...

I'd rather start with how "neutral point of view" is defined on

Wikipedia proper: as presenting conflicting extremes. The lengthy article there repeated presents neutral or unbiased writing in terms of conflicting viewpoints. Framing knowledge in terms of conflict is not the best way to do it. It can be a helpful starting point, but a more complete synthesis is desired (and should be possible). <<

This objection is very obscure. Neutrality is defined "as presenting conflicting extremes"? No, that's not how it's defined. Certainly, if there *are* conflicting *extremes* on an issue, then they're presented, yes. Is the objection instead that neutrality shouldn't be defined in terms of conflict *at all*? In that case I'd say the whole reason for the neutrality policy is that people will naturally fall into conflict over what positions are true (or--of course, this isn't the same thing--have adequate "evidentiary support"). The neutrality policy specifies what we should do in such cases. If there's concern about stating what is supported by evidence, we must acknowledge that there are different views on that in any significant controversy.

"A more complete synthesis" might be desired by you, but it is not the place of an *encyclopedia* to proffer such a thing. Individuals and interested groups do that.

...

And statements like this: "according to our understanding, when one

writes neutrally, one is very careful not to state (or imply or insinuate or carefully but subtly massage the reader into believing) that any particular view at all is correct" are just wrong. <<

And why are they "just wrong"? Who, besides you, thinks they are "just wrong"? In fact, that particular point is not only correct about what Wikipedia policy is, it should be placed in neon lights and shouted from the hilltops and brandished in the face of people who use Wikipdia to further their agenda.

...

And the distinction between "facts" and "opinions", as written, is just

not helpful. "Mars is a planet", where "planet" is a "massive object that orbits the Sun" has only been a "fact" for a few hundred years. "God exists" has been a "fact" for much longer than that. <<

What's "unhelpful" about it? I find unexplained and unfair criticisms unhelpful. Suppose the text said instead, as you say here, "Mars is a massive object that orbits the Sun." That's something that virtually everyone now agrees upon; therefore, according to the definition in the text it is a "fact" (something that we would all acknowledge to be fact, rather than opinion). What difference does it make that it was not a "fact," in this sense, five hundred years ago? The text explicitly acknowledges that "facts" can actually be falsehoods and "opinions" can be true, and that "facts" can change. Is there something *wrong* with that state of affairs, and do you think there's anything we can do about it?

It has never been and certainly is not a *fact*, by the definition given on the page, that God exists. The text actually explicitly uses that proposition as a prime example of an opinion.

...

The whole page could be greatly improved and shortened by stating that

the NPOV relies on evidentiary criteria. That is to say, all statements are assertions which rely on some form of evidence and definition, both of which should be explicated somewhere, preferably within Wikipedia itself (though primary sources should simply be referenced). <<

This would hardly be an improvement: it would entail completely undoing the neutrality policy so that it does not concern neutrality. The issue of providing support and definitions, while certainly important, is strictly speaking *orthogonal* to the issue of the bias of a text or lack thereof. To be sure, a fair presentation of all views will, in perhaps most cases, require definitions and support (i.e., the support offered by the proponents of the respective views). But any neutrality or lack of bias worthy of the name *requires* stating competing views fairly and not taking sides. That's simply what neutrality, in presenting controversial issues, *is*. "Providing evidence and definitions" is a good thing, but it isn't what neutrality is, even if neutrality in many cases requires it.

If the suggestion is instead (and it's made none too clearly if so) that we can simply do away with the practice of presenting alternative views fairly, and instead present as correct the view that has the best evidence--good luck with making your case. That's precisely what we're trying to avoid *arguing about* with this policy.

By the way, certainly, we can admit that the page *might* need to be changed. That the page in fact does need to be changed in any particular way receives not the least support from the above.

Larry