the Nazis."
This -- and "it would help [Zachary Klaas] to be able to say 'Your invoking of the Holocaust in this completely unrelated context is defamatory, and look, it says right there in WP:UNDUE, the very policy you're citing that using the policy to invoke guilt-by-association is not allowed' " -- were the reasons cited for the need for this 5P change. -- Rico 19:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Okay, here's one: [6] The Request for Comments vote at the end of this archives has one of Rico's exchanges about how people who disagree with him about Honduras are essentially the same as people who endorse the Holocaust denial of Iran's President Ahmedinejad. Zachary Klaas (talk) 17:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Here's another...and note that one person who had family who died in the Holocaust took issue with Rico bringing up the Holocaust in this exchange as a way to argue about Honduras. In this particular exchange, two other editors demonstrated they were exasperated with Rico's repeated use of the Holocaust example, and neither of these persons are me: [7] Zachary Klaas (talk) 17:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't agree with this, and I think it needs to be discussed by more than just a very few editors.
I think it's unbelieveable that someone would come here to try to stop me from arguing that only an "extremely small minority" denies the Holocaust, and we have an article named, "The Holocaust" -- so we can name the coup a "coup", even if there exists an (extremely small) minority that deny it was a coup. -- Rico 19:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
This is the kind of badgering to which I've been referring. Zachary Klaas (talk) 19:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- I haven't seen you referring to any "badgering" -- but I would like to know if you are going to post the diffs, because it looks like you made a lot of claims that were simply untrue. Are you conceding that they were all untrue? Conning people on a 5P talk page to get a major policy changed -- just to help you censor another editor -- is very serious, so I'd like to believe you didn't just do that. -- Rico 19:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- Does someone who is not either me or Rico have access to the archived Talk pages for 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis? There are ample examples there. I'm new enough here not really to know how to do that yet. Please note that any comments I made on those pages were not actually even related to contesting that a coup took place in Honduras, as I have completely accepted that. My comments were about Rico badgering others that disagree with him by comparing them to Holocaust deniers or isolated defenders of stereotypical top-hatted Snidely Whiplash right-wing elitists.
- If you want a more recent example, as I said look here ( [8] )for a similar kind of comment about the Holocaust from Rico on the Talk page for Chronology of 2009 Honduras coup d'état. Zachary Klaas (talk) 20:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- Again, would you point out where I:
* "Call[ed] someone a 'Holocaust denier'"?
* "Unjustly labeled" "people" "Holocaust deniers"?
* "Impl[ied] that a person who is advancing a claim thought to be WP:UNDUE is somehow a supporter of Holocaust denial"?
* Wrote: "No one believes that but you, you're just like a Holocaust denier."
* "Compare[d] my adversaries in an editing dispute to the Nazis"?
That is what you would need to show that what you wrote, while trying to get a 5P changed, wasn't deceitful. -- Rico 20:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- Again, would you point out where I:
- I've added "Note this comment" in bold to something Rico said under the previous heading of "Less emotionally-charged example" which is very representative of his comments on the Honduras pages. Someone who disagrees with him is implicitly made out to be a Holocaust denier. Zachary Klaas (talk) 20:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- What's wrong with using diffs to point to exactly to what I've written, so that you can substantiate your accusation (that, without substantiation, is a personal attack)?
- You keep pointing to[9], as evidence that I "implicitly made out" "Someone who disagrees with [me]" "to be a Holocaust denier."
- Problem is, I didn't "implicitly [make] out" "Someone who disagrees with [me]" "to be a Holocaust denier." -- Rico 20:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
RfC: Should Holocaust denial be replaced by Apollo Moon Landing Hoax
Should Holocaust denial be replaced with Apollo Moon Landing Hoax text, throughout the WP:NPOV page? -- Rico 03:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- No. I think that Holocaust denial is a great example of a viewpoint, held by an "extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, [that] does not belong in Wikipedia." (Jimbo)
I don't believe it should be expunged from everywhere it exists in this policy.
That looks too much like sweeping under the carpet something that should never beforgottendenied. -- Rico 03:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- No. (1) Holocaust denial is used in the article as an example of something that is morally offensive. The Apollo Moon landing hoax conspiracy theories is not. (2) Also, Holocost denial seems to be much less common than belief that the Moon landings were fake (which is as high as 25% of the people in some polls). Bubba73 (if u cn rd ths u cn go to my talk page), 03:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Yes. The Apollo Moon landings is a "less emotionally-charged example" as Short Brigade Harvester Boris calls it. There is no reason to include morally offensive examples and they have only caused more contention in discussions than less offensive examples. Biofase flame| stalk 04:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- No, I cannot see why the Apollo Moon landing hoax conspiracy theories suffice as morally offensive. MythSearchertalk 04:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- It is an example on the main page and uses Holocaust denial as an example. Substituting Moon landing there makes no sense. Bubba73 (if u cn rd ths u cn go to my talk page), 05:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Because it is under Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Common_objections_and_clarifications, Morally offensive views. MythSearchertalk 06:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- No, the recently published photographs of the Apollo lunar landing sites have created instability in the article and is now in a state of flux. If we're looking for a better example, there's Intelligent design which is a featured article. 04:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- No - I think the current example is fine in terms of illustrating potential problem articles. It is tempting to nominate this section of the RfC for WP:LAME though. Ironholds (talk) 08:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- No - Denial of Apollo is a harmless exercise in silliness. Denial of the Holocaust is serious stuff. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 10:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Yes - Though the Apollo example doesn't go to the heart of my concerns, changing the Holocaust example does help make it so people do not profane the memory of the Holocaust by comparing some trivial difference of opinion they have with someone to the mass murder of 6 million human beings. And yes, the Holocaust is serious, which is why I don't want it dragged into a discussion of anything that doesn't similarly involve mass murder of innocent people. Zachary Klaas (talk) 13:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC) P.S. - Quick example of what I'm talking about...I was debating the capacity of Derek Jeter as a shortstop (and Robin Yount in the outfield) on a baseball statistics site, and was told that my view that he is a passably good fielder is not accepted by many baseball statistics people...so my view is the baseball statistics version of Holocaust denial. Here's the example for you if you want to see that this actually happened. Look at the entry right at the bottom of the page.[10] Granted that wasn't on Wikipedia itself, but this gives you an idea of how Wikipedia ideas are affecting the rest of the world. (Imagine all those Jews that died so someone could critique my baseball statistics so incisively.) Zachary Klaas (talk) 14:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Yes - The holocaust is too much of an emotionally charged issue to be a good example in this case. Even discussions of this topic by Wikipedia editors tends to stoke overactive imaginations and opens old wounds. --Atomic blunder (talk) 14:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- No - The Moon Landing denial is a kind of a joke, like Flat Earth. It is not "morally offensive", and thus does not belong in a list of morally offensive examples. Crum375 (talk) 15:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- In some instances - There are three cases where holocaust denial is used as an example:
- WP:ASF uses denial as a minority view. We could use moon landings there.
- WP:PSCI talks about fringe theories. We could also use moon landings there.
- The section on "morally offensive views" under Common objections and clarifications uses denial as an example. We could not substitute there.
- My feeling is that it would be desirable to vary the examples, so I would suggest using moon hoax advocacy for one of the first two examples, and substitute something else for the other. The third one should stick with holocaust denial.Mangoe (talk) 15:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I guess I missed the first two, I agree with this proposal. I'd say the second one sounded better, from some polls, moon landing hoax is not all that minority any more. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 15:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- No - Within the context of this article, this is a perfect example. Removing it, now that it's already there, could be argued by holocaust deniers as a legitimization of the holocaust denial point of view. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: Please note that the requested documentation of how Rico has been using the Holocaust example are described above. Here are the links again [11] [12] ...look in the discussion about the numerous votes we've had on these pages, where Rico has repeatedly used the Holocaust example. Zachary Klaas (talk) 17:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- No Within the given context, citing Holocaust denial as an example of veritable falsehood that shouldn't be allowed to be misconstrued as an alternative scholarly view is entirely pertinent. WilliamH (talk) 10:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- No The purpose of the Holocaust Denial incident is to illustrate the extreme limit. I do not follow the logic of those that claim that "changing the Holocaust example does help make it so people do not profane the memory of the Holocaust." First of all, the claim that using Holocaust denial creates an equivalence with claiming that Derek Jeter was a passably good outfielder (?) is wrong. Holocaust denial is the extreme. Derek Jeter is somehere short of the extreme. To say that Holocaust denial exemplifies an unacceptable fringe view does not mean that it stands in for all unacceptable views. Second of all, it is not a profanation of the memory of Holocaust (actually, I doubt anyone who still remembers the Holocaust gives a shit about what Wikipedia says). The exanple is of people who deny the Holocaust. These people are the ones profaning the memory, and saying that their views are unacceptable is hardly fueling the fire. Slrubenstein | Talk
- 'Infielder. :) And no doubt that it is the actual Holocaust deniers who profane the memory of the Holocaust's victims, but if even the most moderate individuals are carelessly compared to actual Holocaust deniers, then people may lose sight of that. Or such was my point, anyway. Zachary Klaas (talk) 01:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I've taken the liberty of listing both, just to show there are a range of possibilities, which listing one doesn't do. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 183 FCs served 20:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- I like your alterations. Mangoe (talk) 20:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- That seems to me as well to be a step in the right direction. There's at least some difference in regarding one's adversary as unreasonable as opposed to regarding that person as malevolent. Ideally (and it's not an ideal world, admittedly) I'd like to see some kind of statement against guilt-by-association. Ideally, I'd like to see editors just say "Demonstrate through the use of reliable sources that this view is not held only by a tiny unrepresentative minority." Bringing in unrelated examples of views held by tiny unrepresentative minorities to potentially label one's adversary isn't helpful. Challenging them to do what they would have to do to demonstrate that the view is more substantively minoritarian would be...and real "fringe theorists" wouldn't rise to that challenge. Zachary Klaas (talk) 02:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I don't see why the article has to be so uniform that it can only have either the Holocaust deniers or the supposed Apollo Moon Landing hoax. Both topics are both significantly inherent to the neutral point of view policy and both could accurately depict a debate that could occur on Wikipedia. Cases that have points of contention about what really happened where this policy would apply, does not have to be a topic that is offensive. — ℳℴℯ ε 17:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- A new theory: "MICHAEL JACKSON faked his own death to escape the pressures of fame..."[13]
Can we keep our eyes on the ball here? This is a policy on "views." We wanted an example of a morally repubnant view that under certain conditions could still be expressed here. If another editor tells me that they do not believe in the moon landings, I think he is a nutcase. I think the chances of someone coming here saying that cannibalism is a good thing is pretty slim, and I just do not think of cannibalism as a "view" in the same way that Holocaust denial is a view. I actually can imagine someone coming here saying the Holocaust never happened, which is why this is a good example. If we really want substitutes, more likely ones could be "pedaresty is a good thing." Slrubenstein | Talk 12:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Never mind
- My viewpoint has been heard, and it's clear not everyone agrees with me. I still think that including the Holocaust example in this fashion is harmful, and encourages people to trivialize the mass murder of six million people by using the example in utterly unrelated contexts (like the person on the baseball chat site who thinks my minoritarian views on Derek Jeter's fielding competence renders me the baseball statistics version of a Holocaust denier). At the very least, if the Holocaust example is to be left in WP:UNDUE, there should be some comment along the lines of "People will be reasonably upset if you use the Holocaust analogy while discussing matters not relating to something of equivalent moral gravity to mass murders." But if I can't persuade people along those lines, then so be it. I will merely continue to indicate my distaste for this sort of thing wherever I see it, and then move on.
- I would like to point out in closing, however, that we were having a civil discussion about whether this policy should be changed up to a certain point, and then everything degenerated into personal attacks and massive paragraphs of Wikilawyering. Look back at this discussion page, and see if you can see where the discussion degenerated. Zachary Klaas (talk) 17:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Holocaust denial a morally offensive view?
This article states, "What about views that are morally offensive to most Westerners, such as racism, sexism, and Holocaust denial, that some people actually hold?"
I believe this statement is incorrect. It would be true to state that most Westerners consider the Holocaust or support of the Holocaust to be morally offensive but not denial of the Holocaust. Most Westerners would probably consider denial of the Holocaust to be wrong but not "morally offensive". Perhaps it would be true in Western countries where denial of the Holocaust is banned by law. --Atomic blunder (talk) 13:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
- Just as the opinion of a random human being in a western country where it is not illegal to hold that view, I do consider it morally offensive, and I don't think that's an unusual stance. I don't think it should be censored, but it's not a bad example of that which Wikipedia does not want to be seen as promoting in any way, shape, or form to avoid a visceral backlash from readers. SDY (talk) 16:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
- Where it is illegal, it is illegal. In the US the whole idea of the first amendment is that people should have the right to express morally repugnant views. That doesn't make them any less morally repugnant. I would say the sentence is pretty accurate. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
- I suppose it is similar to theists considering atheism to be morally offensive. --Atomic blunder (talk) 00:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- Why do you bring this up? has anyone proposed putting this in as the exemple for the point in question? Slrubenstein | Talk 00:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
If you want to find what is morally offensive to Westerns, you have to examine what is lawfully offensive to them. Things that are morally offensive are usually outlawed. Western countries such as the countries in Europe do outlaw Holocaust denial. Western countries like the United States do not hold it to be illegal to have the belief the Holocaust didn't exists, it is in the First Amendment, however it is highly frowned upon. Personally, I don't find it offensive, though I tend to discredit such a person. With the other examples, racism and sexism, there can be penalties of law for race and gender discrimination. Holocaust denial doesn't fit in with that sentence, since some Western countries believe in a freedom of speech, while others outlaw Holocaust denial (mostly out of respect for what happened). Something more painfully obvious, such as cannibalism should replace Holocaust denial. I think every Western country can hold it true that it is morally wrong, and legally wrong, to eat another human being while de facto committing murder. — ℳℴℯ ε 16:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- I think most Jews would consider it morally offensive. Also, this statement from the Council of Europe may be relevant here, "Modern Europe has been conceived as a total rejection of nazi ideas and principles."[14] --Atomic blunder (talk) 12:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- That statement by the Council of Europe seems to mirror the prevailing philosophy of established Wikipedia editors. --Atomic blunder (talk) 12:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Flat Earth
This page mentions that the Earth article does not mention flat earth, but a quick search confirms that flat earth IS mentioned in the article (and correctly referenced). The example is patently false! Oops?
You could argue that the MODERN belief in flat earth should not be mentioned; But the Flat earth link refers to both. More oops.
The discussion of flat earth then continues on about the historical belief in a flat earth... whilst the existence of a historical belief in a flat earth has been largely debunked. Oops quota exceeded.
I think we want a different example!
Failing that, perhaps the abysmal example illustrates issues with the concept of undue weight itself. UNDUE introduces politics, where before there were none. Balancing the weight gives an article more clarity, but at the expense of the risk of failing to be fully NPOV. Kim Bruning (talk) 11:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- We may indeed wat another example, but I think this example exemplifies something important. In the earth article, "flat earth" is brought up in a historical context. Basically three thousand years ago, the view that the earth is flat was not a fringe view, at that time it was a mainstream view. The article does not at all bring up "flat earth" as an example of one of many views people hold today. So from this I infer that:
- when discussing views held by people at the present, some views -like that the earth is flat - are held by such a tiny fringe that they should not be mentioned.
- views that are held by such a tiny fringe of people today that they should not be mentioned in an account of present views, may have been held my a strong minority or even majority in the past. In an account of the past, views that are fringe may be mentioned. This is because in the past they were not fringe.
- There is another reason "flat earth" may be mentioned: in discussing history, people may hold the view that people in the past believed in a flat earth. It may be that no educated person in the past believed the earth was flat. But the belief that people in the past believed this is a belief held by the majority of people today. In other words, the topic that the article is addressing is not the extremely fringe view that the earth is flat, but the mainstream view that people once believed that the earth was flat.
- It is as Kim points out inaccurate to say that the Earth aticle does not mention th lat earth. But the article mentions flat earth in ways that are entirely compatible with our NPOV policy. When the article mentions "flat earth," it is not doing so in order to include a fringe view in the article. We need to be clear about this. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that's a good thing though. It might be wise to mention that the "fringe view" exists; if only to prevent politics from intruding into what is supposed to be an NPOV discussion. (think of examples that are apparently less bright line, such as global warming or creationism).
- Also, your assertion that 3Kyears ago the earth was thought to be flat should be treated as somewhat speculative. We can find documented evidence of people discussing Round Earth going back at least 2.6Kyears, I would be fairly careful of claims going back that far in time. ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 13:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I actually share your caution. My point though is that what is considered "fringe" may mean different things in an article and perhaps we should clear it up e.g. fringe view presently, or viw that was (known!) once not to be fringe and is included for historical purposes. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- Also, your assertion that 3Kyears ago the earth was thought to be flat should be treated as somewhat speculative. We can find documented evidence of people discussing Round Earth going back at least 2.6Kyears, I would be fairly careful of claims going back that far in time. ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 13:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Self contradiction
Verifiability is only one content criterion. Neutral point of view is a core policy of Wikipedia, mandatory, non-negotiable, and to be followed in all articles. Concerns related to undue weight, non-neutral fact selection and wording, and advancing a personal view, are not addressed even slightly by asserting that the matter is verifiable and cited. The two are different questions, and both must be considered in full, in deciding how the matter should be presented in an article.
contradicts.
Sometimes, a potentially biased statement can be reframed into a neutral statement by attributing or substantiating it.
As far as I'm concerned, only one of these describes NPOV, and the other is someone pushing and pushing and pushing to give themselves the authority to push POV agendas under the color of NPOV. Kim Bruning (talk) 12:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- You misunderstand. The simple act of citation does not address NPOV concerns because the claim can still be presented in the article as "true." Attributing a statement goes far to address NPOV concerns. Consider the two examples: "Wikipedia's Verifiability and NPOV policies contradict one another." This violates NPOV because it it is phrased as if the proposition is true. Second example: "Kim Bruning believes that Wikipedia's Verifiability and NPOV policies contradict one another." This version with an attribution, does not violate NPOV because it makes it clear that the proposition is a view, not the truth. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- Then why don't we word it that way? :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 13:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC) incidentally the paragraph I quoted appears to contradict *both* verifiabiliy and npov. I don't think either policy contradicts each other... yet. ;-)
- Hey, suggest beter wording and I am with you all the way! Slrubenstein | Talk 17:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
You've rewritten the good statement to sound more like the bad statement? :-/ --Kim Bruning (talk) 13:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- Which one is the good statement, in your view - and I guess I have to ask why? I did not change the top one, I changed the second one, which seems to me to be the one you accuse of "pushing and pushing and pushing to give themselves the authority to push POV agendas under the color of NPOV." How did I misunderstand you? Why don't you propose an alternative, I am open to it, Slrubenstein | Talk 15:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
This has been removed several times over the past year when it was added to the Other resources section. It's back again; was there any discussion about re-adding it? - Dank (push to talk) 20:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- I read the article in question. I believe it shows an important aspect of NPOV. Not only do I believe it should be linked on this page, I feel it should also be a policy. --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- Hah! I hope not! It is a bunch of vague non-sequitors. Whoever wrote it is reacting to something, I am not sure what, becayse she sure doesn't know ho to communicate. I far prfer to stick by our policies: Wikipedia articles should provide accounts of all significant points of view from reliable and notable sources. If it is the mainstream POV that WWII started in 1939 ... if there are no minority views to the contrary - we just say so. No, what need is there for any other essay or god forbid one more policy that says nothing? And of course the title of the essay is well embarassing. Does Wikipedia have any means to prevent a reader from deciding (deciding what? Still not sure about, so let's just say, deciding anything)? Does Wikipedia have the means to prevent anyone from making a decision? The answer of course is no, so any argument that Wikipedia should let someone decide is just silly. If there is anyone out there shivering in a corner because they think Wikipedia won't let them go to the bathroom, let them shiver and suffer, it is entirely their own fault. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure the point of the article is to state that wikipedia should present facts without implying anything about the fact. It should present the facts and let the reader decide. This is a concept similar to WP:NPOV#Let the facts speak for themselves. --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- Let the reader decide what?
- When has anyone ever gotten into an argument for writing that the political capital of the United States is Washington DC?
- What is there to decide about this? This is a soft but hot fact? This is a wrinkley but cold fact? I don't get it.
- Wikipedia has a WP:V rule so whether you think it is a fact or not, should it be verifiable? What is wrong with our policy?
- Many times what people think are facts are views. Wikipedia is not aout "truth" so it seems to me that often times WIkipedia will not oten be about "facts." What you think is a fact is actually a view. If there are other non-fringe views, shouldn't we include them? Wikipedia says yes. Why not?
- I still do not understand what you mean about "decide?" Slrubenstein | Talk 23:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- An example would be: "Hitler is a bad man." I'm sure many reliable sources can reflect this and it is a rather extreme example but instead of stating that "Hitler is a bad man," an article should instead state the fact that he killed 6 million people in concentration camps. From this the reader can come to their own conclusion about Hitler.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- Uh, excuse me, but if the article says "Accorcing to x, Hitler was a bad man, but according to y, he was a good man," I think our readers can still decide for themselves! Nothing we do will prevent readers from thinking anything! But so what? Wikipedia is not about making people thing any thing. But it is about providing an account of all significant views on a topic.
- The view that "Hitler was a bad man" is a significant view that is found in many notable sources and must be included in articles. There may be other views, even opposing views, significant and in notable sources. They belong in the article too. I do not see your point. NPOV means all significant views are given an account of. And what this has to do with "letting" the reader decide is still beyond me. You cannot make it a policy to "let the reader decide" unless Wikipedia has the power to prevent readers from deciding. We do not have that power, so who are we to "let" anyone de anything? The ONLY thin that is an issue is what we "let" editor's do. Wo do not let editors violate NPOV, or V or NOR. Slrubenstein | Talk 08:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- I agree he was a "bad man", still as a reader I do not like being told what to think. Such judgemental POVs do not have a place here when as it says, "the facts speak for themselves". By adding such a view, even when you think it is correct, you are effectively trying to influence my thought process instead of letting come to that conclusion on my own. And after you have done this what have you actually achieved? Either I already believe that and you don't need to tell me or I don't and you only alienate me. It's just silly to risk this by pushing such a view when the advantages are negligible. Biofase flame| stalk 17:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
A false impression
I do not know when the following was added to this policy, but it is either based on a misunderstanding of the policy, or it misleads editors as to policy:
- Karada offered the following advice in the context of the Saddam Hussein article:
- You won't even need to say he was evil. That is why the article on Hitler does not start with "Hitler was a bad man"—we don't need to, his deeds convict him a thousand times over. We just list the facts of the Holocaust dispassionately, and the voices of the dead cry out afresh in a way that makes name-calling both pointless and unnecessary. Please do the same: list Saddam's crimes, and cite your sources.
- Resist the temptation to apply labels or moralize—readers will probably not take kindly to being told what to think. Let the facts speak for themselves and let the reader decide.
This passage muddles two separate issue. The first issue is this silly fact versus view distinction. Facts do not speak for themselves, and we should not "let" readers decide anything. In fact, we cannot have a policy saying "let" the readers decide. Wikipdia is in no position to make readers do or not do anything. it is not in our power, so we cannot have a policy about it. Moreover, there is no Wikipedia policy that restricts articles to "facts." This is indeed a dangerous road, since a "fact" can come perilously close to a "truth" and then this runs up against that most valuable Wikipedia principle, "Wikipedia is not about truth, it is about verfiability." Sometimes we may all agree about the facts but in many cases there are different views of the facts. Wikipedia's NPOV policy is not about "facts," whatever they are (the point is to avoid philosophical debates about what facts are) it is about views. NPOV is simple: all significant views from notable sources go in. If there is a significant view that Hitler or Saddam hussein were evil, well, then, yes, we do need to put it in the article. And if there are other significant views, they have to go into the article too. There is no way around this, it is what NPOV is all about. Karada's poetry about the voices of the dead have no place in policy. I am sure it was part of an interesting talk page discussion, but does not belong in policy.
There is a second issue, and I happen to think it is the real issue in Karada's muddled post. Let's remove what is inconsistent with our NPOV policy, and see what the real issue is: editors should not put their own views into an article. Now, if it is not clear already, let us go back and add this one simple sentence. I have been involved in many impassioned debates where I had to remind people that editors do not put their own views into articles.
But this is not because views are not allowed and no editor should ever suggest to another editor that views are not allowed. NPOV demands - demands - that all significant views from notable sources go into articles. The views should be properly identifies and contextualized. That is our job, whether the view is that Hitler was a saint or a sinner. Slrubenstein | Talk 08:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- I won't jump in to edit the article just yet, but I rather liked the "Karada offered the following advice..." section that you removed. The section seems to be present all the way back to at least 16 December 2006 (I did not check earlier), and I will be interested to hear what others think because that is a pretty good history of consensus. I haven't thought through your recent changes yet, but I do note that in your comments above you have not mentioned WP:UNDUE which is an important qualifier for your "all significant views from notable sources" sentence above. Johnuniq (talk) 09:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- I agree completely with UNDUE. I jst thought that UNDUE is already well-covered in a separate section. Please tell me what it is that karada said that has to do wtih NPOV please. To be clear, policy should not say "Please resist the desire to moralize." First of all, it is too narrow: editor's should put non of their views in articles, period. It isn't just moralizing - it is any view. And it is not a question of resisting temptation. We simply do not put our own views into articles. period. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- I have readded it as it has been in there from the first time I saw the policy and don't think it should be removed. Biofase flame| stalk 17:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- Slrubenstein, I don't really understand where you are coming from. Readers can be led to believe one thing, with the language that is used in an article.
- For example, before the FAC of Geraldine Ferraro, the article read that "The evidence against Zaccaro was weak."
- I feel it is better to simply state the facts of the case instead of using the label "weak", and therefore it was changed to: "The case against him was circumstantial, a key prosecution witness proved unreliable, and the defense did not have to present its own testimony."
- This is my understanding of the policy, and I believe it is useful for similar situations to the above. --William S. Saturn (talk) 17:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, I agree with you, but (1) we do not need another section withing NPOV saying that in addition we have an NPOV policy, and (2) the above does not address the problem in your example. You have simply brought forth an example of a violation of NPOV. The first paragraph of the policy covers it. No Wikipedia article should present a view as if it were truth, that is the esense of the policy. But your solution is all wrong, You just compound the problem by providing three more views as if they were truth. The policy is clear: we provide all significant views from reliable sources. The solution to this problem is "According to x, a leading (attorney, journalist, law professor, politician) the evidence against Zaccaro was weak." This is what the policy calls for: identify it as a view, and tell us whose view it is. Same goes for your three equally problematic propositions: "According to the district attorny, the case against him was circumstantial," "One juror later gave as a reason that a key prosecution witness proved unreliable," and "Political analyst Joe Smith also suggested that the defense not having to present its own testimony implied that the evidence against him was weak." NPOV is NPOV. The section above does not solve a problem, it muddles it - clearly, you thought three more violations of NPOV were somehow solutions. The solution is always to identify a view as a view, and to tell us whose view it is. Why make things any more complicated, when the result is just to muddle them? Slrubenstein | Talk 17:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- I don't see the need for another qualifier in that sense, since the facts of the case can be easily shown. I think an editor should be more apt to state the facts surrounding an issue rather than affixing a label. Perhaps this is part of the overall NPOV policy, but I think it is something that should be pointed out. --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
The above section cannot remain in the text You cannot have instructions telling people to violate NPOV in the NPOV policy! The second and third sentences of the policy read:
- All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors.
Get it? We INCLUDE all significant view. Well, whether you like it or not, it is a significant view from reliable sources that Sadaam Hussein is evil. It is not a fact, it is not the truth, because Wikipedia does not present truths. It presents views and this view goes in. Karada's argument to keep the view out is argumentative and a violation of this policy. If a significant number of people, especially notable people, in reliable source express the view that hussein was evil, we should report: "According to then-President Bush," or whomever else was a vocal proponent of this view, and then provide the view.
I am removing it again. NPOV is non-negotiable, get it? You cannot have a section of this policy telling people to violate the policy. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- Do you feel it is okay to state in an article: "Saddam Hussein is an evil [reference added] dictator who ruled Iraq from 1979 until 2003"?
- Because that is the impression I am getting from you.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- I am getting this impression as well. And Slrubenstein, it is not telling anybody to violate the policy, in fact it is telling the opposite: remain neutral without coming to conclusions one way or the other. What do you want to achieve by telling people what to think? And your comment "The above section cannot remain in the text" is not valid, you are the only one arguing it should be removed. If somebody else doesn't add it again I will. Biofase flame| stalk 18:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- Where in anything I have written do I give that impression? I would appreciate it if you would quote me. Also, I do not understand this question "What do you want to achieve by telling people what to think?" Please quote the sentence or sentences where I advocate telling people what to think. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- Well, whether you like it or not, it is a significant view from reliable sources that Sadaam Hussein is evil. It is not a fact, it is not the truth, because Wikipedia does not present truths. It presents views and this view goes in.
- From this, I came to the conclusion that you approved of stating that "Saddam Hussein is evil." I don't think there is a dispute that somebody's views should not be stated when the person's view is the subject. However, it must be attributed. I don't see how the current policy contradicts this. The policy is aimed at preventing statements such as those written above when describing something.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for providing a quote. I do not approve of stating "Saddam Hussein is evil" because stating the proposition in that way presents it as a fact or as the truth. In your quote of me I am quite clear in opposing presenting any view as a fact or as the truth. It is not merely a matter of attribution. For example, providing the sentence you constructed, and a citation, would not in my mind comply with NPOV. The statement must be presented as a view (e.g. "Some believe," or "Many believe" or "It is widely held" and then attricutions). I wish you had also quoted this statement of mine: " No Wikipedia article should present a view as if it were truth, that is the esense of the policy." I am also fond of " The solution is always to identify a view as a view, and to tell us whose view it is." But Karada is explicitly discouraging someone from including a view in an article. Karad seems to think that including the view may persuade people that it is the truth, or a fact. This violates the spirit of NPOV which is guided by the principle, "Not truth, but verifiability." We make no judgment whatsoever on whether something is true or not. in fact, lt us assume just for the sake of argument that the statement (SH is evil) is demonstrably false. NPOV still demands that, as long as it is a significant view, it must be included in the article. We are not in the game of implying or suggesting that anything is true or false. We are only concerned with: do we have a verifiable source that A holds view x and B holds view y and C holds view z." No experienced editor should ever discourage anyone from adding a view to an article if it is significant and from a verifiable and reliable source. Karada is violating NPOV. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- I did say I get that impression and not that you actually said it in such words. From what you say it still sounds to me like you are trying to tell me (as a reader) what to think. That is the only reason I (and a lot of other readers) can think of for including such a statement and the section on biased statements also say this: "A different approach is to specify the statement, by giving those details that actually are factual." It sounds to me (from how you phrase your sentences) like you are more concerned with including opinions than actual verifiable facts. NPOV may be a core policy but it does not dictate that verifiable facts can't be included. Facts have always been preferred over opinions that could be seen as biased and speculative. You seem to be interpreting the policy that if it is a verifiable POV it should be included. That is not what a neutral view is, from verifiability; "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." The term present is not a blanket invitation to include all views in just so many words and doing so is discouraged in other sections. It is NOT violating policy, it IS policy. Biofase flame| stalk 20:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for providing a quote. I do not approve of stating "Saddam Hussein is evil" because stating the proposition in that way presents it as a fact or as the truth. In your quote of me I am quite clear in opposing presenting any view as a fact or as the truth. It is not merely a matter of attribution. For example, providing the sentence you constructed, and a citation, would not in my mind comply with NPOV. The statement must be presented as a view (e.g. "Some believe," or "Many believe" or "It is widely held" and then attricutions). I wish you had also quoted this statement of mine: " No Wikipedia article should present a view as if it were truth, that is the esense of the policy." I am also fond of " The solution is always to identify a view as a view, and to tell us whose view it is." But Karada is explicitly discouraging someone from including a view in an article. Karad seems to think that including the view may persuade people that it is the truth, or a fact. This violates the spirit of NPOV which is guided by the principle, "Not truth, but verifiability." We make no judgment whatsoever on whether something is true or not. in fact, lt us assume just for the sake of argument that the statement (SH is evil) is demonstrably false. NPOV still demands that, as long as it is a significant view, it must be included in the article. We are not in the game of implying or suggesting that anything is true or false. We are only concerned with: do we have a verifiable source that A holds view x and B holds view y and C holds view z." No experienced editor should ever discourage anyone from adding a view to an article if it is significant and from a verifiable and reliable source. Karada is violating NPOV. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Few people, if anyone, want an encyclopedia telling them that someone is good or bad, etc. Just tell me what they have done and I'll form my own opinion. If I want to read someone's opinion, I'll read the editorial section of a newspaper (something I rarely do). --Atomic blunder (talk) 19:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- Well, friend, with all due respect you should not be editing this policy. This policy is all about our obligation to provide different views. Sadaam Hussein is only one kind of example. In th Jesus article, for example NPOV is crucial to ensure that different views be included. The core of the policy is simply 'non-negotiable. If you do not like NPOV, work on something else. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- I think the title of this section is suited perfectly for Slrubenstein's view of WP:MORALIZE. The policy does not prevent an article from stating that somebody holds a view, it prevents articles from stating the view itself as fact. --William S. Saturn (talk) 20:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- Slrubenstein, if you were to add a statement to the Saddam Hussein article calling him evil, who would you cite? --Atomic blunder (talk) 20:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- I was not working on that article, and I am not sure what the reliable and relevant sources are. I only see one editor being quoted telling another editor to remove a view and "to let the facts speak for themselves." I find this all troubleing and underhanded. First let us discuss the particular case:what does it mean for karada to say that you do not "need" to say he is evil, that the facts will speak for themselves? I interpret it thus: he is saying that the facts will convince readers he is evil, so we not need need to say he is evil. This sickens me because it implies it is okay to use facts to achieve another goal, to use them argumentatively, that is to convince people of a position in this case that SH is evil. Terrible! We at Wikipedia should never make arguments or use facts argumentatively. Karada's suggestion that we can use facts to convince people SH is evil is in my view a violation of several policies. We present facts such as they exist because they are relevant, regardless of any impact they may have on the reader. But I am skeptical even of the idea of "facts." Where do we get our "facts" bout what Sadaam did? I bet some sources will provide facts like number of hospitals he built and miles of highways. Shouldn't we include these facts? other facts will be of people he tortured and killed. I am NOT opposing presenting these facts. I am saying that in almost every case the facts themselves come to us through someone or organization that someone considers biased. So we return to Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Wikipedia is NOT about "truth" and not really about facts. It is about views. First we find the major notable sources on Iraq and Saddam Hussein. If there are sources that provide differeng views we make sure we include all reliably sourced significant views. Then we provide an account of those views - which may include or take the form of fact, opinion or both e.g. "Mr. Bush, citing Hussein's use of chemical weapons against his own citizens, called Mr. Hussein Evil." Or "A recent statement by Amnesty International, citing x number of torture cases in 1970-1979, concluded that Mr. Hussein is evil." In both examples it is clear that we have two views. I identify whose views they are. I provide a good account of the views, meaning their judgment of SH and their reasons for the judgment. None of this is to help readers decide anything. It is to write a great informative Wikipedia article following oour NPOV policy. I agree with William Saturn 100% when he write, "The policy does not prevent an article from stating that somebody holds a view, it prevents articles from stating the view itself as fact." Because I agree with him, I am even more certain that this section with Karada's claims must be deleted. First, it is unnecessary (we should make our policies as short and direct as possible) because the policy makes itself very clear on these points in the beginning. Secondly, Karada's statement does not make the claim William Saturn is making - Karada is saying we should not provide the view (only "the facts). Indeed, thirdly, karada undermines this policy because it suggests that a view may be correct or at least convincing or persuasive because of the facts - YIKES! -Wikipedia just CANNOT take sides with views! Finally, karada's statement blatantly violates NPOV because it instructs an editor NOT to include a view. Karada should have said, "Let's include the view that SH is evil, but let's say whose view it is and provide context and let us see if there are not other views out there. But Karada SAID NO SUCH THING!!! karada just dissed our NPOV policy! Slrubenstein | Talk 22:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- Slrubenstein, if you were to add a statement to the Saddam Hussein article calling him evil, who would you cite? --Atomic blunder (talk) 20:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Assumptions
I made edits to a section on assumptions, which seemed muddled. I do not think we are supposed to make "assumtions" when editing articles. As best I could tell, the point of the section was, that articles concern some things and not others. That is not making an assumption that is a straightforward matter of having clarity about the scope of the article. Some things that may appear connected to an article do not go in because there is another article for them to go into. And that is not about "assumptions" either, it is about POV forks. So I rewrote it so it would make sense. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)