Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 1) (bot |
LordRogalDorn (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
:Every encyclopedia needs a rule for decideing what details are included and what emphasis is used. Hundreds of books for example have been written about Napoleon and it is possible to write a book about him that runs into thousands of pages. But Wikipedia articles are only a fraction of that size and editorial judgemnt is requried to determine what should be included or excluded. There's nothing in the article for example about [[Napoleon's penis]], although it has been covered in the ''Washington Post'',[https://www.washingtonpost.com/], the ''Independent'' and Channel 4,[https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/napoleon-s-penis-size-confirmed-channel-4-documentary-calls-the-artifact-very-small-9235101.html], NPR,[https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92126411] the Huffington Post,[https://consent.yahoo.com/collectConsent?sessionId=1_cc-session_893263b6-ab56-4b34-948c-1b690e8e048d&lang=en-gb&inline=false] the ''New York Times''[https://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/17/opinion/17iht-edpascoe.1.5753340.html] and other fine sources. It's of particular interest because of rumors that Trump has small hands. But the reason it's not included in his article is that it has not received sufficient coverage in articles about him to put into his article. Are the sources reliable? Absolutely! Now we could change the policy, but something would always be excluded. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 04:07, 22 March 2020 (UTC) |
:Every encyclopedia needs a rule for decideing what details are included and what emphasis is used. Hundreds of books for example have been written about Napoleon and it is possible to write a book about him that runs into thousands of pages. But Wikipedia articles are only a fraction of that size and editorial judgemnt is requried to determine what should be included or excluded. There's nothing in the article for example about [[Napoleon's penis]], although it has been covered in the ''Washington Post'',[https://www.washingtonpost.com/], the ''Independent'' and Channel 4,[https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/napoleon-s-penis-size-confirmed-channel-4-documentary-calls-the-artifact-very-small-9235101.html], NPR,[https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92126411] the Huffington Post,[https://consent.yahoo.com/collectConsent?sessionId=1_cc-session_893263b6-ab56-4b34-948c-1b690e8e048d&lang=en-gb&inline=false] the ''New York Times''[https://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/17/opinion/17iht-edpascoe.1.5753340.html] and other fine sources. It's of particular interest because of rumors that Trump has small hands. But the reason it's not included in his article is that it has not received sufficient coverage in articles about him to put into his article. Are the sources reliable? Absolutely! Now we could change the policy, but something would always be excluded. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 04:07, 22 March 2020 (UTC) |
||
==Concerning the Removal of Wall of Text== |
|||
@[[ping|Power~enwiki]] You are right that other editor's comments shouldn't be removed, but in this particular case half of the text removed was an off-topic wall of text, and the other half a discussion that in the end didn't lead anywhere, so it was dropped. The essential comments were kept. The reason why I wish to remove that wall of text is that it only makes it more confusing for users to understand what is actually going on, and the presence of the huge wall of text will likely discourage anyone from joining the conversation. So far, we have no votes on the matter and the ressult is inconclusive. With the huge wall of text, it's likely it's going to stay that way. I asked this question [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse#Are_we_allowed_to_remake_a_NPOV_Noticeboard_request_when_the_ressult_is_inconclusive?]] on the [[WP:TEAHOUSE]] and got no response. If you have a suggestion of an alternative way of doing this please tell me. [[User:LordRogalDorn|LordRogalDorn]] ([[User talk:LordRogalDorn|talk]]) 15:12, 18 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
== Is this the right place for my Question? == |
== Is this the right place for my Question? == |
Revision as of 15:12, 18 October 2020
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
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.
Using the NPOV policy as a tool of exclusion
The regular editors here might be interested in this research on how experienced editors use policies as "weapon" to exclude viewpoints and discourage participation by other editors ("incivility" in its original sense, meaning behavior that doesn't build up the community/civil society). The NPOV policy was named as the policy "by far" most likely to be (mis)used this way: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9vvwV5KfW4 WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:25, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Personally I dislike citing WP:NPOV alone as the reason to dispute an edit because it's often too vague - it doesn't specify why the edit is non-neutral. Virtually every NPOV issue is either going to be about the sourcing, WP:DUE, WP:TONE, or one of the other subsections on that article; it's better to focus on those because they give the other person a more specific idea of what they have to address in order to resolve things. Whereas WP:NPOV is so sweeping that it's often not clear where to start responding, and often carries an implicit subtext of "I find this edit so objectionable that I don't think there's any sourcing that could support it in any form." (Sometimes that is true and no such sourcing exists, but "find better sources for this if you can?" is more constructive because it makes clear to them why it can't be added.) --Aquillion (talk) 19:05, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Ironically, the problem with NPOV as a policy is that its interpretation and application is dependent on one's POV. Atsme Talk 📧 19:42, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- True, LOL. Though I wouldn't say it's necessarily a matter of experienced vs inexperienced editors. Some of the weirdest, misrepresented "NPOV" arguments I've seen have come from less experienced users (unless they were socks, which is very possible). But it's happened at all levels of experience, really. I've seen quite a few circular, endless debates on here where a user simply refuses to accept a WP:RS source as reliable, and usuable to source NPOV text, because it sources a fact about someone or something that they wish wasn't included in the article. Or they insist on misinterpreting the WP:NPOV policy to mean a source is only usable if the source itself is completely neutral. The policies cover all of this, but it doesn't stop the circular arguments when a user is refusing to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Even linking to the policies makes no difference when it gets to that point. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 20:56, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- What?! Are you saying that an article can actually comply with NPOV if it doesn't align exactly with my own personal beliefs?! Heresy.
;-)
WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:14, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- What?! Are you saying that an article can actually comply with NPOV if it doesn't align exactly with my own personal beliefs?! Heresy.
- True, LOL. Though I wouldn't say it's necessarily a matter of experienced vs inexperienced editors. Some of the weirdest, misrepresented "NPOV" arguments I've seen have come from less experienced users (unless they were socks, which is very possible). But it's happened at all levels of experience, really. I've seen quite a few circular, endless debates on here where a user simply refuses to accept a WP:RS source as reliable, and usuable to source NPOV text, because it sources a fact about someone or something that they wish wasn't included in the article. Or they insist on misinterpreting the WP:NPOV policy to mean a source is only usable if the source itself is completely neutral. The policies cover all of this, but it doesn't stop the circular arguments when a user is refusing to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Even linking to the policies makes no difference when it gets to that point. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 20:56, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- This reminds me of the point about fairness in relation to the technical issue of socks. Editors who are not here for the encyclopedia but only care about promotion or whitewashing about a particular topic are unlikely to ever consider themselves fairly treated, even if they must ultimately be blocked to protect the encyclopedia. While I'm sure that NPOV is often misrepresented, one can't avoid its mention or to correct one's misinterpretation of it whenever necessary. Since it's a core policy and very important, statistics must reflect systemic technical bias. —PaleoNeonate – 01:21, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- Ironically, the problem with NPOV as a policy is that its interpretation and application is dependent on one's POV. Atsme Talk 📧 19:42, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Every encyclopedia needs a rule for decideing what details are included and what emphasis is used. Hundreds of books for example have been written about Napoleon and it is possible to write a book about him that runs into thousands of pages. But Wikipedia articles are only a fraction of that size and editorial judgemnt is requried to determine what should be included or excluded. There's nothing in the article for example about Napoleon's penis, although it has been covered in the Washington Post,[1], the Independent and Channel 4,[2], NPR,[3] the Huffington Post,[4] the New York Times[5] and other fine sources. It's of particular interest because of rumors that Trump has small hands. But the reason it's not included in his article is that it has not received sufficient coverage in articles about him to put into his article. Are the sources reliable? Absolutely! Now we could change the policy, but something would always be excluded. TFD (talk) 04:07, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Concerning the Removal of Wall of Text
@Power~enwiki You are right that other editor's comments shouldn't be removed, but in this particular case half of the text removed was an off-topic wall of text, and the other half a discussion that in the end didn't lead anywhere, so it was dropped. The essential comments were kept. The reason why I wish to remove that wall of text is that it only makes it more confusing for users to understand what is actually going on, and the presence of the huge wall of text will likely discourage anyone from joining the conversation. So far, we have no votes on the matter and the ressult is inconclusive. With the huge wall of text, it's likely it's going to stay that way. I asked this question [[6]] on the WP:TEAHOUSE and got no response. If you have a suggestion of an alternative way of doing this please tell me. LordRogalDorn (talk) 15:12, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Is this the right place for my Question?
I 've added some months ago a well-cited text concerning the number of fatalities of EOKA. My edit was reverted because of "NPOV" concerns by 2 other editors. I have been to 3O, dispute resolution, issued a RfC (all other editors who contributed were in favour of inclusion). But it seems that the RfC won't close, not because of participation, as the last participant was a month ago or so. Should I ask for the opinions of the editors of this noticeboard or not? I feel it will snowball easily because it is a straightforward case. Cinadon36 08:13, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- RfCs automatically close after 30 days. However I cannot answer your questions without your providing any details. Please provide links to the article, the RfC, and your talk page discussion. You should also post on the talk page that you have taken it to this noticeboard if you have not already done so. TFD (talk) 03:42, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Archived discussion lost?
A while back, I commented on a discussion on this project page titled "Battle of the_Teutoburg Forest"; it is still visible in a link via an old version of this project page. The discussion was "archived", but though the archive bot removed it from project page, it does not now show up in the the archive. Am I missing something? --A D Monroe III(talk) 16:24, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
- Pinging Σ, owner of Lowercase sigmabot III, which performed the archiving. --A D Monroe III(talk) 00:39, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Could the Tell Abyad discussion be reactivated?
Could we reactivate the Tell Abyad discussion? I have not noticed that there is 21 day rule and have prepared a summery of the dispute for the RfC in my sandboxΣ.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:58, 1 September 2020 (UTC)