Discuss the Wikipedia Neutrality Project

The Wikipedia Neutrality Project Dedicated to maintaining the integrity of Wikipedia through Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy Please sign your comments using four tilda (~~~~). Place comments that start a new topic at the bottom of the page and give them ==A Descriptive Header==. If you're new to Wikipedia, please see Welcome to Wikipedia and frequently asked questions. Server Cache • Turn the page.

I will be inactive indefinetely and will be unable to manage this project. If Katherine, CP/M, or another interested third part feels interested, please feel free to participate as a leader in my absensce. -- Wizardry Dragon 22:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This section is to discuss the goals, scope, and other topics directly related to the Wikipedia Neutrality project. If you have a dispute with the Wikipedia Neutrality project's practices, please post in the appropriate section below. If you wish to contest a NPOV warning or watch placed on an article, please state your case in the appropriate article subheading above.

I'm not sure I understand your purpose exactly. Isn't the whole of Wikipedia a sort of "Neutrality Project"? Isn't it the purpose of every editor to remove bias from Wikipedia? I'm a bit confused as to what you plan to do that is different from a decentralized base of editors. --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 00:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing up the question. Yes, surely, neutrality is policy, and every editor should follow it. However, in reality many editors just can't follow it, having their own point of view and believing it to be true. The editor with other POV might never come (or have time for disputes), and, even if he does, it may yield no results. A third party, with no prejudices on the subject, is the most effective way to resolve such problems.

So, the Neurtality Project would be a team to look at articles from aside, help editors to find the neutral grounds, and, if need arises, focus on an article. And, of course, to encourage and help other editors to maintain NPOV. --CP/M (Wikipedia Neutrality Project) 18:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:30 and WP:RFC. I'm not sure what makes fives editors more capable of being neutral than others. --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 23:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know about 3O and RfC. However, there's some difference - they simply give opinions about a certain issue, which can reaffirm one of the editors, which isn't always enough in case of POV problems. WNP, besides just reviewing, works in style similar to other Wikiprojects - focusing on a specific issue, discussing it on article's talk page, and taking part in correction. It's a way to draw some attention to the neutrality of the article, and not only get comments.

About someone being more or less neutral - I in no way assume that. We're equal to other editors and don't enforce anything. However, in case of any specific issue an outside view is usually helpful, be it RfC, MedCab or WNP. We are not going to replace them, just have less focus on personalities and more on the article, and offer more collaboration when it's needed. CP/M (Wikipedia Neutrality Project) 15:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose... but I'm still a bit skeptical. --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 16:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the wikiproject became inactive, since the original creator disappeared, and I'll work to revive it, In my opinion, it lacks defined goals and procedures. I have some views on how this project can function, which would require some changes in means, while the goals stay the same. It might be a good idea for our rules, if we accept it. I write it mostly in present tense, to make it easier to understand, and easier to correct, because these rules are going to give an impression of WNP for everyone. In fact this is a restart, but the ideas are the same.

Specifically, I suggest the following types of action:

• Review. Any editor can post a request, creating an appropriate section, and the article will be reviewed by one or more of our members, making suggestions on what should be changed, or just changing that in simple cases.
• Watch. Articles with frequently appearing significant bias can be added on a collective watchlist, which is checked by our members time to time.
• Assessment. We will discuss and suggest whether a POV template should be placed or removed on a specific article. This is what's really needed, since there's no procedure for this, and many editors hesitate to make such changes alone.
• Dispute resolution. We will provide quick suggestions for resolution of NPOV disputes in cases where there is no personal conflict, but just contradicting views on a subject. In case different kind of help is required, we'll recommend the appropriate group and help to make the request.
• Correction. When we find an article with significant POV issues, we'll repair it, neutralizing biased statements, replacing speculations with reliable information, checking for adequate representation of different views, and ensuring article no longer has a general bias.

Well, all of this is for now a proposal: something might be added, removed or changed. If you have suggestions, please comment.

For more difficult decision making, I suggest the base method is policies-based discussion and consensus. It means that we don't just vote, but state reasons for the suggestions and discuss issues. Members can summarize debates when enough discussion is done and suggest either the commonly accepted or a compromise decision. In case of no controversy, the common decision is accepted without further discussion. If consensus can't be reached, we can address other groups.

This might seem somewhat formalized, but WNP goals suppose we have a reliable and quick way of making decisions.

Now, about what we are not. In a nutshell, we are not a replacement for something already existing; specifically,

• WNP is not exactly requests for comments, or RfC page. We won't deal with personalities, but only with actions. We won't just comment, but take action to maintain neutrality of pages. That's the main difference - WNP is aimed for more active help.
• WNP is not mediation. Sometimes our role will intersect with Mediation Cabal, and we'll forward inter-user problems to MedCab, and assist in neutrality-related cases. We might have common members and work together on some cases, but via WNP we both find and implement solutions.
• Finally, we are not fanatics. Neutrality is important as it improves the quality of articles, but we should never discard other factors. Our final goal is not to make a few articles absolutely neutral, but rather to ensure all Wikipedia is sufficiently neutral. We follow the idea rather than the letter, and address articles where NPOV is violated with significant effect on the article.

Concerning the last, an article can leave positive or negative impression of a subject, but this impression should be caused by the subject itself, not the editors. Negative bias requires more attention than positive, and we won't block improvement of an article if it makes it slightly less neutral, but will rather correct it, and will address editors if the bias seems intentional.

This all is yet a proposal. Plese make suggestions, post objections, and discuss the principle and details.

CP/M 21:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let's see what you can do. :) I've got a medcab case which seems to be rather a mess, and would like some outside opinions on it. Reply on my logged-in talkpage if you would. The case is 2006-06-13 Conservatism, and all sides of the mediation (including the mediator) would be happy to see the case resolved. Good luck? (Kylu@Work) 207.145.133.34 22:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll help as much as I can, and take full part in the mediation. I might be more direct when addressing the sides, but I feel it would be better. CP/M (Wikipedia Neutrality Project) 22:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where I'm rather inactive in the project itself, I can probably pitch in a bit more on the assessment processes. - Wizardry Dragon 22:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you're back! I already thought you've left. Could you comment on my suggestions? CP/M ^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 00:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been around, I just haven't had much time and as thus hsave been focussing more on simply editing pages myself than working on the WNP to coordinate editing. As I said on my talk page in reply to your message, I appreciate your initiative in working on the WNP, and thusfar it looks pretty good. Keep it up! - Wizardry Dragon 17:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Closing" Page Requests

Currently, a lot of otherwise fixed issues in the Pages for Review section. I propose that when a page has received input from one of the WNP members, that one (or more) designated "clerks" see if the article has been cleaned up, and if so, archive the request, and if not, press for further actions. Thoughts? -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 00:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you have any disputes with the Wikipedia Neutrality Project's practices, please post them as a comment under this subheading.

People involved in this project may also want to be aware of Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic Groups. As you might imagine, ethnicity is an area where neutrality issues often arise. - Jmabel | Talk 19:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing that to our attention. It's definetely a good related link for the WNP. - Wizardry Dragon 22:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewed a number of articles that have NPOV tags, where the NPOV is very slight, or simply one or perhaps too people objecting to the "concept" of an article or in other cases to what appear to be relatively minor stylastic differences. In other cases the precise rational for the application of the NPOV is unclear or the individual applying it is not longer actively discussing it on the talk page.

What I have also noticed is the NPOV tags are easy to add, but seem to take a lot of effort to remove (ie, no one wants to go ahead and actually remove them). This is understandable because perfect NPOV is hard to achieve, and consenus about it even harder. What is a bit irritating is to stumble across an article with an NPOV tag, review it, and discover the tag was applied for something minor. Just something to perhaps reflect on as efforts are made on which articles to tag. Augustz 07:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Are there project tags (the ones linked to on our article page) which were applied superflouosly? If so, on what articles? I am not quick to tag something myself - before I put it before the WNP I make an effort to fix it myself. Others should do the same. If they aren't, then the tag should be removed until and not posted again until it's clear that one person and the article editors alone aren't going to be able to remove the bias from an article. -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 23:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 14:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for pointing this out. I have expanded the entry for the WNP with the approprite links. I hope you find this ascceptable :) -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 00:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah II of Jordan appears on the list of questionable articles; however at this point it appears neutral to me, but as a new member of this project I feel uncomfrotable removing the tag --Kevin Murray 18:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Best thing to do is put a query on the talk page whether the article writers feel this is the case. If so, then smooth sailing. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 18:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Expect one soon!

My concern is that some editors aren't really much interested in the quality of the articles themselves. Take another article: Anti-Brahmanism, which is a lot better, but hoo-boy - for a while there... I'm not suggesting for a second that you take this one on, or that the neutrality project take it on either. I'm just using it as an example. The truth is, all sides who have "something to hide" wouldn't mind certain articles dying a slow death. They're are plenty of regions world-wide who fall into this category. This is something to watch out for, particularly in religious and political articles. That's why the neutrality project is important. One thing to look out for is re-directs and page re-namings. It's an easy way to kill an article. Each article must have the relevant search terms attached to it (even misspellings at times) in order for it to be relevant. If something fishy is going on in that realm, then you know you have editors who aren't thinking in the best interest of the article itself. I don't agree with Peter that in order to be neutral you must examine behaviour and not issues. Indeed, it's going to take real scholarship to get these articles stable, credible, and readable. I feel that really should be the ultimate aim of every project - even Esperanza. More on my specific thoughts later - I need to read:). If I haven't said it already, thank you. NinaEliza 14:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We are not ArbCom. We do not address the misconduct of users. ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 19:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in part I agree - we here are to address articles. However, ignoring user actions wouldn't be wise as well, it's just that in such cases it would be better to work through MedCab process.

And it's true that careful slight link tweaking can really "down" an article and allow replacing it with a POV fork. I think we should pay attention to that, once we notice it. CP/M ^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 20:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really, we shouldn't be singling out editors, it's divisive, inflammatory, and borders on WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA violations,. not to mention it creates a negative atmosphere (hunting for POV pushers? if so, I don't think you belong here). I wont have it said I have condoned or encouraged editors in the project to be disruptive. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 21:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I mean not singling out, but still keeping the eye at what causes POV issues - certain excessive material, lack of material, or something else. It happens at times that the problem is not just in the article, but that there may be real conflicts between editors - I've met a lot while mediating, and some really strong. What I mean is that we should keep in mind that there are other initiatives devoted to resolving such conflicts, and, if things go hot, it may be useful to suggest the editors to attempt resolution through mediation, rather than ignore the conflicts. CP/M ^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 21:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is important to maintain neutrality both in articles and user disputes. See this philosophy of Essjay for good, related reading: User:Essjay/Neutrality. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project )

It seems we're talking about the same, but in different terms. What I mean is just, where there are conflicts, not to pretend nothing is happening, but to recognize conflicts and be ready to attempt some kind of mediation between the editors or ask for assistance. As in mediation, this does not involve taking sides, and stresses the point of remaining neutral in user disputes. Just doing it consciously, not by pretending not to see them, to avoid improper perception. Of course, the problems of misconduct are better left to be addressed by users affected - we clearly aren't to act as police. Sorry if my words created the wrong impression at first, I see how it could happen. Again, by "not ignoring user actions" I mean just taking note of them. CP/M ^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 19:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're both right.Nina Odell 22:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been away for a while and just returned; but I think it's necessary to discuss the (potential) backlog problem.

What I think is a major danger for us is developing a backlog. There already exist categories for NPOV tagged articles, and their problem is immense backlog, making categories nearly useless. The reason I've originally seen the necessity of WNP is to enable more specifics in resolving issues, creating a working initiative. The most difficult issues in NPOV check, at least for me, are finding the actual concerning POV problems, and deciding what is correct and what is not, and what to do. What we've already achieved is receiving requests with explanation, not just a tag; but, still, not as much on the decision side. I'd suggest to have more discussion of the articles here, just asking for the opinion of others on specific issues, when in doubt - it's one of the goals of WNP, after all.

Also, for specific dealing with articles, it's often hard to eliminate the problem or make sure there are none. Sometimes POV is hidden, sometimes it just requires specific knowledge to distinguish facts from presentation. In my opinion, it's best if we, in such cases, create a section to ask for specific opinions or pointing issues, sometimes ask the corresponding Wikiproject to review the article, and don't hesitate to clean the tag if no POV is visible and nobody responds in considerable time. This is both about requests and just POV check category. CP/M ^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 21:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure what your points are here, it may just be a tired mind after a long three days work with only an hour of sleep between them. Maybe you could summate it in some points? Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 20:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a list of salient points. I feel the same way as Peter (except for the sleep:)).Nina Odell 23:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a summary of points:

• It's important that we don't create a backlog, or WNP might end like the cluttered categories. So we'd better try to act on every request, to resolve at least a part of the issues.
• What can always be done, if uncertain about where the POV problems are, is to create a section on the article's talk page and ask everyone to point POV problems they see.
• When not sure about what to do, let's ask here, because it's what this talk page is for. If factual knowledge is needed, it's a good idea to address the article's relevant Wikiproject.

Nothing really revolutionary, some things might be obvious, it's more like just a reminder about them. CP/M ^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 11:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps giving a set time frame to each "problem child" article would be best. If, say, at the end of a month there isn't something concrete happening with POV (mediation, or outright working together) and the article isn't improving, we remove the tag and move on (we can always come back at a later date).
• We can also limit our articles to, say, ten.
• I would consider Decline of Buddhism in India to be a success. Those folks are in mediation, and working together cooperatively:). Nina Odell 14:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering whether the Neutrality Project extends to clarifying the WP:NPOV page itself? For example, I find that many editors still believe that the opposite of NPOV is "POV" and that articles should not represent any POVs. I had suggested a "POV / NPOV Clarification", partly because I feel we should define POV before we describe NPOV? --Iantresman 19:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• We have no more weight to do so than any other editors, but we could certainly discuss concerns. Can you elaborate further? On the behalf of the Wikipedia Neutrality Project, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 19:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, as above, we aren't a special authority. However, of course, WNP involves a number of editors familiar with the NPOV policy and interested in development of related guidelines. CP/M ^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 19:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed, but there is consensus in numbers. If the Neutrality Project thought the the WP:NPOV could be clarified (which I assume is an improvement), and consequently should be clarified, then it could lend its weight to support such a change. --Iantresman 19:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Small consensue < large consensus. Semantics aside, what needs clarification? What are your issues with NPOV? What would you change? We need to define the parametersa of what you want changed before we can discuss it an establish a consensus. On the behalf of the Wikipedia Neutrality Project, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 19:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have come across the following opposing views on NPOV several times. It seems to me that only one of the views is accurate, and it is not entirely clear which. I do not think that the correct view was meant to be decided by consensus.

• First view

• An article (on a subject) that has been published but creates no response whatsoever fulfills WP:NOR but cannot fulfill WP:NPOV because it presents only one point of view. That doesn't mean it can't be used in an article, just that an article on the paper itself will never comply with WP:NPOV

• Second view:

• NPOV is about how we describe Points of View neutrally. NPOV tells us that "where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly."; it does not REQUIRE there to be critical points of view in order to "balance" a point of view. For example, when Stephen Hawkins publishes his latest theory on Black Holes, we can still describe it neutrally without waiting for a critical response.

So the question is, does NPOV REQUIRE opposing views to make an article "neutral", or, can a single POV be described in an NPOV manner. --Iantresman 20:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• All major viewpoints must be described in a fair and equal way, otherwise there is a bias towards the single viewpoint. On behalf of the Wikipedia Neutrality Project, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 16:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Absolutely. But what happens when there are no verifiable alternative views. Can we still described the one view in a way that conforms to NPOV, or is it intrinsically biased, or non-NPOV? --Iantresman 16:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, that's a question frequently discussed around the pages. However, the idea of NPOV is that the article maintains a neutral stance. It means that if there's one point of view, except for very certain cases, it should be described neutrally. For instance, in case a team of scientists describes the applications of their new research, it's certain they are an interested party, but there are no other published points of view. However, it's fine, as long as the article reports on them, using forms like "The board claims...", "According to..", an so on, rather than just copying or closely retelling the words. Well, it does involve some degree of critical view, to decide on the wording and not go overcritical, but it's quite possible to describe a single POV neutrally. CP/M ^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 17:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Let's take an extreme example. Suppose someone publishes a report (not necessarily peer reviewed). One paper, one author, no other critical reviews. Can we still describe it neutrally. Does it make difference if the author is well-known and respected (eg. Stephen Hawkins), or unknown and the views sound cranky. Can we describe both so they conform to NPOV. --Iantresman 17:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Moot point. Wikipedia does not allow original research. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 17:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• If the author is well-known and respected, he may qualify as self-published expert. In this case, he is an acceptable source, although certain explicit attribution is required. For cranky articles, it's most probably that they don't fit notability anyway. If they have received publicity, there are other views. If nothing else, claims may be described as just claims - like "Flat Earth Society claims that common sense proves Earth is flat". However, most of the times cranky publications are just not worth an article. This actually concerns WP:V and possibly its remake WP:ATT. CP/M ^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 19:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure, no original research, but if a single author is published in a single reliable source with no critical reviews, it passes WP:NOR and WP:RS. Can we still describe it in such a way that it conforms to WP:NPOV. --Iantresman 20:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Why wouldn't it? It should just be kept prominently mentioned that it is according to some author. NPOV really doesn't require presence of alternate POVs. NPOV is not the balance or middle ground point of view, but rather just not taking sides and remaining a reporter rather than advocator. CP/M ^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 20:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem is illustrated in the question and the way it was posed. We don't choose one extreme over another, we choose the middle ground. That is NPOV. On behalf of the Wikipedia Neutrality Project, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 20:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed, most times it's easy to steer a central course. But sometimes we have an extreme (or perceived extreme) to describe.
• But more to the point, the reason I brought this up in the first place, is to describes TWO fundamentally different way of looking at NPOV. One way says that a Point of View is intrinsically biased and cannot be described as NPOV, without critical (alterbative) views. Another way says that any Point of View can be described in an NPOV manner. It's the description that is NPOV, not necessarily an ad hoc combination of POVs being described.
• One of these views concerning NPOV is, I believe, a misunderstanding that causes problems with some articles. --Iantresman 22:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • I'd say NPOV is not as much about central position, as about being out of the argument. So extreme is reported, but as an opinion, not fact.
  • About the views, I don't want to play judge, but it was discussed, decided and explained many times that NPOV is about description, and any POV can be described in neutral manner. Just as one would report on an extreme view in an obscure field, not approving and not criticizing the view, just noting it exists, indifferently. CP/M ^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 23:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• For better perspective, compare to the sympathetic point of view, something which appears in adverts and Fred Bauder's wikipedia fork. On behalf of the Wikipedia Neutrality Project, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 23:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I think we're in agreement... NPOV is primarily about the description, and secondly should reflect the balance of verifiable views IF they are available.
• And I think this needs further clarification in the article on WP:NPOV, because of posts like this [1], which suggests that subjects may be intrinsically biased without critical opposing views. --Iantresman 23:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I nor the project do not get involved in disputes. If you have a content dispute, please consider mediation. On behalf of the Wikipedia Neutrality Project, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 00:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was merely illustrating by example that such a misunderstanding exists among some editors. I was not asking anyone to get involved. If such a misunderstanding is shown to exist, I am suggesting that there is an argument to clarify it on the very pages that described NPOV. --Iantresman 00:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Here is someone else claiming that an article can only conform to NPOV if a critique is available.[2]. Again, I provide this as a typical example of the misunderstanding, not as a dispute in which to get involved.
• Clarification of this issue at WP:NPOV is required. --Iantresman 14:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles are not required to invent or embellish an opposing point of view if there isn't one. We are reporting upon a subject, whatever the article topic may be. Within that, some facts (or their interpretations) will be contested, others will be mostly accepted, others again will be almost universally accepted. We are obligated to ensure that when the article is complete, it mirrors and characterises, without re-enacting, the subject to which it refers, and the presence of opposing views in the article is purely a function of whether there were significant opposing views in the subject itself.

The acid test if NPOV is achieved, is the map-territory relation -- the extent to which the article can be used as a "map" to guide a lay-person through the "territory" of the subject, including its relevant detours, conflicts and highways. Like a map, no article perfectly mirrors a siubject, nor is this expected; if it did it would have to re-enact and be as large as the subject itself. There is a "cutoff" of detail, called "notability" in Wikipedia, and a good map must have enough detail, but not too much as to be unwieldy and unhelpful in navigating ones way.

-- FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]