Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Archive 17: Difference between revisions

Since this talk page has grown too long for some users' browers to edit, the discussions are being archived oldest first:

• Archive_001 Discussions before October 2004

---

Americo-centric point of view

To quote the article: "The presence of articles written from an exclusively United States point of view is merely a reflection of the fact that there are many Americans working on the project, which in turn is merely a reflection of the fact that so many Americans are online and working on the English project."

Many articles do reflect the "Americo-centric" attitude of contributors by leaving out the fact that the article is about the US. This is common in US place names. Many of us do know that Illinois is in the United States but, forexample, Naperville, Illinois requires further research to establish the fact that it is in the US. Alan Liefting 22:07, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Just a question -- if Wikipedia is supposedly Americo-centric, why do I notice Commonwealth English ("British English") spellings in the majority of articles I read? Sometimes, I see both used in one article... We need some form of consistency, methinks. Thorns among our leaves 17:30, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't think Wikipedia is Americo-centric, nor that the majority of articles are BE. Anyway, inconsistency within articles should be fixed. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Usage and spelling for details. Angela. 19:28, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

I notice geography stubs without any national context all over, from Japan to Serbia. When I can, I just fill them in. This is a context problem, akin to leaving out "In Christian mythology..." or whatever contextual disambiguation is called for. --Wetman 10:26, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Northern Hemisphere bias

A widespread problem in Wikipedia is Northern hemisphere bias. This manifests itself in places like referring to the Vernal equinox to refer specifically to the equinox that occurs in March, assuming that Spring begins in March, and other assumptions that are only true for the northern hemisphere.

People also live south of the Equator, and the seasons there are at different times of the year.

Where possible, recast the text to remove all seasonal ambiguity. Adding a sentence near the top of the text stating that the seasons refer to the Northern hemisphere should only be considered as a short-term fix. Such a sentence can easily be overlooked by someone who is casually browsing the text, and anyone who is quoting the Wikipedia for any purpose is likely to miss quoting this text.--B.d.mills 06:27, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think chauvinism is a fairly strong word for northern hemisphere bias. It's simply that most of the population lives north of the equator, and most of them are used to thinking of seasons in those terms. Perhaps you could come up with a set of suggestions for common areas of hemisphere bias, and how to compensate for those without excessive verbosity. — Cortonin | Talk 09:14, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The original title of this section was "Northern Hemisphere chauvinism". I have altered the title as suggested by Cortonin.

To fix the problem, we need to agree on a Wikipedia style that removes this ambiguity without excessive verbosity. Some ideas:

• When referring to a specific time, avoid expressions like "Summer 2002". Use other expressions instead. (Imagine if it said "Winter 2002" or "Wet Season 2002" - both of which are also valid descriptions for the month of June, depending on where you live. Seasons are local phenomena. Don't refer to local phenomena when speaking to a global audience.) An exception to this would be when the article or context is explicitly regional. For example, when discussing the tourist industry in Italy, it would be acceptable to discuss the revenues for the Summer of 2002.
• Don't name the equinoxes and solstices after the seasons unless the specific season is important. It is reasonable to refer to the Winter Solstice if you are discussing the timing of a Pagan festival, but not if your intent is to refer to the solstice that occurs in December. Instead, name the equinox or solstice after the month in which they occur.
• Expressions like "Northern hemisphere spring" are acceptable if no other substitute is possible. Such expressions should only be used if the northern hemisphere seasons are relevant to the discussion. For example, "northern hemisphere Spring" is important when discussing the ancient Roman calendar because that calendar began with the local Spring which happens to be in the northern hemisphere, but it is not correct to describe March as the month in which Spring begins, unless you also mention that autumn begins in March in the Southern hemisphere, that the dry season begins in the southern tropics, that the wet season begins in the northern tropics, and so forth.

---

I added the "An exception" sentence to your list, in the style of other similar Wikipedia policies about regionality. The solstice one I'm curious about. I've only ever heard the solstices referenced seasonally. Is there any precedent for other naming schemes, such as "December Solstice"? Do people from the southern hemisphere most commonly call the solstice in December "Summer Solstice", or do they use another term? — Cortonin | Talk 08:07, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The exception is acceptable, as long as it is also acceptable for discussions on local events in the Southern hemisphere to be worded similarly. (Australian rules football is played in winter in Australia, would it be clear enough from context that Australian football is played in June?) I did imply a similar exception in my third point; I guess the list is a work in progress that we must all revise as we go along.

In the various articles on solstices and equinoxes, some mention is made on how the northern hemisphere bias for the names of the equinoxes causes confusion in the Southern hemisphere; I have heard the March equinox referred to as the vernal equinox, the autumnal equinox and the March equinox! "Northward equinox" is another term, but I have not encountered it personally, only online. To help eliminate such confusion, I proposed my second point. We need distinct terms for an equinox or solstice that occurs in a particular month of the year and an equinox or solstice that occurs in a particular season. --B.d.mills (Added manually; I forgot to add it before)

(By the way, you should all of your talk page comments with four tildas, ~~~~, so we can tell later who wrote them.) — Cortonin | Talk 00:53, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Mea culpa (my fault). --B.d.mills 06:22, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

However, the word vernal still means spring. I think it's probably okay to call a solstice or equinox by its month, but we should probably avoid creating new terms in the process if they don't exist elsewhere. There are also plenty of times when one does want to refer to the solstices by season, for example as the winter solstice is the shortest day of the year (since it is this in both hemispheres). — Cortonin | Talk 00:53, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As long as the main goal is met, of not using "vernal Equinox" to mean the Equinox in March, and other like constructions, then there should not be any confusion.

The point of this is to make people stop and think about the words they use with regards to hemisphere-specific language, and to choose such words with more care. The feminist movement did the same thing to make language more gender-neutral. Am I being politically correct here? Perhaps I am — but don't hold that against me. Political correctness can go too far at times, but when the goal is to remove ambiguity and no-one is offended, it must be political correctness in its noblest form. --B.d.mills 06:20, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone else reading along have input on this? — Cortonin | Talk 00:53, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

...well, we could just use common sense, according to the context and avoiding torturing our readers. "Northern Hemisphere bias" is only an issue when we are discussing global climate monsoons etc. In such cases, one simply writes "In October-February" or whatever. New Yorkers aren't offended when an article on Borneo mentions the "wet season". There's never a problem when common sense allies with generosity, flexibility and breadth of vision. --Wetman 19:55, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Question about NPOV

I ask you some questions. Does NPOV mean majority decision? For example, in Christianity, many people insist that believing trinity is Christianity. Jehovah's Witnesses and Jesus Christ Church of Latter Day Saints are called non-Christians or alternates by this definition. I think this is slander to JW and LDS, because both groups insist Christianity groups definately. Then can Wikipedia's NPOV ignore slanders and accept only majority opinions? Please teach me. Rantaro 14:24, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No, NPOV means stating this is the majority opionion, this is the minority opinion (or so and so say this). If it's usually just some crank or conspiracy theory then it may be omitted. Dori | Talk 20:39, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. If your answer is right, I think trinitarians can't say that Christianity is trinity. Rantaro 11:17, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There is a "mainstream" to most traditions. It's a useful adjective. --Wetman 19:55, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

However. the 'Mainstream' isnt always right. is it? Therfore, in the interests of not excluding information that may potentially be proven correct at some point in the future, minority views have to be included. The worsts offenders for the 'mainstream' bullshit are the pages about extra terrestrial intelligence. Ive given up try to add views to THAT page. Unless you can PROVE there's aliens and UFO's any attempt to add such views gets immediately wiped.

Lincolnshire Poacher 08:09, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dictionary definitions surely are NPOV

Cited definitions from dictionaries such as the American Heritage Dictionary have been cut repeatedly from several Wikipedia pages. The reason given is that the "dictionary definition is POV." I cite you to the recent history of a disambiguation page and its TalkPage.

I suggest part of the solution to this problem is to insert a new paragraph into the NPOV page to state explicitly, "Dictionary definitions are always NPOV if the contrasting definitions of experts are also quoted and cited." The most appropriate position would be following the "Religion" paragraph of the NPOV page. ;)

"Surely such an explicit paragraph would be redundant!" you may reply. Here is an analogy to explain.

• The traffic cop stopped the man in the red convertible who had just run the red light. "You are supposed to stop dead still at red lights!" "EVEN ON SUNDAY???" the man in the red convertible asked with genuine surprise in his eyes. The cop laughed this time. But it happened repeatedly. Every driver she stopped that day asked with genuine indignation, "EVEN ON SUNDAY???" So the cop went to the city council and said,
  • "You need a law that says 'You have to stop at red lights EVEN ON SUNDAY.' It does not matter that the law says 'Always stop at a red light.' And because there is such a wide-spread impression that Sunday is an exception, I suggest that you should organize a wide-open forum to discuss and vote on the question: Does the law require you to stop at the red light EVEN ON SUNDAY?"

Accordingly, I suggest that the fix to this NPOV problem requires two elements

1. Running a formal Wikipedia opinion survey on the underlying question and
2. Inserting a new paragraph in the NPOV page that states explicitly that citing dictionary definitions together with opposing definitions of experts is always NPOV.

Any thoughts or suggestions? ---Rednblu | Talk 21:18, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

"Neutrality" is a stance and the choice of "neutrality" is NOT neutral! Trying to be "unbiased" is itself a bias.

Orthodoxy is often assumed to be neutral because people take it for granted and fail to realize orthodoxy and the conventional view is not neutral, because people fail to notice the subjectivity of conventions.

It's impossible to be truly neutral, so we might as well drop the pretense of neutrality. How hypocritical and manipulative and misleading it is to enforce a nonneutral point of view upon others all the while insisting and proclaiming that it is neutral.

I'll try to make myself more clear: There are MANY nonneutral articles on Wikipedia which are NOT noticed as being nonneutral because most readers share the same biases as the contributors. On top of that, because the bias is so pervasive, people can say honestly that the article is truly NPOV when it's not. How authoritarian it is to tell the readers what we think is neutral when we ourselves aren't neutral instead of letting the reader think for him/herself.

"Sticking to the facts" assumes "facts" are "objective" but most of what counts as "facts" are highly processed information by subjective individuals within a nonneutral intellectual framework and not "raw uninterpreted data". ---User:128.175.112.225

---

<<"Sticking to the facts" assumes "facts" are "objective" but most of what counts as "facts" are highly processed information by subjective individuals within a nonneutral intellectual framework>>

You may be right. But who could disagree with the following statement? "The Oxford English Dictionary said what it said." That is, quoting and citing to dictionary definitions would always be NPOV if accompanied by the opposing definitions of experts! :) ---Rednblu | Talk 22:29, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Let me point out an implicit assumption. You're assuming, like most people, that the OED is objective and neutral. We're trying to intimidate people into accepting a "fact" based upon an appeal to authority. It's the same thing with "experts". It's yet another appeal to "authority". It's like people who try to mislead while still telling the "truth" by only making "truthful" statements but who keep presenting them in such a way as to be delibrately misleading. Are they telling the truth or are they lying?

Another thing -- most people are highly selective in their choice of "facts" and out of the huge range of "facts" out there will pick those which supports their thesis while neglecting those which don't. ---User:128.175.112.225

---

<<We're trying to intimidate people into accepting a "fact" based upon . . . >>

Not at all. Quoting the OED definition merely states the OED POV that should be reported with the other cited expert POVs to make an overall NPOV report. :) ---Rednblu | Talk 00:55, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

This is the main problem with NPOV. Not the policy itself, but the fact that people expect it to mean what it looks like it means. The truth of the matter is that what Wikipedia calls "Neutral point of view" is not really a "point of view", especially not the neutral one. It's the absence of bias, the lack of preference for a point of view. There's nothing wrong with that. It doesn't mean taking a majority stance, or supporting the middle road, or presenting every imaginable counterargument, but it's easy for people to be misled into thinking it does.

132.170.42.25

Reporting the POVs in dictionary definitions together with the POVs of opposing experts is always NPOV

Cited definitions from dictionaries such as the American Heritage Dictionary have been cut repeatedly from several Wikipedia pages. The reason given is that the "dictionary definition is POV." I cite you to the recent history of a disambiguation page and its TalkPage.

I suggest part of the solution to this problem is to insert a new paragraph into the NPOV page to state explicitly, "Dictionary definitions are always NPOV if the contrasting definitions of experts are also quoted and cited." The most appropriate position would be following the "Religion" paragraph of the NPOV page. ;)

Any suggestions? ---Rednblu | Talk 08:59, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if we could assume that dictionary definitions from a real dictionary are always NPOV -- there may be some bad dictionaries out there, and dictionaries don't always reflect actual usage of a word. Personally, I don't think citing dictionaries ever adds anything to an encyclopedia, and imagine it might be a bad practice to get into. --Improv 14:47, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Further note -- older dictionaries were often not even remotely POV -- I've looked at some older ones from the early 1900s, and they're hilariously POV. Even newer ones, for reason of historical conservativism or lack of agreement with us about what NPOV is about, are often not POV. I therefore don't think being part of a dictionary necessarily contributes at all to NPOV, and therefore think your proposal, while well-intentioned, is based on bad premises. --Improv 17:36, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • But wouldn't those older dictionaries validate for sure that those old hilarious POVs actually were part of history? :) ---Rednblu | Talk 17:44, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • It might be notable that some people thought that, but wouldn't necessarily be notable as to what other points of view were common at the time. We might expect, say, French dictionaries during colonial times to be very much for reporting the French government POV, and we might intuit a nationalist POV to oppose them, but that wouldn't necessarily tell us about the differing tribal POVs, the Communist POV, the early liberal POVs, the ... Basically I'm saying is that it can't be a very good rule of thumb. I don't see the utility in quoting dictionaries at all on Wikipedia. --Improv 20:09, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        • I agree totally--no utility in quoting dictionaries. However, if a POV is expressed in a dictionary, then that POV is per se and necessarily a valid POV to document on Wikipedia, is it not? There would be no rational justification for cutting one dictionary definition among others from a Wikipedia page simply because of the POV in the dictionary definition that was cut, would you agree? ---Rednblu | Talk 21:23, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• A dictionary definition is an opinion, though often an expert opinion. So it should be fine to quote it as long as you attribute it and as long as it's relevant to the article. In an article about a word you might quote the OED to show what scholars believe about the etymology or use of that word. But in a dispute about ownership of a word (e.g. "is America a democracy or a republic?" "is atheism a religion?" "is communism the same as totalitarianism?") quoting the dictionary doesn't help. Both sides of the dispute know that the word has more than one meaning. Gdr 15:56, 2004 Nov 6 (UTC)
  • Those examples are helpful. I am folding your comment and everybody's else comments into the following "Digesting the suggestions" section. ---Rednblu | Talk 21:45, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Digesting the suggestions: I plan to edit this section as we go along :)

Thanks for helping me clarify the "algebra" of NPOV. For example, I changed the heading on this section to clarify the idea here. After thinking about your comments, I find the following.

1. Likely the final page should not cite dictionaries. That is, artful editing generally would make the page flow better than just quoting dictionary definitions.
2. Many times a particular dictionary definition may not provide encyclopedic interest. In that case, editors would agree readily that the particular POV in that dictionary definition was non-interesting.
3. Dictionary definitions will not resolve which POV is right--merely validate that the POVs in the dictionary definitions are appropriate POVs to detail in Wikipedia somewhere. For example, dictionary definitions will not resolve whether "America is a republic or a democracy"--merely validate at most that there are two opposing POVs that are both appropriate POVs to detail in Wikipedia somewhere.
   • Older dictionaries illustrate the point. Older dictionaries serve to validate that the hilariously old-fashioned ideas in them were actual POVs back in time. And hence, those POVs in older dictionaries serve to validate those old-fashioned ideas as appropriate for detailing in Wikipedia pages as part of the history of ideas. But neither the older or the newer dictionaries can settle which POV is right.
4. However, in constructing pages, including associated disambiguation pages, for a controversial area, dictionary definitions always would serve one important function, namely validating that the POVs in the dictionary would NPOV qualify for representation in some page. This would apply in any situation where there was disagreement among editors whether the POV in the dictionary definition was to be allowed "print space" on the page. (Typos are readily identified by the publisher.)
5. Hypothesis. Hence, NPOV could always be achieved by detailing the POVs in the dictionary definitions together with detailing the opposing POVs of experts.

It appears to me that the above states a falsifiable hypothesis on all dictionary definitions. That is, one counter-example that would falsify the above hypothesis would be from the following:

• Find a word W in a dictionary D such that the D definitions for W together with opposing expert opinions would NOT make a NPOV page.

An example in support of the above hypothesis would be the word work for which the dictionary definitions state the following two POVs together with others.

1. POV 1. Work is the transfer of energy from one physical system to another, especially the transfer of energy to a body by the application of a force that moves the body in the direction of the force. (There would be several alternative statements of this POV.)
2. POV 2. Work is one's place of employment.

According to the hypothesis, an NPOV report on the concept of work could always be achieved by constructing a set of pages, together with appropriate disambiguation pages, of the POVs in the dictionary definitions of work surrounded by the POVs of the experts on work that differ from the POVs in the dictionary definitions of work.

• In particular, NPOV would require that the non-scientific POV 2 on work would not get cut from a disambiguation page on work. ---Rednblu | Talk 17:27, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Reputable dictionaries are exactly as citable as any other reputable sources, no more, no less. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:10, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • I would have thought so a priori--before encountering a real situation.  :( But then, when in an actual situation of having an exact quote from the American Heritage Dictionary cut by an editor as at this link, when I thought about it, there seems to be a lack of general understanding--including my own--about how citable a dictionary really should be. For example, I would have reverted the cut and argued much more strongly if the cited quotation had been from Darwin's Origin of Species--because I could say "Darwin said that." But who knows who wrote the dictionary definition? Thanks for helping me think this through--because I think a section in the NPOV documentation is required. ---Rednblu | Talk 20:04, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • To put it briefly: dictionary definitions are not special, nor is any particular source. Any text exhibiting a point of view is POV, without exception, although you could certainly contend whether a piece of text is POV or not. I can't help but see this whole argument as a way of drawing attention to and justifying a single tiny edit. I'd seriously consider just moving on. Deco 21:46, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the advice. :)) ---Rednblu | Talk 22:07, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

POV and edit wars

I have just been struck by a thought: - sometimes the nature of an article makes it a subjective issue, based on points of view. The fact that these points of view exist, in my view is factual in itself. Now POV goes against WikiPolicy, I know, but the exclusion of POV can mean the omission of facts, leading to an incomprehensive or incorrect dataset. Take World War II: neutral POV in its basic form would not make any destinction between who was right and wrong - after all Hitler was convinced he was right. Same with the current situation in Iraq - everyone thinks they are right there - so who is to say? Unless the POVs are noted (and noted as such) then the reader will end up with, if you like, a "neutral bias".

How about having articles which are subject to POV having sub-articles which clearly state that they are POV? I know this opens up the way for cranks, nutters and fanatics (and vandals), but it could be said that the fact that such idiosyncrasies exist is in itself fact, and should be included. Suffice to say POV sub-articles should be clearly labeled to indicate that they are POV.

I am still formulating the agruments for and against on this though, however please let me know what you think. --JohnArmagh 05:33, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There's something to be said for publishing opinions alongside neutral discussion. Newspapers do it with editorials, and sometimes such opinions do give us some insight (or at least are entertaining.) Wikipedia already acts like a newspaper in some respects by publishing articles on current events.

The main arguments I can think of against it is that it distracts from the main purpose, and the wiki process may not work as well for editorials. There's also the potential for upsetting our readers, editors, and donators quite a bit. Perhaps a better approach is external links to opinion pages. Derrick Coetzee 05:57, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It is completely legitimate to cite what differing published authors say about the topic. For a pretty decent example, see Left-right_politics#Meaning_of_the_terms (although it could be improved by having citations for all of the views mentioned, rather than merely most of them). What is not acceptable is when Wikipedians state opinions in the narrative voice of the article as if they are matters of fact. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:45, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

JohnArmagh, I have a problem understanding your point. History is manmade. Man is constantly subjective in his choosing of "objective facts". History is told by the survivors/winners. Someone would consider these thoughts facts, as I do, but they are nothing else than my POV. The only thing I could do in order to enforce them as "objective truths" to a common public (or as a Wiki article), is to give a comprehensive and extensive base of reasons to why this _should be chosen_ as fact above other suggested facts. What we need however, moving away from the philosophical discussion to the practical one, is as balanced POVs as possible, which includes discussion and constant re-editing. Edit-wars is the consequence of non-cooperation. NPOV is more an ideal than a principle in Wikipedia, the principle should be cooperation.

Blah, blah, blah (lots of words). My point stands: which articles are NOT subject to POV (except those not yet created)? - Sigg3.net 09:59, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In addition, your classic choosing of Hitler as an example should only prove the age of this debate..

I merely point out that History is written by the Winners.

Lincolnshire Poacher 23:28, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Regime"

The word "regime", which appears in edits from time to time, has unfavorable connotations. Although it can be used neutrally, it usually strikes me as conveying disapproval of a particular government. I'm inclined to remove it almost all the time (except, of course, in direct quotations). Is this an overreaction? JamesMLane 23:36, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't think it's an over-reaction. Regime comes from the word "king" and is only appropriate for monarchies. In my opinion, this is why it is used, branding a government of a country a "regime" is to suggest that the President of that country has the powers of a king over his people, which is often untrue and/or POV. Regardless of that oversimplified line of reasoning, I agree "regime" has negative connotations. "Government" is neutral. — Ben 23:29, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree. It's a term used in the process of propaganda, to imply the presence of dictatorial control and to avoid implications of sovereignty that come from a more neutral term like "government". (See the first two example phrases [1]) Prominent usage of propaganda does belong documented on Wikipedia labelled as such, and this is best done in the form of quotations. But Wikipedia itself should avoid using propaganda within the body of articles, as this is contrary to NPOV. — Cortonin | Talk 23:53, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I also think that "administration" is also inappropriate most of the time--unless one is referencing the political players involved and not the government. For example, the "Bush administration" did not pass the PATRIOT act, the US government as a bureaucratic body did. — Ben 23:29, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Administration" is an accepted term used to refer to the executive branch of the U.S. government. The example you cite is inappropriate not because of anything to do with NPOV but because it's simply factually incorrect. —Christiaan 15:25, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Forbid enough vocabulary, and the unattractive facts can't be presented at all. That's the idea behind Newspeak too. Authoritarian cultural backgrounds come through vividly in this instinct for censorship. And we all suffer. --Wetman 19:55, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Your last statement is hardly any more correct. A few hundred individual people, acting in the name of the government of the US, under the titular leadership of Bush, acted to pass the PATRIOT act. To say that an organization takes an action is only a convenient shorthand to say that the members of the organization took some action in the organization's name.

regime is used in the language of diplomacy. It is only in recent years its we've seen common usage in journalism. See Charles Jones "regime" The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics. Ed. Iain McLean and Alistair McMillan. Oxford University Press, 2003. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. Also has the correct use of the term "change of regime", not the Americanism popularized by journalists "regime change". Nobs 20:39, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

A point that troubles me

From the current version of the text: "To state outright that "the existence of God is an opinion", "subjective", or "a personal decision", while seeming to be sensitive to the issue, implies that there is no fact being discussed (postmodernism or strong agnosticism), or that it is relatively unimportant (secular bias), or that God only exists in the human mind (Atheism)."

This seems to me to be saying that if I write in an article: "There is no agreement on whether God exists; it cannot be stated as a fact. A statement as to God's existence or non-existence is an opinion," I am violating the NPOV. If so, what formulation of the statement of the fact of the disagreement among reasonable people on this question would be acceptable? --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 01:03, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC) --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 01:03, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

40 WAYS TO GET A NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW

1. Write a Wikipedia article. These HAVE to be written from a neutral point of view.
2. Touch a non-erogenous zone on your body. Oh, no, wait, that’s how you get a neutral point of you.
3. Have a cup of tea (or, in the interests of this week’s 40 Ways, you can have coffee, juice, or whatever drinks are on offer, or even none at all.)
4. Say you like all sports, even if you hate a few.
5. Go to the drug dealer. Oh, no, wait, that’s how to get a natural joint of pooh.
6. Run every television show in the world on your station. Different people like different shows.
7. Feed her every way, just in case she prefers one way of being fed over the way you usually feed your kids.
8. Wee in every container available. I do it in bottles.
9. Refer to your excrement under every name available.
10. Watch every episode of Angela Anaconda simultaneously. You’ll need sixty-five televisions, however.
11. Two cents. Oh no wait, that’s zero dollars point oh two.
12. Listen to the song by DB Boulevard. Oh, no, wait, it’s another way from another point of view.
13. Ban said song. It has references to point of view.
14. Vote for everyone in the General Election.
15. Buy Critic and don’t buy it.
16. Stay out of the war.
17. At a rugby game, support both teams, for example when one’s about to score a try.
18. Speak every language under the sun (or clouds or rain or shelter or wherever.)
19. Listen to every song ever made at the same time. It will be quite hard, however.
20. If there are galaxies beyond the edge of the visible universe, say there is more than one universe AND all universes stretch out into infinite.
21. Shit can happen or be, you can serve wine or grape juice with your shit, you can be sure or unsure about shit, it can be your shit or everyone’s shit, you can buy or sell shit, you can create or destroy shit, etc. Shit is neutral.
22. Use every logo and/or mascot in the competition to symbolize the Olympics or the Commonwealth Games.
23. Order everything on the menu in a restaurant.
24. Whistle when you work and whistle when you eat if you can’t decide which one you like better.
25. Buy and don't buy milk.
26. Only touch things with a pH value of 7. Oh, no, wait, those are neutral solutions.
27. Do not use masculine or feminine nouns. Oh, no, wait, the nouns you use instead are neuter.
28. Wear formal and informal clothes everywhere. This week, we want you to have the best of both worlds.
29. Shop at all supermarkets.
30. Tidy and untidy your room.
31. Get and don’t get your way.
32. Wear and don’t wear a top.
33. Eat inside and outside.
34. Be a circumcised male with a foreskin.
35. Wear clean and dirty undies.
36. Defecate in the toilet and the cistern at the same time.
37. Have and don’t have a G-spot.
38. Be male and female, or just get neutered. They neuter dogs.
39. Spell and say you can’t.
40. Read and don’t read this page again.
41. Say that everyone can and can’t count to 40.

I hope you found this list funny. In fact, I hope you actually read it. Or, I hope you read and don't read said list.

I hope that both was and wasn't a coan! --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 11:09, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

NPOV regarding unusual claims

I'm wondering on what is the proper NPOV with articles that are not really pseudoscience, but something along those lines. With pseudoscience, it's easy to say first that this is pseudoscience, and everything that follows is according to those who believe it. But then there are cases such as Travis Walton abduction, where a person claims he's been abducted by aliens. Obviously, the majority of people, here on Wikipedia and elsewhere, would say that the claims are false. However, saying that on the page would actually be POV - likewise, insisting that he was indeed abudcted would be POV.

The solution used on that and several other articles I've seen is extensive use of words such as "claimed", "allegedly", "reported", etc. I suppose it's good from the NPOV side, but I find it annoying sometimes to read an article where every fact is preceded by "allegedly", etc. Would it be NPOV to state at the beggining something like "the following description of the events is according to X", and then describe the events using "normal" language? - User:Solver

Well it may be annoying to have allegedly, but sometimes that is necessary. Otherwise Wikipedia is making statements that are not correct, with one proviso at the beginning of the text that it is one POV. In fact, stating that the majority of people disagree with a minor POV is a fact if it is true. That means it is not POV to state that, especially if it can be cited to a reliable source. - Taxman 17:09, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

But that does make it quite hard to state it all properly. The NPOV article says, "The neutral point of view attempts to present ideas and facts in such a fashion that both supporters and opponents can agree." Therefore, we can say that the majority of people disagree (and should say, if that's a fact), but we can not say things like "alien abductions are hoaxes", "extra-sensory perception does not exist", etc., because it's not netural and there are many supporters who would disagree. Solver 17:17, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Look at these statements:

1. All statements are improved by a phrase limiting their context.
2. In Wikipedia, all statements are improved by a phrase limiting their context.

Establish the context, then just follow the material unself-consciously. "In Greek mythology" blah blah blah. You don't have to keep saying "Athena allegedly was born from Zeus' forehead." You've established at the outset that you are discussing within the context: "In Christian thought..." "In Marxist economics..." etc. --Wetman 19:55, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

==The link to Jimbo's quote== The link at the top of WP:NPOV ([2] as of this writing) doesn't appear to contain any quote from Jimbo, certainly not the phrase "absolute and non-negotiable." Can someone either point out something I've overlooked, or fix the link to point to the correct message? Thanks. -leigh (φθόγγος) 06:01, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC) I see it's been fixed. :) -leigh (φθόγγος) 22:08, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

Proportion to population

I have a question regarding the policy that states "We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by only a small minority of people deserved as much attention as a majority view. That may be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. If we are to represent the dispute fairly, we should present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties." What if the number of people who hold a position is in dispute? Q0 19:45, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Growth and cruft

This page really has grown into a bit of a monster. Points are often duplicated, or not presented clearly. The page is very long. I would be very suprised if any new users take the time to read and learn such a piece. We should cut it down and clean it up. Dan100 13:20, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, and I think splitting the article into a main article and a FAQ would be a good way to start. I do think the artcile would benefit from the addition of a short section on how to raise and cope with a POV dispute, though ---- Charles Stewart 08:56, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Objective truths... sometimes

On several instances (here, there, etc.), I have come across troubling cases where some article content, or some references, contained blatant errors on objective facts. Especially, it contain false assertions on the textual content of the text of laws that were available from authoritative sources on the World Wide Web; in one instance, one "reference" discussed an inexistant article of a law (to be fair, the article existed in the first draft of the law – but the "reference" discussed it as current).

In all cases, what was troubling was that some other contributors had preferred "information" obtained from non-authoritative sources to easily obtainable first-hand information. In some cases, the non-authoritative sources were probably the media; in other cases, publications defending a certain point of view on the question.

The neutral point of view policies of Wikipedia compel us to attribute opinions to those who hold them. However, in the cases that I delineated above, there was absolutely no room for opinion. Whether an official text, duly referenced on official sites, contains or not a certain paragraph or phrase is not a matter of opinion; it is an objective fact that anybody with an Internet connection can check. There is absolutely no room for appreciation or discussion.

In cases where such objective determination is possible, I think that it should be policy that preference should be given to primary sources.

Note, however, that I do not extend this qualification of objectiveness to the interpretations that can be made of legal texts. These, often, need the help of people with legal background; and, also, determining the possible future applications of a law is generally a matter of prospective and supposition. David.Monniaux 20:13, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You raise a good point. I don't think that was covered yet, so I added a brief paragraph clarifying the objectivity section's application to referencing or quoting sources. — Cortonin | Talk 22:33, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

NPOV, article quality & style

Everyone should try to be as objective as possible, respect other's sensibilities without sacrificing content. That would make neutral & agreeable POV.

Experts vs. concerned paries

It is stated in the NPOV policy that "If we are to represent the dispute fairly, we should present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties." Although this text was given in a section that explains the policy regarding representing views in proportion to the population that holds a view, the fact that "experts on the subject" and "concerned parties" was used leads me to believe that both opinions from experts in a field as well as "concerned parties" (who are not necessarily "experts") are to be included in Wikipedia. Am I correct? Q0 18:15, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think many issues don't really have "experts", and for those I think NPOV would simply mean including all the prominent views of concerned parties. And for the issues that have experts, the experts themselves usually have a strong POV. For example, most eugenics experts in the early 20th century would have told you that the methods of eugenics were valid, and that eugenics was morally productive. Obviously this was not the only POV at the time, because there were many other concerned parties with a very different POV which would be important to include. Experts will almost always promote the field of their expertise, and groups of experts will often have a certain social or political leaning, so the inclusion of other concerned parties should be presented to balance this toward NPOV. — Cortonin | Talk 20:08, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I know this must have been said before.

Isn't a neutral point of view an oxymoron.

It is a point of view in it's self. --Greyfox

Read the section of this article titled "What is the neutral point of view?" In particular, pay attention to paragraphs 2 and 3, which describe how "the neutral point of view is not a point of view at all". It's a subtle point, and one often not understood. The neutral point of view is not choosing the most prominent view, nor is it choosing the "correct" view, but it is about characterizing prominent disputes with a careful synergy of the involved views. — Cortonin | Talk 18:17, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Let me put it this way this way.

Wikipedia is the greatest example of man’s struggle to decide who decides what is and isn’t fact or not fact. Basically define what things are as opposed to aren’t. Also who has the authority to decide what is right or wrong. In other who has the right to say it is neutral the founder, writer, viewer, majority or outside power (I.E. God or scientific process). All of these could be wrong. Who has the authority to say what the neutral point of view is?

Hence it is not really possible to have a neutral point of view ever unless something is declared a neutral authority on the matter. Which is nearly impossible because all sides of an argument could say the authority is against them.

To dumb this back down, who has the authority to say what the truth is Absolute or Relative? Or to say what the NPOV is.--Greyfox 20:28, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

After thought maybe it is more of a logic fallacy a kind of married bachelor?

I agree. The problem is that different people havent a NPOV about having an NPOV. Some people use the NPOV stance merely to exclude things that they either don't agree with or thatcant be absolutely proved. There is numerous references in wikipedia to God, but there is no proof of such an entity existing, but no one seems to object, yet if anyone starts to introduce paranormal POV's into any scientific article such as the Pyramids or SETI then all hell breaks loose and the conventional POV apologists start to scream 'NPOV' before the ink's dry on the page (metaphorically speaking), and it makes me want to scream sometimes and throttle them..............

Lincolnshire Poacher 23:23, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Logical fallacy

Always cite your sources, and make sure your sources are reputable, and you won't go far wrong.

Just becuase they are not credible or reputalbe doesn't mean they are wrong. Just means no one believes them.

Example in point 2000 years ago any one that thought the earth was round had no proof. In fact the evidence to most people and wise men of the day was to the contrary. It was flat to them.

Indeed, look at the stick Immanuel Vilikovsky got for 50 years for 'Worlds in Collision' and 'ages in Chaos, and still does, yet slowly bit by bit, all his main points are approximately correct, even though his detial may be out.

Lincolnshire Poacher 23:26, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Criticism

See: Wikipedia:Criticism. Thanks. Hyacinth 05:23, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Proposed change

There is currently a proposal at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)/NPOV/Taiwan vs. ROC to amend this policy so that Wikipedia officially takes a pro-Taipei and anti-Beijing approach to naming conventions. Anyone interested in discussing this change to the NPOV policy should go there, jguk 21:04, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Everybody who is familiar with East Asian politics can tell this is neither pro-Taipei nor pro-Beijing. — Instantnood 20:49, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

• The NPOV is that it doesn't matter as long as it's explained. Which isn't your position at all. SchmuckyTheCat 23:11, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you very much!222.20.211.236 12:06, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What is the meaning of UVO?

My ID is Uvo, when I found Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is redirected from UVO, I felt too surprise and happy!玉米^ō^麦兜 08:06, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

I don't know the answer, so I asked the author of this redirection : User_talk:Francis_Schonken#UVO--Theo F 15:01, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

UVO was meant as a tentative alternative for POV: "POV" can mean "the opposite of NPOV"; or can mean the abbreviation of "point of view", which to some extent is included in wikipedia (while the "NPOV" concept, as explained in NPOV tutorial, "Space and Balance" section means not excluding any reasonable approach to a topic, while "neutrality" is reached by balancing these approaches/viewpoints). So I didn't tell yet what the acronym UVO was meant to mean: UnVerifiable Opinion (so, linking to the idea of wikipedia:verifiability too). That was explained in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view article itself (that's when I created the UVO redirect page); the UVO clarification remained there for several months last year; then someone in the end changed the text of that article, and the explanation went lost. Hope this helped you a bit: no danger using this word/acronym for something else; I don't suppose UVO as an acronym for "opposite of NPOV" will ever catch, but it was worth a try. Maybe best to delete the UVO page though, because it became senseless. Note that my initial remark about the "opposite of NPOV"/"point of view" ambiguity has been handled otherwise and in a way I don't think I have to restate that remark. --Francis Schonken 15:11, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This clarification makes sense, at least to me. It's a pity it didn't catch. Theo F 16:05, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Cutting a good question from GabrielSimon to the talk page for discussion

what about beliefs? why not just say if that's what they believe they are, just say that's what they are? according to them it's the truth, so why not state it as such, for each case. also, why is science given such leeway, when science is a point of view in itself?

GabrielSimon

• Yes. Why should the findings of science have preference over other POVs? Is there an important statement of NPOV policy that we have not yet discovered here? ---Rednblu | Talk 01:48, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If X believes Y, the article on X just needs to say "X believes Y". For controversial beliefs, the way to do it is to say "Some believe X because <evidence>, others believe Y because <evidence>".

As to science getting leeway, I think this is an article-to-article matter - articles on strictly scientific subjects should be written from a scientific POV, articles on strictly religious subjects should be written from a religious POV (meaning although you should mention what's a belief, there's no need to put mention of criticism or controversy in every paragraph), and controversial subjects should be written as "X says A, Y says B". Or at least, this is what I've come to observe on Wikipedia.

WP:NPOV#Religion has good commentary on this subject.

Nickptar 02:33, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Sounds reasonable to me.  :)) Does it actually work that way? ---Rednblu | Talk 02:48, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, here's a good question for you. In your proposal, how do you determine when an article is a "strictly scientific subject" and when it is a "controversial subject"? — Cortonin | Talk 04:17, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Consensus. :-P Nickptar 04:22, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Which states Note that consensus can only work among reasonable editors who are making a good faith effort to work together to accurately and appropriately describe the different views on the subject. and Consensus should not trump NPOV. A group of editors advocating a viewpoint do not, in theory, overcome the policy expressed in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not concerning advocacy and propaganda. But in actual practice, if you allow consensus to choose a single view and call it scientific to the exclusion of other views (as you suggested), then you permit consensus to establish advocacy and label that advocacy "science". This is a problem on Wikipedia, and it would be nice if it had a more codified solution. But I don't think your proposal has quite captured the solution yet. — Cortonin | Talk 22:08, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's not a "proposal", it's how, to my observation, Wikipedia works. I'm not saying there's an excuse for POV (scientific or religious) anywhere, but that things are and should be presented as "Some people believe X because A, but (most people)/(mainstream scientists)/(whatever) believe otherwise because B." To be honest, I'm not sure what I was on when I wrote what I did up there. Nickptar 22:16, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Um, science is most certainly not a point if view. Science is merely a method for how one can answer questions that are asked about the physical world in which we live. How else would one answer such questions? By waiting for a revelation from some deity or god? Also, can you give us a specific example of science being given leeway in a Wikipedia article, over some equally reliable method of determining facts about the physical world in which we live? Finally, be careful about using the word "believe". adherents of many religions, and adherents of far left-wing and far right-wing ideologies have set "beliefs". Scientists ask questions, and see what the results of experiments are. RK 18:35, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

sceince is used all to often to call other paths of thinking ridiculous. it is definatly a POV, for people sayt "from a scientiic point of view" or " sceontifically speaking" etc. if not, then they shouldnt say it, but it seems so ot me.

Gabrielsimon 20:25, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

NPOV. absolutism and totalitarism

NPOV is being invoked in Wikipedia for the most intolerant reasons.

This should gives birth to a reflexion on the abuses commonly met. For a start, I believe one should state clearly that the contrary of NPOV, is never POV -- a contribution should never be criticized on the argument that it displays a point of view, only that it infringes the overall neutrality.

An argument which would not display any point of view would be absolutist -- pretend that it is objective and universal, without consideration for the opinions of other people but its author. It would thus only be implicitly a point of view itself.

Neutrality is thus not achieved by stating pseudo-universal truths, but by offering a fair balance between the various points of view in presence, making them explicit. Modern science and philosophy do not offer official truth anymore, but theories and paradigms, defeasible and consistent, as far as possible.

Relativism used to be an insult -- it is clear now that its opposite is absolutism, which is far more dangerous. Relativism doesn't mean that all opinions all equally valid, but only that they are so a-priori -- that one should be allowed to defend them, and thus first to express them.

The philosophy on Enlightment (which gaves birth to the Encyclopedia) was indeed absolutist. It did state that some truths were universal. It led to totalitarism, and my own opinion is that it is for this reason, obsolete. --Marc Girod

I know what you mean, I have seen this happening. People seem to think that NPOV refers to the "balanced" view that they consider true, and so they complain that something is not NPOV when it does not reflect what they consider to be true. In reality, NPOV is an entirely different thing, and refers to a presentation style in which controversies are presented such that no view is endorsed or dismissed, no view is evaluated as true, false, better, or worse, and all significant on-topic views which can be attributed to prominent individuals and groups merit inclusion to embody the sum of human knowledge. — Cortonin | Talk 18:55, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I happen to think this is well represented by the text of the NPOV article, in particular, the "What is the neutral point of view?", but it seems that either a lot of people don't understand that section (which could mean it needs clarification), or a lot of people choose not to follow it. — Cortonin | Talk 18:55, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I would tend to agree that it is stated, quite clearly, yet in practice not clearly enough. Probably, it is just too verbose, and not well enough structured.

The issue is more complex than assumed, I am afraid. There is a provision for some kind of proportional (to the popularity...) presentation space, but e.g. not to the order. I believe the means allocated to the presentation of conflicting views are not appropriate. In particular, the discussion pages end up undermining the required fairness. I'd like to develop this, but feel that this is not the right place for this discussion. Would you suggest me some other? --MG 24/4/05

equal validity cartoon

TDC, can you explain what you're talking about when you say the cartoon is left-of-center? If it weren't for the name "John Kerry" in there, I'm not convinced you could say the cartoon is in any political direction. You could just as easily put a handful of Republican names in there, for example John McCain, and get pretty much the same joke. Is there some evidence I don't know about that John Kerry ate babies? (Keep in mind, that any illustration of the point is going to have to make some sort of crazy claim as an example.) Perhaps you could more clearly specify what you think is problematic about it so it can be discussed. — Cortonin | Talk 19:03, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, that is kind of the point: except for the fact that "John Kerry's" name is in there. Another name could be put in there, but unfortunately another name is not in there. The point the illustrator is trying to make with the article is that Kerry's opponents are raving lunatics, and the news media represents them in a "fair" light. You could say that I am taking the illustrators comments out of context, but reading the rest of his material leaves no doubt where his biases are. I am sure that a more generic example could be found, but unfortunately many others do not agree. TDC 21:41, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

A better one probably could be found, but the current one works. Ignore the Kerry reference if it bothers you. WP:WIN censored for the politically sensitive. Nickptar 22:52, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Better yet shut down this site

There's a NPOV, but hell, a lot of people are being MISEDUCATED by what's written here. There are just lots of biases and false stuff

Current Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)

There has been a great deal of discussion and disagreement regarding the use of prefixed-styles originating with the new Pope Benedict XVI article which currently begins with the formal style of address, "His Holiness." The question was broadened because it was claimed by Jguk to be an established style policy to begin biographical entries with formal styles, and discussion was moved/continued on the Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies) page. Prolonged discussion resulted in no apparent consensus, and a survey was proposed and discussed for another week before being submitted. The current survey is posted at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)/Survey on Style-Prefixed Honorary Titles with discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)/Survey on Style-Prefixed Honorary Titles.

The survey is still ongoing, and not scheduled to be closed until after May 14. However, there does not seem as yet to be any consensus forming, rather, there seem to be divided camps which will probably block ultimate consensus for any outcome. By no means is this absolutely certain, and I would not foreclose the survey and discussion prematurely, but I thought you might want to take a look and in particular to provide any suggestions or guidance on what sort of policy would conform with Wikipedia's NPOV requirement. Whig 07:04, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

NPOV as dogma

"According to Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable". "

How is this different from religious dogma? It seems to me NPOV is taken to absurd extremes by some self-important administrators too enamored of their little barnstar award trinkets. Not to mention it is overly sanitizing the pedia to where even a sense of humor becomes verboten, hence the need for the new admin award category: the award of the NPOV Nazi

Proposal to ammend policy

I want Wikipedia to accept a general policy that BC and AD represent a Christian Point of View and should be used only when they are appropriate, that is, in the context of expressing or providing an account of a Christian point of view. In other contexts, I argue that they violate our NPOV policy and we should use BCE and CE instead. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate for the detailed proposal. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:34, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Put me down as "don't care". (Although isn't it very possible that BCE/CE are less widely understood than BC/AD?) Nickptar 22:36, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Hey, if you don't care, you don't care. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:43, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I guess you could say I don't care much, especially as I doubt that BCE/CE will confuse many people. But it's a possibility to be considered. Nickptar 23:54, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

...which is a "problem" easily remedied by [[BCE]] and [[CE]]. 08:29, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Note that what Slrubenstein is proposing is a new policy totally unrelated to anything in the neutral point of view policy of this article. Gene Nygaard 12:22, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

"B.C." and "A.D." should always be written, for they have been used for many centuries, represent the world's most popular religion, and are more familiar to most people than ridiculous phrases like "Before Common Era" and "Common Era," which were invented only recently by atheists. Anglius

NPOV and misleading, but standard terms

I was looking through the wikipedia and came across a NPOV issue in the Digital Rights Management article. The title itself expresses a certain POV, which is that the technology is used to protect a copyright owner's rights, when in fact it may have consequences far beyond that. Many people feel the same way and have coined the term "Digital Restrictions Management", which is less POV, but still advoctates a certain view. However, digital rights management is the commonly accepted term for this technology. Should the title be changed to simply DRM, with a seperate disambiguation page? There is a slight precedent here that may apply, with Democratic People's Republic of Korea redirecting to North Korea, even though the former is an offical term (and is misleading and POV). The latter is more accepted in common usage though. What does everyone think?