Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Archive 35

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 30

←

Archive 33

→

Dilution of WP:UNDUE

One of the problems of trying to put all the old guidelines into a single guideline is that part of them gets lost. WP:UNDUE used to include explicitly not only undue weight with reference to the opinion of groups but also undue weight with respect to notability. It used to be clear that just because a news item mentioning an article topic reached a minimum threshold for notability did not mean it has a right for inclusion on the main article on the topic. The coverage of a topic should reflect the notability of what is included. Without this we will get a form of NPOV by inclusion of minor news items in too prominent articles and the job of reducing the size of some enormous articles gets harder. Things which reach a threshold for notability of course we can include somewhere but the main articles on big topics have to be balanced in choice of notable content. Are we happy that undue with respect to notability should be included in some form and if so would someone like to try and add it?--BozMo talk 07:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Good point. Durova^Charge! 10:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

It should definitely be in. Not sure of wording though, what did it say before? Doug Weller (talk) 17:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that still in? Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements. Maybe it just needs a clarification? Someguy1221 (talk) 17:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I take it back, at least partly. What has gone is just explicit reference in terms of notability. I didn't read it that way first time, but I agree if you read "significance" as "notability" it is still there. Of course "significance" is a subjective term, far more so than notability (and after all the stuff on viewpoints I was still reading significant in terms of "pervasiveness of a viewpoint"). We do define notability pretty well elsewhere though. As everyone can argue "significance" til the cows come home, can I change "significance" to "significance (in terms of notability)". Looks like there is support for clairifying this?--BozMo talk 18:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Definitely. Otherwise people will say 'significant means important, and what I want to add is really important, it will prove Elvis is alive on Mars!'. That will deal with issues where someone wants to add something that has little prominence (eg a fringe idea that not even many fringe people pay attention to). Doug Weller (talk) 18:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Why not replace the "prominence" in the first sentence with "coverage" or "reliably published material"? Isn't that what we essentially mean? I believe that such a wording change would make the concern moot by more explicitly stating the point. Vassyana (talk) 00:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe I took care of these problems, recently, and was roundly hated for it. BozMo, take a look at this and see what you think [1]. I made things really clear. The fact that you said what you did proves my point that the thing is not written correctly. In fact, I made the change you suggest. So I'm personally feeling mistreated here, because everyone was against my changes, now they are all happy to discuss them. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Another Undue Weight comment

I'm having trouble reconciling the rules regarding undue weight. I would like to think of Wikipedia as being fairly comprehensive being that it has virtually unlimited space for an article when compared to a traditional encyclopedia. And yet, it seems to have little interest in small minority viewpoints when there is ample space for the availability of such. Honestly, this disappoints me about Wikipedia and I, for one, would like to see this rule changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leomarth (talk • contribs) 06:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

In effect, we would end up publicising views that were so minor that, at least on the web, they had virtually no presence. I can think of at least one such example. It isn't a matter of space, it is a question of what makes Wikipedia an encyclopedia as opposed to just a storehouse of information. Doug Weller (talk) 17:02, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Elian Gonzalez Incident

I have had my contributions removed from both the article and the talk pages several times over the last few days and replaced with material, which was there previously, that I know to be untrue. I was there. For example: - The number of Federal personnel involved in the 'snatch of Elian Gonzalez was given by Fox News at the time as being two hundred and thirty. It was certainly not just eight as is again stated in the article - there may have been only eight with SWAT equipment who actually stormed and entered the house.

I am not sure on reflection that this article is a notable subject for inclusion under Wikipedia guidelines, it certainly appears to be used as a means of propaganda for some persons with a political agenda rather than to be acurate encyclopedic information. (ZigZag (talk) 02:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)).

New software called "Spinspotter"

Last week's ABC Radio National program The Media Report features an interview with Todd Hermann, the Seattle-based developer of a new online application called SpinSpotter. The application uses an algorithm to detect and highlight examples of 'spin' in online news stories and news sites. Wikipedia is mentioned by analogy. I wonder who in WP is best-placed to investigate whether the application—a free download—is suitable for use in trouble-shooting POV on WP. I suspect that such software applications will soon provide us with the opportunity to revolutionise our monitoring of POV in articles. The algorithms sound as though they're sophisticated; although they're currently set up based on the code of ethics of the American Society of Professional Journalists, to what extent do these ethics differ from those of WP?

The audio stream is available for another three weeks here, and the transcript is permanent, here.

Is this the best place to post this message? Tony (talk) 06:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Policy?

Everyone is invited to discuss the Policy status of a subpage FAQ of the WP:NPOV policy. The discussion also includes what should be moved from WP:NPOV/FAQ into WP:NPOV if the FAQ is changed from a Policy to a Guideline or Essay. Dreadstar † 04:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources / Verifiability

I consider the link for phrase "published by reliable sources" in second sentence stated as Wikipedia:Verifiability is wrong. Should be Wikipedia:Reliable sources, shouldn't it? --Юрцэвіч Дзьмітры (talk) 19:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:Update

See WP:Update for the September changes to all the Category:Wikipedia content policies pages (including this one) and also the most generally-used style guidelines (called, unsurprisingly, Category:General style guidelines). If anyone wants to take on the job of updating monthly content policy at WP:Update, please reply at WT:Update. Obviously, since this page is in WP-space, anyone can make any edit at any time, but regular updaters would be nice. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 18:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

A sentence under the Bias section seems a little opinionated to me...

"All editors and all sources have biases (in other words, all editors and all sources have a point of view) — what matters is how we combine them to create a neutral article."

This, I think, is either opinionated or a poor assumption. Either it needs to be reworded in a way that doesn't make that assumption, or a citation is needed to prove that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.127.239.0 (talk) 07:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's your point of view. It seems obvious to me, and note that this is a policy page, not article space. Have you an idea of how you'd like it phrased? . . dave souza, talk 07:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure, I'm a bit new to English. I was hoping someone might have a better alternative to it, though. 68.127.239.0 (talk) 08:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with it. All editors and sources do have a point of view. Doug Weller (talk) 10:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:ASF question

I can look at this section as well as the other two sections WP:MORALIZE and WP:SUBSTANTIATE and determine on my own that opinions should not be added and that facts should speak for themselves. Yet it has been argued, by some editors, on other talk pages that an opinion is OK if experts agree, and if experts agree on an opinion, then it is fact. I cited the example that Murder is bad, hoping that the other editor would see the reasoning, but I was told I was comparing apples to oranges. My question is:

1. Can we add more examples to the section so that we can have a broader base to make a point. or...

2. Should we add that widley held, or even undisputed opinions should still not be added, and only the facts should be added?

The way it reads now is still just a bit ambiguous and can still be interpreted incorrectly. Perhaps I am still wrong but hopefully someone will comment soon.--Jojhutton (talk) 15:41, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

no, what you're saying makes a certain amount of sense. let me try a quick revision. --Ludwigs2 18:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Ludwigs, changes of core policy based on two-people's discussions is not appropriate. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. That seems pretty obvious to me. Doug Weller (talk) 20:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

This is great, and makes things clearer. Does not change the meaning, but it does make things clearer and it is well written. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 19:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it's poorly written, but that's not the point. We do not make massive changes to core policy without significant discussion. There are additions that are just not necessary or very wordy. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Orangemarlin,

please adjust your twinkle config so that it does not mark your reversions as minor. If you don't know how, please ask, I'm happy to assist.
please stop reverting edits simply because I was the one who made them; your personal animosity towards me is not sufficient grounds for this kind of behavior. If you had bothered to read the edit I made (which you clearly didn't), you'd have seen that it was mostly copy-editing and clarification; there is nothing there that is particularly problematic.

that being said, if you have specific objections to the edit, please state them here so we can discuss them. otherwise, I will wait a bit and then reinstate the changes for others to review. thanks.

--Ludwigs2 22:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks. Thank you. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:10, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

PS. Make no further comments about my use of Twinkle. I consider it a personal attack, since not a single other editor has ever mentioned it. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I would have reverted the changes even had OM made them. No discussion and significant changes? I think not. Jim62sch^dissera! 20:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

BTW, discussion comes first, changes second, and only if those changes reach consensus. Nota bene: a two person discussion does not count in reaching consensus. Jim62sch^dissera! 20:16, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Jim: if you can point out where it actually changed any meanings, please do so. I meant this edit to be helpful, not problematic. and please don't suggest that I can't be wp:bold when it comes to what I view as minor revisions. I don't object to the disagreement or the revert, mind you, just the hostility behind it. however, since the topic is opened, let's discuss it now so that we can work out the kinks.

OM: asking you not to mark your reverts as minor constitutes a personal attack? dude, please... --Ludwigs2 20:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Guys... there's no need to descend into taking swipes at each other. I commend WP:BRD as a good read. Discussion doesn't always HAVE to come first. Ludwigs made a change. He thought it would stand. (thats the Bold in BRD) But it got reverted. (that's the Revert in BRD) So now... discuss the change and work out what would have consensus. L: Don't take offense that you got reverted (and spare us the "my personal ________" comments). OM: Don't take offense that L asked you to change your Twinkle settings. Both of you and everyone else, get back to the substance here, would be my advice. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 22:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Lar - I'm not taking any offense at the revert, and I'll delete that line (because you're right, it was unnecessary). on to the discussion... --Ludwigs2 22:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I did not expect so much discussion so soon. I thank everyone who has commented on my suggestions. I truely believe that all comments are valid and that we as editors can come to a middle ground.

As it stands now, and I just skimmed the comments, but it seems that the only problem with the edit was that it was mmade with little discussion, but not with the wording. Am I wrong in that determination? If not then does anyone have a problem with perhaps adding a few more examples to it or with clarifying the section so that it can in no way be misinterpreted. My argument is that some editors like to Wikilawer to death on other talk pages about the meaning of every single word and phrase, myself included. I just wanted to make the section a bit less ambiguous, so as to cut down the number of uncivil discusions on other talk pages. Thanks again and happy editing--Jojhutton (talk) 23:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

A pair of comparisons for change of meaning

Since Ludwig was asking for examples where his new wording] changed the meaning (emphasis added):

Old: Plato was a philosopher is a fact. No one seriously disputes any of these things. So we can feel free to assert as many of them as we can.

New: Plato was a philosopher, are facts, because no one offers any serious, meaningful arguments to the contrary.

Hum, this new wording opens the word to some POV pusher saying "But I have here (link to biased page) serious arguments to the contrary" and "you can't assert until you can show that arguments on the contrary are not serious".

Old: However, there are bound to be borderline cases where it is not clear if a particular dispute should be taken seriously and included.<ref name="see_also_uw" />

New: because different people can and do make meaningful arguments that it was right or that it was wrong.

New (on 3rd paragraph): There are bound to be borderline cases where it is not clear if a particular statement represents a fact or a value judgement/opinion

Ok, this is plainly removing the part saying that borderline statements should not be included. This looks uncomfortably like the same old dispute about leaving WP:FRINGE theories stuff out of articles, where Ludwig is partidary of including them. I think that Ludwig does not notice that he is unconsciously introducing his own bias, no offence intended :) --Enric Naval (talk) 01:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

(I continue) The part on the Beatles looks okay to me, and the wording is clearer on the old version. That part doesn't change meaning except to say that the forbidden statement "X was the best ever" can now be sourced like "[authoritative source] says that X was the best ever"

The added explanation of what 'mass attribution' means is quite good.

The rest of the last changed paragraph, however, has a huge problem. The example of "God exists" is not about an actual fact (unless you can prove that God exist, of course). You see what I mean, I'll just make the same sentence that Ludwig did, but with a different topic:

Example: "Nature journal has made a statement that Water memory/Homeopathy is pseudoscience, but this should be clearly attributed as the opinion of Nature, and not (despite its wide acceptance) as a statement of fact"

As it happens all the time on articles that have some pseudoscientific/fringe POVs, the capability of scientific authoritative sources to state scientific facts is put in doubt. As I say above, this appears to be unconscious bias (sorry, Ludwigs)

So, some parts of the text are rescuable (hell, maybe I'll try to add them myself other day :P) --Enric Naval (talk) 01:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Eric, first, no offense taken on the suggestion that I might be introducing my own bias. Undoubtably I do, as do we all, and that's why I rely on people like you to reel it back in.

with that in mind, I have to say that your last is an excellent point, and something I hasn't considered. I don't think I'd support that wording myself now that you've pointed it out. I was really only trying to clarify that in some cases the 'Everybody knows...' type arguments are supported by an appeal to authority which gives them an extra aura of 'truthiness'; I hadn't meant it to apply to actual authoritative sources like scientific journals. that bit will definitely have to be excluded or reworked.

interestingly, the 'serious, meaningful' wording occurred to me because I had the exact same worry that you do (that someone would point to a biased source and say it is a 'serious dispute' about Plato being a philosopher). that, and I was trying to create some consistency between paragraphs, which use different terminology here and there. the problem, I think, lies in words like 'serious' which are unfortunately subjective: how do we exclude sources which are (in their own mind) quite serious, but create disputes that are patently ridiculous? would it help to replace 'serious/meaningful' with something like 'credible'?

also, you're correct: dropping the 'and included' was a pure, unadulterated mistake on my part. apologies... --Ludwigs2 03:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we can incorporate various parts of each of these arguments. My original suggestion was to perhaps include a few more examples. I don't think that these would hurt or change the meaning of the section one bit, and it will most likely improve it and make it more clear. The other suggestion I had was to perhaps add the phrase "Do not add opinions, even widely held opinions...." My intention with these additions is to help alleviate possible edit wars and heated discussions. I had no way of knowing that this would turn into a heated discussion in its own right, but this is wikipedia after all.

Ludwigs edit was a tad wordy and I don't think the section really needed as much change as all of that. I do side with him in the fact that it does need to be changed to make it less ambiguous. Thank you both for bringing great ideas to the table. Enric, I commend your ability to compromise. Many editors are stubborn, including myself, and stick to their guns, so to speak. You are making a concious effort to improve this policy. Ludwig, thanks for seeing that there was a problem and trying to do something about it. Wikipedia needs good Bold editors who are not afraid to clarify policy. We sometimes forget that there is no central wikipedia God that controls all policy. It is the community that decides and nothing more and nothing less. Thnnk You all and Happy Editing.--Jojhutton (talk) 04:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

<ri> Thanks for reviewing the proposed changes, Enric. At first glance the Beatles paragraph looks reasonable, the mass attribution issue needs more careful consideration. Look forward to seeing proposals for any changes, with due care to avoid unintended consequences. . . dave souza, talk 08:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Enric, NOR already does what you say- any POV pusher can ask for a source on something. You're talking about attribution here. Attributing something to Nature strengthens the claim. If some POV pusher insists on attribution, if the source is good the original claim is made stronger. If the source is not good, then it is rightly put in question in the mind of the reader. In either case, no harm has been done. WP has no business stating controversial things as fact in a context where that is disputed much as some editors want to. Example: See? In the article on Plato, there is no dispute. In an article on the Plato myth, you attribute. So it's a matter of context, as with so much else. A "serious controversy" is relative.

On Wikipedia, a "fact" is taken to mean "information about which there is no meaningful dispute in the article context." For example, in an article on the Earth it may be stated as fact that the earth is round, but in the section of that article which mentions Flat earth belief, a statement that "the earth is really round" must be attributed. Likewise, statements that a planet called Mars exists, or that Plato was a philosopher may be stated as facts in articles on those subjects. But in articles disputing the existence of Mars or denying that Plato existed, editors must source their claims.

Or something like that. Everyone here knows that we don't go into articles which deny the obvious and, after stating the position taken by the deniers of the obvious, blandly state the obvious as fact. Look at the Flat earth article. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, come now, everyone has seen attribution abused: E.g. "According to Fred Smith, the world is round." Attribution is really easy to abuse, simply by providing no reason why the person should be trusted and making it appear that widely-held views are only held by one person. Put that in opposition to "According to the The International Society of Geoplanar Science, the earth is flat" [membership: 2], and it gets even worse. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Beatles example

I went ahead and used Ludwig's wording [2], as people here seem to like it and it doesn't change meaning. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Mass attribution example

Just after the "mass attribution" words (right next to reference [3]), add Ludwig's explanation as a footnote:

{{note|mass|Mass attribution happens when a particular statement is applied as though it were true of a broad range of people. Statements of this sort may be prefaced by explicit qualifiers like 'everyone knows...' or 'all Ecuadorians support...' or it may merely be an implicit assumption in the text, but in either case such statements should not be included unless they can be traced back to reliable sources that demonstrate their truth. In some cases mass attribution may make an appeal to authority.}}

(using {{ref}}/{{note}} syntax to avoid cluttering the source code). As an alternative, it could be added to either Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words or Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms and linked directly. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I could support either the footnote version or adding it to the other guidelines (I have a mild preference for the footnote, because I'm not sure mass attribution fits entirely correctly under either of those other pages, but...). I would suggest a clarification though, namely: "In some cases mass attribution may make an appeal to authority, by using statements from noteworthy groups or individuals as though they were 'spokespeople' for larger groups." would that change the meaning of the phrase in an unacceptable way? I'm just trying to clarify how the appeal to authority works. --Ludwigs2 19:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I object to this. In practice it's generally used to suppress the majority view, by insisting it be attributed to single individuals. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

If all you have is a single individual who is not writing in an authoritative source, then what you have is a sourcing problem, not a proble with the attribution policy. If someone is writing in the NYT, then you attribute thus "X, writing in the NYT said..." In this case, the attribution strengthens the statement. If you just have "X, writing in his own website," well, that doesn't strengthen it. That's a problem with the source. It is corrected by getting better sources. The same thing applies here as with any unsourced material: if you can't get a good source, you just can't write it in WP. Saying "well, it wasn't accepted in a journal because people don't like my ideas," or saying "the majority doesn't care about it but this is what they'd say if they were to speak" doesn't work here. The reason for attribution is to let the reader decide, and if the source just isn't any good, it isn't the place of WP to promote it by not giving proper attribution. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. my worry (which I see happen here and there in wikipedia) is that a purported majority view (i.e., a view which common sense says ought to be a majority, but which can't be demonstrated as a majority view in reliable sources), gets in through the back door by finding some notable, authoritative individual who just happens to have stated that common-sense view. basically it's taking 'everybody knows this' and supporting it by pointing out that Joe Famous said it, as though Joe Famous saying it somehow shows that everyone knows it. exempla gratia: say an editor wants to make an edit to the effect that 'marriage can only be between a man and a woman' (I voted today, had to shoot this one down at the polls - lol). first he'll say 'everyone knows that marriage is between a man and a woman', and if anyone objects, he'll say 'every major religions says that...'. this is using the authority of religions and religious doctrine as though religions spoke for all their adherents. really, it's the ecological fallacy using loose estimation rather than clear statistics, piling bad logic on bad logic. --Ludwigs2 04:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Article structure

davidz has kindly pointed out to me that I removed some long-standing material on article structure from Words to avoid. This material doesn't have anything to do with "words to avoid" and overlaps considerably with the article structure section here. In my view this material is fundamental to our NPOV policy, and we need to settle on what it says here, rather than farm it out to a style guideline. I've made an attempt to merge it in here. I realise that the issue of (for example) criticism sections has been a matter of debate, and I have done my best not to imply a point of view, but to reflect a consensus position. However, editors with more experience editing this policy will undoubtedly be able to do better. Geometry guy 12:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Medical degree

Medical degree (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - The editor User:Naturstud is a Naturopath from Canada who has been editing a lot of medically related pages to include information about naturopathy. I have no problem with this in general and is fine. However, he has been a tendentious editor and has been including a lot of misleading information in the article Medical degree suggesting that those who hold a degree in "naturopathy or naturopathic medicine" (a degree he himself holds) are equivalent to "medical doctors" and that he feels the naturopathy degree that he holds should be classified and listed as a "medical degree" along side the MD, DO, and MBBS degrees. The World Health Organization WHO/IMED disagrees and they have created an internationally recognized list of what is and is not considered a "medical degree". This list published by the WHO is utilized by the "board of medicine" in pretty much every country in the world. They use this list as a guide to decide who holds a recognized "medical degree" and who is eligible and who is not eligible for a "medical license". Naturopathy is not on this list. Naturopathic medicine is classified as a "complementary and alternative medical practice" along side Chinese medicine, homeopathic medicine, reiki, ayurveda, acupuncture, etc. Naturstud refuses to list his degree along side these other professions even though they are always grouped together, he instead insists on classifying his degree as a "medical degree" even though it is not recognized as such. Naturopaths are allowed to register with the state "board of Naturopathic Medicine" (in those few regions which regulate the profession. However, this is completely different from the state "board of Medicine". This is similar to a dentist (another type of "health care professional") who also holds a license through the state "board of dental medicine"; this however does not mean that a dentist holds a "medical license" to "practice medicine" from a state "board of medicine". They hold a "dental license" just like a naturopath is (in a few regions) allowed to hold a "naturopathic license". Only graduates with "medical degrees" from one of the the WHO/IMED listed world medical schools who have obtained a certificate from the ECFMG[3] are allowed to apply for a "medical license".

Myself and a few other editors have agreed to allow Naturstud to edit the article Medical degree to include his degree with the only exception that he also equally include ALL other "complementary and alternative medicine" professional degrees, diplomas, and certificates equally as per Wiki (NPOV) policy. He refuses and has continued to push and promote his profession on wikipedia at the expense of others.

Could we please have some assistance cleaning up or rewriting this article to better comply with NPOV policy?

I feel we should either:
- 1) Re-write the guidelines to include ONLY "medical degree"s as is "internationally recognized" for the "practice of medicine" as per the internationally accepted WHO Directory of Medical Schools/FAIMER International Medical Education Directory ^[1]. As only graduates of medical schools in these lists are permitted to apply for medical licensure.^[2] or
- 2) the only alternative being to include a list of ALL alternative and complementary medical practitioners in order to keep this list fair and balanced (WP:NPOV). We can either maintain the article title of Medical degree or an alternate suggestion was changing the title of the article to Healthcare degrees in order to better suit an all inclusive list.

Thank you for your help. Jwri7474 (talk) 04:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

You really want WP:NPOV/N or WP:FTN ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll repost there then. Jwri7474 (talk) 04:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

"main article" change to "see"

I suggest that we change "main article" to "see" or "see also" or "see guideline" or something similar, as "main article" can be read to imply that the guideline in the section top note has precedence over the text in the section. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not think this change should apply to "Main article: Wikipedia:Naming conventions" in the "Article naming" section as that is to a policy and not a guideline. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Halloween WP:Update

A reminder: WP:Update has monthly updates of the 7 content policy pages. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 20:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

How do I report a Wiki member?

Hello, A Wiki member has been thinking that I have been vandalizing a page but I haven't.

The Wikipedia page is the Sonic Unleashed section.

The user is SLJCOAAATR 1 and his / her posts are saved in the discussion topic.

He / she insulted me in the section and that user did not understand what I was talking about and they thought that I vandalized.

The main problem was only that the Night of the Werehog video was said in the article that it would be a full length animated 3D Movie 3D but that was incorrect. I changed it to a Short 3D Animated film because those sources were confirmed.

However the user SLJCOAAATR 1 thought that I was already posting the same video and information twice (because it was posted already, and I wasn't even actually trying to post the video again. The video was on the site but I was actually trying to show them the information). SLJCOAAATR 1 didn't listen.

SLJCOAAATR 1 then deleted my other post after I replied and insulted me yet again in a user talk page comment because I got irritated with that user because SLJCOAAATR 1 wasn't listening to me.

I hope this is the right place for these kind of things! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mamaluigibob (talk • contribs) 20:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Rividian's comment at WT:Layout

I'd like to add "wikilinks" to "This applies not only to article text, but to images, external links, categories, and all other material as well." I got the idea from Rividian over at WT:Layout: "I just don't like the idea of someone going to the, say, Louisville Metro Council article and adding "See also: Nazi Germany" and saying that, under the letter of this guideline, it's okay since the guideline says nothing about a source. BLP is the biggest issue... but it could be done on any article... and note that my example is intentionally over-the-top, but incidents of this on Ralph Nader and Ashley Todd mugging hoax were more subtle. I don't see how policy would allow people to make such uncited comparisons, even if it's not a living person biography. The see also section shouldn't be a loophole to let people make controversial comparisons without a reference... I think we still need this wording." - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 17:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

ATTENTION: Map of India

I wrote a similar message to Ssolbergj (in Wikimedia Common) who created these retarded maps. I hope you guys here can back me. It's a clear bias and I don't think that being bias is a policy of Wikipedia. It is high time things are straightened out.

(Reference: [4] vs [5])

Dear Ssolbergj, your map of China colors Arunachal Pradesh in light green which implies it is somehow rather a part of China although under Indian administration and claimed as an integral part of India. I agree this is a disputed region by both countries. In that case why doesn't the India map have Aksai Chin (a Chinese administered region claimed by India) be colored light green on the India map? Why double standards apply for Aksai and Arunachal although they are both disputed?

Same goes with Pakistan occupied kashmir. Shouldn't those areas be indicated in light green too? Please maintain neutrality as prescribed under Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. I look forward to you recoloring those maps with a NPOV in mind and not China slanted views. Thank you.

If they don't want to change it, I suggest we change the map of India to its old form (2d one) as it is more accurate.

I look forward to all your replies / opinions / assistance as I am not an established user on Wikipedia. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.208.245.138 (talk)

The correct place to raise this is at the NPOV Noticeboard. This page is for discussing the policy page itself, not possible violations of the policy. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

OK I already made it there. thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.49.35.196 (talk) 12:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Yet again...two years later: Last paragraph of Reasoning behind NPOV section

Well, now. It's been more than two years now since I proposed a change to the last paragraph of the Reasoning behind NPOV section. And...well, it seems nothing has changed. This, despite the fact that my proposal for change had simple majority support, and I even settled on a compromise version of the change, and even accepted a third alternative, failing the compromise solution. Something seems broken here, unless I'm mistaken about the way WP is supposed to work. Please see the following archives for background: [6][7]. I'm very surprised that the section in question remains unchanged! » MonkeeSage « 16:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Bump » MonkeeSage « 14:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Bumping again...*sigh*...maybe someday this will be dealt with? » MonkeeSage « 03:53, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

On Providing Justification for actions

Is there any rule about providing justification for actions occuring in History articles. For example can the words "in response", "because of" be used, with the reasons provided, however obvious and straightforward they may be, may come into question. For example a sentence like " 2 +2 =4 because according to definition of real numbers etc." is different from " Jack shot at Tom because of Tom's threat".

To give a better example how about this "Jack had said that he would shoot Tom but later changed his mind. In a few days Tom threatened Jack, in response Jack shot at Tom". Here with using the words "in response", the reader is left confused about weather Jack shoot Tom because of his threat, or because Jack wanted to shoot Tom anyway. This, I believe, goes beyond NPOV, unless it is rephrased " Jack claimed that he shot Tom because he was threatened". Is there any policy regarding giving reasons to actions and stating them as matter of fact , instead of simply trying to state the facts. The facts should speak for themselves about the reasons if given in a chronological order Kakaka79m (talk) 17:57, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The key is whether there is a reliable source that discusses the cause of the event. If so, then there is no problem with our including the "because of" in our article. In other words, if a reliable source says someone did something "because of" something else (event to cause), then we can note this fact (citing the source)... but if no reliable source attributes event to cause then we can not do so on our own initiative... to do so would violate WP:NOR. Also, if some other reliable source presents an different cause for the event, we need to mention that view as well. Blueboar (talk) 16:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Conflict of interest guidelines

I'm trying to get the conflict of interest guidelines rewritten to be clearer in terms of what is allowable from people with conflicts of interest. At the moment they seem to allow most edits, but there are also several parts saying COI editing is strongly discouraged. It is not clear whether COI editing is generally unacceptable or only when it results in bad edits. I have written a proposed revision of the guidelines, but because of my own conflict of interest I really don't want to make any kind of change without consensus. Since obviously a lot of conflicts of interest result in POV problems, people who monitor this should put forward their thoughts at User talk:Helenalex/coirewrite or on the conflict of interest guidelines talkpage. --Helenalex (talk) 05:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

RFC at WP:NOR-notice

A concern was raised that the clause, "a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge" conflicts with WP:NPOV by placing a higher duty of care with primary sourced claims than secondary or tertiary sourced claims. An RFC has been initiated to stimulate wider input on the issue. Professor marginalia (talk) 06:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Undue weight in application to articles about pseudoscience

In application to an article about a theory which is generally considered pseudoscience, does WP:Undue weight mean that the majority of the article should be specifically about criticisms? At Talk:Bates method, an editor has argued for that, citing UNDUE. PSWG1920 (talk) 21:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:ASF. The majority of the article should provide context to the reader as to why the particular pseudoscientific idea is notable and what the facts are surrounding it. In general, it's best to avoid a "criticisms" section outright and instead incorporate factual context into articles. By the way, you probably want to ask this question at WP:NPOVN to get more visibility. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that's right. To "incorporate factual context" as suggested above is really to synthesize a debunking, to editorialize, to frame the fringe idea in the scientific point of view, as opposed to presenting it on its own terms, in a neutral point of view. I agree with WP:ASF, but to choose facts to put a fringe idea into "context" is to distort the idea itself, and contravenes WP:NOR. What's better is to find reliable sources that assert facts and opinions about the topic idea itself, and report those. Don't go looking for contrary facts, just report what's been published about the topic idea itself. If it hasn't elicited much critical reaction, you won't have to say much. Dicklyon (talk) 22:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm looking for insight on how WP:UNDUE applies to a fairly general type of article. Ideally the policy itself should better explain that. PSWG1920 (talk) 22:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The policy is intentionally vague in order to accommodate a wide range of subjects. The basic idea is that Wikipedia shouldn't try to artificially "balance" ideas to make them appear more respectable or more considered than they actually are. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm unclear on what you're asking. Do you mean for the type "generally considered pseudoscience"? Or something more general? It seems pretty clear to me where the page starts out:

An article should not give a minority viewpoint on its subject as much of or as detailed a description as a more popular view, and will generally not even mention a viewpoint which is in the tiny-minority relative to the overall subject. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, a view of a distinct minority.

I agree with this interpretation and example. But some editors fail to note that it says "on its subject" and "relative to the overall subject". The "subject" here is the article topic, if I read it correctly. In other words, an article on Flat Earth would represent all the viewpoints on the flat earth idea, not be dominated by also including all the stuff you can find on why a round Earth is the mainstream view; that material can be in the Earth aricle, can be linked, can be mentioned, but is pretty much off-topic except where it's part of the published commentary on the flat earth idea. In fact, Flat Earth looks like a good example of how fringe ideas should be presented. Dicklyon (talk) 22:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, "on its subject" and "relative to the overall subject" were added by me earlier today in an attempt to make more clear what seemed to be the intended meaning per the example given. PSWG1920 (talk) 22:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear me! I should have checked. Obviously I agree with you here, but we'll have to wait and see if that's the consensus. Dicklyon (talk) 22:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

In regards to what I'm asking, see the talk page discussion linked to at the top of this thread, and scroll down to the comments I referred to. Basically I want to know if that is a valid interpretation of UNDUE. PSWG1920 (talk) 22:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, that's what everyone fights about. I lean more toward your interpretation than to Ronz's. Dicklyon (talk) 22:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't really see how the majority of any article even can be specifically about criticisms unless it's a "Criticisms of..." type article. Otherwise the reader would be left wondering what exactly is this thing which is being criticized. PSWG1920 (talk) 16:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I think I see this more clearly now. The opening paragraph of UNDUE states that "An article should not give a minority viewpoint on its subject as much of or as detailed a description as a more popular view". Taken literally (which some editors do), this would necessitate that an article about a minority viewpoint devote most of its space specifically to the contrasting majority view, i.e. criticisms. (Previously it said "articles that compare views", but an article about a minority viewpoint would still fall under that description as it necessarily compares it to the majority view.) The question is, is that the intent? The example given leads me to believe that this clause is in fact intended for general subject articles. If so it needs to be amended. PSWG1920 (talk) 19:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

What about adding "which is not specifically about a viewpoint"? So (what is currently) the first paragraph would say "An article which is not specifically about a viewpoint should not give a minority viewpoint on its subject as much of or as detailed a description as a more popular view". The example given, Earth, is clearly not an article about a viewpoint, so I think that would fit with the intent. PSWG1920 (talk) 19:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it'd be best if everybody editing pseudoscience articles just calmed down for a while and waiting for the upcoming ArbCom decision on the topic. But, both as previous history goes and comments of some arbitrators in ongoing problem, NPOV policy means not attacking a fringe idea, but absolutely including and sourcing why the scientific community considers it pseudoscience throughout the article as appropriate. Not having the criticism there gives major undue weight to a minority view.DreamGuy (talk) 22:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

How to determine majority viewpoint?

Pardon if this issue is covered elsewhere, but I cannot find it: Is there a policy or discussion somewhere on how to determine "(i)f a viewpoint is in the majority" or "in the minority"? I did not see it in the FAQ. The project page only states to use "commonly accepted reference texts...." But what if both sides of an issue can give references? This occurs with the historical accuracy of accounts found in ancient texts accepted as scripture, such as Noah's Ark. Is there a recommended process that should be followed? Is it necessary to start listing scholarly references? How can WP editors sort through such issues? Thanks, SteveMc (talk) 02:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

If there's not an overwhelming unbalance of viewpoints in sources, treat them as balanced. Dicklyon (talk) 02:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure, but how do we prove sources? Quantifying them? Qualifying them? SteveMc (talk) 17:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:RS gives guidance about evaluating the quality of sources, and at a more basic level WP:V requires a basis in reliable third party sources, with selfpublished and questionable sources being used carefully, subject to restrictions. If there are good academic sources giving different expert views, we show both views and can aim to evaluate the degree to which each has wide acceptance. Evidence can be discussed on the article talk page if there's a dispute. . . dave souza, talk 17:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks all, I found enough to help me at the locations mentioned above, leading me to the pageWP:SYNTH on WP:NOR. SteveMc (talk) 22:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Obvious edit

[8]. I thought this one is a no-brainer, but apparently User:John doesn't think so. Searching for "balanced" sources is not okay in, for example, the evolution article if you are seeking to balance it with creationism. Instead, we are supposed to chose reliable sources. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Additionally, it's problematic given that "balance" isn't defined until later in the article, and the definition is not common usage outside Wikipedia. --Ronz (talk) 20:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

disagree. My watchlist popped up User:John's reversion from "A careful selection of reliable sources" back to "A balanced selection of sources". The reversion resonated with me. Too often, I've seen a careful (unbalanced POV-pushing) selection of reliable sources. To address the use of "balanced" before its definition, perhaps the A simple formulation subsection needs to be moved from the Explanation of the neutral point of view section to the Achieving neutrality section so as to follow the subsection on balance which explains "Neutrality weights viewpoints in proportion to their prominence". That seems to me to be be a more logical location in any case, since formulation relates to achieving moreso than to explaining. After making that change in subsection location, I suggest changing the wording to read "A careful and balanced selection of reliable sources".-- Boracay Bill (talk) 00:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's choose a word other than "balanced". How about "representative"? The issue is that a balance tends to imply equal amounts which is not inimical to our task. ScienceApologist (talk) 08:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking "proportional" before I say the suggestion for "representative." Either is better than "balance" unless someone wants to try all the reorganizing that Boracay Bill suggests. --Ronz (talk) 21:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to change wording of UNDUE to eliminate an effective meaning which is likely unintended

From WP:UNDUE:

An article which compares views should not give a minority viewpoint on its subject as much of or as detailed a description as a more popular view, and will generally not even mention a viewpoint which is in the tiny-minority relative to the overall subject. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, a view of a distinct minority.

I suggest changing "which compares views" to "which is not specifically about a viewpoint".

An article which is not specifically about a viewpoint should not give a minority viewpoint on its subject as much of or as detailed a description as a more popular view, and will generally not even mention a viewpoint which is in the tiny-minority relative to the overall subject. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, a view of a distinct minority.

The reason I am suggesting this is that I believe the current wording has an effective meaning which is likely unintended, though some will disagree that it is unintended. An article about a minority viewpoint meets the definition of an article which compares views, since it will necessarily be contrasted with the majority view. The current wording therefore has the effect of saying that an article about a theory which is generally considered pseudoscience should devote most of its space specifically to the majority view, i.e. criticisms. But in my opinion, this would normally be unfeasible, lest the reader be left wondering what exactly it is which is being criticized. I would further point out that the example given, Earth, is not really an article which compares views, which is why I doubt that this effective meaning is intended.

In interest of full disclosure, it was this discussion which got me started here. PSWG1920 (talk) 21:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be trying to fix something that isn't broken. What you are describing would essentially make articles on fringe topics be POV-forks written from the views of believers in those topics. The point here is that fringe topics be explained, but in no way give the idea that thy are anything but fringe beliefs. I don't think the current wording of the policy is unclear. DreamGuy (talk) 22:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I would say that the current wording if taken literally makes an article on a fringe topic into a "Criticisms of..." type article. Of course the criticisms should be included and presented as the majority viewpoint (as is explained later in the section), but that does not mean that said criticisms should necessarily encompass the majority of the article's space. PSWG1920 (talk) 22:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

From my experience, there seem to be more problems with regards to removing or not including criticism in fringe articles than in the other way around. We could add something like "Articles on a fringe topic may go into more detail about the beliefs and views of the fringe topic's proponents, but care should still be taken to explain the mainstream view of the fringe topic, notable criticism, and not to make the fringe topic seem more prominent or accepted than it is." - but the suggestion cuts articles on fringe subjects free of undue weight completely. Alternatively, we could borrow a quick summary of WP:FRINGE, the relevant expansion of NPOV into handling of fringe subjects. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The later statement that "Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them—Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. But on such pages, though a view may be described, the article should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view." shows how undue weight applies to articles about fringe topics. My suggestion did not involve changing the meaning there at all. PSWG1920 (talk) 01:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no doubt it wasn't meant to, but it'd have probably been used that way. We'd probably be better off saying more here than simply giving an exception to a rule that should still (at least partially) hold. For instance, the reader of Holocaust denial should make it very clear what the widely-accepted facts being denied are, and perhaps some of the evidence for them, as a basic requirement of putting the minority view in context. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you look at the discussion I linked to above and see if you think that is a valid interpretation of UNDUE? PSWG1920 (talk) 03:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

What do you think of this (I'll get to the discussion in a bit)

An article should not generally give a minority viewpoint as much of or as detailed a description as a more popular or mainstream view on its subject, and will generally not even mention a viewpoint which is in the tiny-minority relative to the overall subject. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, a view of a distinct minority. However, for articles specifically related to the minority views, a bit more latitude is available to explain what the minority views are, but it should be clear that the minority view is a minority view, and the article should explain the mainstream view. In some cases, the evidence backing the mainstream view may be necessary to put the minority view in the overall context of mainstream thought on the issue. For instance, Holocaust denial explains what well-accepted facts on the Holocaust are generally denied by the holders of that fringe viewpoint, and briefly explains the types of evidence and the sheer amount of said evidence that backs the mainstream interpretation. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The key there is brief. But sometimes a brief statement of evidence against a fringe idea can come across as ridiculous, and actually make the discussion of the fringe idea look credible by comparison. In the example cited, Holocaust denial, there's a small paragraph in the middle that looks absurdly out of place: "According to researchers Michael Shermer and Alex Grobman, there is a "convergence of evidence" that proves that the Holocaust happened. This evidence includes...:." The article would actually be improved by removing this attribution of the mainstream view to two unknowns, I think; there's plenty of other information in the article that clarifies that the dominant view of history is not in agreement with the fringe idea; we don't need to review how historians work for that idea to be clear. Dicklyon (talk) 03:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Options

As I see it, there are basically two choices, which I have illustrated. The first would make explicit a logical implication of a literal reading of what is already stated in WP:UNDUE. The second would remove that implication. Once one or the other is settled on, it could then be worked on further if necessary. PSWG1920 (talk) 19:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I've tried what may be a better compromise: I moved the paragraph on articles on minority viewpoints upwards, so that it clarifies and expands on the point just raised. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I think that was a good move, but the basic problem still exists. Does the requirement that the majority viewpoint get more space apply to an article about a minority view or not? If it does then that should be made explicit; if it doesn't then the earlier statement should be qualified. PSWG1920 (talk) 21:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

These additions are fine but still do not solve the problem. The NPOV faq does not address this particular issue as far as I can tell, and whatever WP:FRINGE says, it's only a guideline, and therefore won't override the literal meaning of a policy. PSWG1920 (talk) 22:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd say not necessarily, so long as care is taken not to present disputed views of the minority as undisputed fact. But we need to be a bit careful how we clarify that. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Of my two alternatives, which one would you favor? PSWG1920 (talk) 22:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I find both problematic: Alternative 1 says criticism must dominate. While writing on some subjects is dominated by criticism, this is not always true. Our article on Flat Earth, for instance, quite rightly concentrates on the history and anthropology of the idea. Our article on HeadOn (an American homeopathic product), concentrates on a commercial which forms the product's only real claim to notability (evidently, anyway - I neither own a TV or live in America, but there is strong evidence for it having become a meme in America). Other subjects, such as Holocaust denial, have almost all the reliable sources devoted to criticising and explaining problems with that view. In general, I'd probably say that there should be sufficient criticism to make sure the reader is not misled, whatever that means in the particular article. It may be that a couple sentences are enough; it may be necessary to make it the majority of the article in order to have it appropriately balanced. To some extent, our best-quality sources can lead us, but this does mean judging quality of sources appropriately, and being suitably wary of "crank" journals (ones set up specifically to promote a viewpoint) when judging sources. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I like your recent changes, but the first paragraph of UNDUE if taken literally still implies that any article on a fringe topic should devote most of its space to criticisms. PSWG1920 (talk) 04:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Eh, the second paragraph clarifies, I think that too much clarification and we lose the underlying message. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

In my experience, as long as the first paragraph is written the way it is, some editors will attempt to apply its literal meaning to any fringe article they find, or at least tag it for a neutrality dispute on that basis. PSWG1920 (talk) 05:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I still like the wording "an article which is not particularly about a viewpoint" for the first paragraph. I think that is likely the intended distinction from the situation described in the next paragraph. PSWG1920 (talk) 06:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Bias

wikipedia will never be fully neutral. humans have a tendency to think of themselves as superior to other animals. i found many examples of bias based on species difference and scientific ignorence.--00:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)Guppy22 (talk)

Academic criticism

I have encountered, of late, a troubling trend of people dismissing peer-reviewed academic criticism as an insignificant and non-notable perspective, and removing accounts of academic criticism from articles. This, combined with the tendency we display by default to have articles based on what comes up on Google bothers me, in that it seems to me to cheapen our coverage. We're an encyclopedia, and part of that means respecting academic perspectives.

Accordingly, I would like to add a quick note somewhere in this policy, parallel to the declaration in WP:RS that "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources when available" that notes that academic and scholarly views are a particularly important viewpoint to make sure is represented when possible.

Thoughts? Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a good thought. It is common good practice for sources of greater reliability to be accorded greater weight. For example, a current university textbook from Oxford University Press detailing ancient Christian history is usually going to be accorded much greater weight than an article in USA Today about the social climate of the early Christian church. Leaving aside questions about the accuracy of news reporting on academic subjects, it is not that USA Today is unreliable, but rather that a work from one of the most reputable academic presses will be considered significantly more reliable and appropriate for the topic than a newspaper article. Vassyana (talk) 01:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I find myself in perfect agreement with the sentiments and concerns expressed above by Phil and Vassyana. Jayen 466 01:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I also agree. That said, when we encounter problems such as these, what's the best strategy for dealing with it? Post to the NPOV noticeboard? Something else? --Akhilleus (talk) 01:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any examples? This seems contrary to my experience. And isn't RS more the place for this? II | (t - c) 02:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

The characterization of fringe theories provides many examples. On Jesus myth hypothesis (which asserts that Jesus didn't exist), for instance, there was an editor who insists that quotes from books published by the Oxford University Press shouldn't be used, because the press (allegedly) has a conflict of interest when dealing with religious matters--it publishes bibles, you see? I'm not joking, the full post can be seen here. At the time there was a post to the reliable sources noticeboard, I think, but when this is a systematic problem on an article--that is, editors favor "popular" sources such as newspapers, magazines, mass-market publishers over academic journal articles and monographs, what's the appropriate way to deal with the issue? --Akhilleus (talk) 03:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the need for this addition as it is covered in WP:SOURCES. It is already stated that the policies should not be read in isolation, and past experience suggests that when 2 or more policies cover the same detail, over time there can be changes to one which brings the them into conflict. So instead of clarity and harmony we end up with confusion and disharmony. --PBS (talk) 11:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Quoting WP:RS#Scholarship sometimes helps. Or a post to WP:RS/N (with fingers crossed). Jayen 466 23:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Giving undue weight to primary sources not mentioned in any secondary sources

I would like us to think about whether it would make sense to add a sentence or two about undue use of primary sources in the WP:Undue section.

The principle I am trying to get at is this: If there is a substantial body of secondary sources available on a topic, then Wikipedians should feel free to use and cite any primary sources (e.g. affidavits, self-published websites, quotations from an author's literary works, etc.) that are cited in these secondary sources. However, we shouldn't really bypass the body of secondary sources to select and cite primary sources ourselves, unless we can demonstrate that this primary source (i.e. affidavit, self-published website, quotation from an author's literary works, etc.) has been used in this way in a secondary source (news source, scholarly publication, etc.).

In my experience, misuse of primary sources, in a way that is unsupported by the existing secondary literature, can cause Wikipedia articles to deviate significantly from the picture presented in the most reliable sources. That is a NPOV and due weight problem. (Such primary-source use has arguably been a major factor in causing the fourth Scientology-related arbcom case in as many years: [9] [10]).

There has been a recent discussion at NOR talk concerning this topic – http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research#Primary_sources:_The_novel_example – but it has been stated there that this might be more appropriately addressed here. Thoughts? Jayen 466 17:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I have a feeling that what you are really discussing are situations when an article quotes statements from a primary source out of context (which is a form of Original Research). Correct me if I misunderstand. Blueboar (talk) 18:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, sometimes this concerns quotes out of context. This is certainly the case in one current discussion I'm having (third opinions welcome). Another, slightly different case I recall from German Wikipedia was an editor quoting 300 words or so of an obscure speech that made Rudolf Steiner (who was anything but) sound racist. (German WP subsequently introduced a policy against Wikipedians using primary sources directly whenever there is a substantial body of secondary literature available. It's been like that over there for the past 2 or 3 years, and it's been very successful and uncontentious.)

The other example I gave over at WP:NOR was the Bible – I could quote 10 bible passages damning homosexuals and fornicators to hell, or stoning, and make it sound like an entirely bloodthirsty document. But those quotes are not the main passages discussed in secondary sources, and if we allow this sort of thing what we arrive at is a caricature. With controversial groups and figures that have attracted online communities dedicated to disparaging them, as in the example of Scientology, the risk of our ending up with a caricature in Wikipedia is of course much greater, as Wikipedians working in such areas typically seem to be more familiar with the online material than with the scholarly literature. Jayen 466 19:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Is the concern here about using material from primary sources out of context (as determined by fair reading of the whole source and perhaps any secondary sources relevant to it), or about using a primary source which itself has not been synthesized from, or referenced in, (or refuted by,) one or more secondary sources? Or both? The first is a case of accurate (or not) representation of the source and is a editorial issue, but one which can evolve into a disruptive editing issue. The second is an issue about reliability of sources, in particular notability, keeping in mind that peer review can act in some sense as a proxy for notability in some cases. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It is a number of those things. I'll try and give some examples.

An affidavit filed with a court and available on a private website alleges that notable living person X, who's been the subject of hundreds of news articles, physically abuses his employees, hitting them in the face, kicking them in the groin, etc. No newspaper or other secondary source has reported on this affidavit and the claims made in it. My conclusion: The affidavit is not a good source for the person's BLP.
Attack sites on the Internet feature isolated quote X which sounds suggestive of Y. There is no evidence of this quote being used by reliable sources (news media or scholarly publications) to ascribe Y to the author of X, even though there is a plethora of reliable published sources. My conclusion: If no RS can be found, don't use the quote. Focus on what RS focus on.
A number of court documents are available on private websites. The matters described in these court documents have not been covered by any published source, even though there are published sources discussing the entities concerned. My conclusion: If no RS can be found that deals with these matters, don't use the court documents as sources in WP.
Publication A by notable author B contains passage C that a Wikipedian finds weird, outrageous, immoral, whatever. Author B has been discussed in hundreds of newspaper articles and dozens of scholarly publications. None of them mention passage C as representative or otherwise remarkable. My conclusion: Don't reproduce passage C in the WP article on author B if no secondary source can be found that mentions it. Focus on what reliable secondary sources focus on.

Those are some real-life examples. Jayen 466 20:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. These are all interesting cases and they have different issues. There are some important things to flesh out here, I would think. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 20:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest that while they are all different, what they have in common is that they seek to use a primary source without the back-up of a body of secondary sources according that primary source the same significance. That could be one obvious way of addressing it. Can you think of others? Jayen 466 23:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The "illustration" analogy

I tend to see (direct use) of primary sources as a kind of illustration. This fits well with images (or other media sources) that are used as illustrations and over at WP:NOR have their separate section to explain how these sources are to be approached NOR-wise (WP:NOR#Original images), a description that without much ado could be fitted for other primary sources like direct quotes.

I adopted and developed this idea in essays and proposals like Wikipedia:Use of primary sources in Wikipedia, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a tertiary source and Wikipedia:Sources - SWOT analysis.

My idea is that ideally an article would have 30 to 50 percent of its surface devoted to "illustrations". For some topics illustrations would be mostly images (e.g. The Gates); for others mainly quotes (e.g. Tacitus). Going over 50% of the surface of an article being illustration would call for a move of most of it to commons (images) or wikiquote (quotes), or even wikisource for some. Less than approx. 20% would not make it to "Good Article" for example, and for a "Featured Article" approx. 30% would be a minimum. Well, this would be my answer to Jayen's question/suggestion above. In fact this idea includes Jayen's suggestion derived from German Wikipedia, without therefore being anti-primary source (...or anti-illustration). --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Scientific point of view

Why is the issue of scientific point of view not discussed in this article? --Wet dog fur (talk) 15:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The notion that there is such a thing as "Scientific point of view", which is distinct from neutral point of view and must be balanced (presumably by other points of view that reject science) does not enjoy consensus on Wikipedia. The question is under arbitration at the moment, in the case Fringe science.

A proposed principle in that case reads:

Science is not a point of view

3) While scientists have points of view, scientific inquiry itself is a methodology, and cannot hold one. That coverage of a topic is primarily scientific does not prevent it from being (nor obviates the need to be) neutral.

Hope that helps. --TS 16:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

And since NPOV depends on things like verification with reliable sources, not giving undue weight to fringe theories, the SPOV (if there was one, but like TS says, it really doesn't exist) equals the NPOV. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems that Scientific consensus is a point of view; also see Wikipedia:Scientific consensus. It is what is usually taught in science classes at universities. This issue should be discussed in the NPOV article. --Wet dog fur (talk) 17:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Scientific consensus is an essay started by Ed Poor. As I remarked above, this matter is under active arbitration. --TS 18:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

And Ed's POV is well-known on this project. Scientific consensus misrepresents how science develops theories and research. We don't sit around and take a vote. BTW, where is under active arbitration? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

For the ongoing arbitration case, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science. --TS 19:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

After the arbitration case, it may be beneficial to either discuss the issue of scientific consensus in the NPOV article or to at least mention why it is not being discussed, that is so people do not wonder why it is not included. --Wet dog fur (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

A vital component: good research

Right after the Undue section comes a short "A vital component: good research" section. I propose that we specifically mention google books and google scholar. Many, many books these days have the majority of their pages visible in google books, including scholarly books that may be unavailable in smaller libraries, and/or expensive to buy. Any objections? Jayen 466 19:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I propose we don't. Such detail would maybe be suitable for WP:RS or WP:NPOV tutorial, but not for an already overburdened policy page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me a substantial percentage of editors haven't picked up on what's available in google books yet. If we can tell them to walk to their library, as we currently do, I think we can also make the more salient and practical suggestion of having a look at what's in google books. Jayen 466 19:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, guideline or tutorial matter, not policy matter. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed tweak of WP:UNDUE

The first three paragraphs are unchanged ^{except for the suggested change by olive shown in bold italic} and are only given for context. Most of the rest is the same, too, but with a slightly more logical sequence, and some new additions in the last paragraph.

Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, a view of a distinct minority.
In articles where the subject matter of the article is specifically on an accepted minority viewpoint, the views which reflect the subject matter of the article should receive the most attention and space; however, on such pages, though, the minority view may (and usually should) be described, possibly at length, the article should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view (and that it is, in fact the minority view). The majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from the widely-accepted one, and controversies regarding parts of the minority view should clearly be identified and explained. How much detail is required depends on the subject: For instance, historical views such as flat earth, with few or no modern proponents, may be able to briefly state the modern position then discuss the history of the idea in great detail, neutrally presenting the history of a now-discredited belief. Other minority views may require much more extensive description of the majority view in order not to mislead the reader. Wikipedia:Fringe theories and the NPOV F.A.Q. provide additional advice on these points.
Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as a majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies not only to article text, but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, and all other material as well.
From Jimbo Wales, paraphrased from this post from September 2003 on the WikiEN-l mailing list:
If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;

If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;

If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.
If you are able to prove something that few or none currently believe, Wikipedia is not the place to première such a proof. Once a proof has been presented and discussed elsewhere, however, it may be referenced. See: Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability.
Keep in mind that in determining proper weight we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors. This principle does not just apply to viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to selected primary sources and other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should strive to treat each aspect with the weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. If there is a substantial body of reliable secondary sources on a subject, for example a body of scholarly literature, then the weighting of information in the Wikipedia article should reflect the weight that information is given in the most reliable sources. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.

As you'll see, our current text on the policy page meanders from "viewpoints" to "other things than viewpoints" and then back to "viewpoints" in a way that is somewhat unsatisfactory. The above rewrite consolidates all the viewpoint-related material, and puts the "other issues" in the last paragraph. This paragraph now also contains a reference to the importance of secondary sources in establishing proper weight.

As an afterthought, it seems to me that this section gives "undue weight" to the topic of fringe theories. These are already covered in a number of other places. I think I would prefer a little more emphasis on the importance of consulting secondary sources in establishing due weight generally in structuring an article, and selecting the information to be presented.

Any objections, thoughts, feedback on the above? Jayen 466 23:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no objection to this appearing in policy, though the last paragraph could probably stand some very minor tweaking - it seems a little choppy. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

My suggested clarification refers to just the idea that the material in an article should be about the subject matter of that article first, then, majority view points on the topic. I also have concerns with the word popular... Its a bit vague and may invite all kinds of problems. Is there a better word?(olive (talk) 03:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC))

Your last paragraph seems good to me.(olive (talk) 03:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC))

I agree with the overall presentation, and the additions, although do think some subtle copyediting might be helpful, even in some of the paragraphs you just copied over. However, while not a named involved party, I have been actively participating in discussion on an arbcom case in which this policy is very relevant, so I feel somewhat uncomfortable making specific suggestions to wording at this time. Kudos for the efforts regardless. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

There are (at least) two current arbcom cases where inappropriate primary-source use has been brought up as an issue; I am a party in one, and have made two or three brief comments in the other. Jayen 466 18:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

W.r.t. "If you are able to prove something that few or none currently believe, Wikipedia is not the place to première such a proof. Once a proof has been presented and discussed elsewhere, however, it may be referenced. See: Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability"::
...... First off, if this basic statement about WP:UNDUE is going to be a specific statement of policy, I would want to see a note about additional restrictions that apply. Not only must such newly published research be published outside of WP and referenced, but also:
...... (1) Such statements in a WP article must be referenced to a reliable source as indicated in WP:V#Reliable_sources, and be subject to further analysis if necessary under the guideline WP:RS.
...... (2) Statements in a WP article that are derived from a primary source (someone else's published original research or original analysis of something) must follow the rule about appropriate use of primary sources given in WP:PSTS.
...... (3) Statements in a WP article should follow the guideline WP:FRINGE to whatever extent it might apply. Newly published "proofs" tend, without benefit of secondary-source analysis by the relevant community of scientific, scholarly or professional analysts and researchers, to fall squarely in WP:FRINGE unless and until they receive wide scrutiny by the relevant community of experts.
...... (4) The use of the word "proof" is essentially obsolete in almost every empirical discipline today, being largely limited to specific situations in mathematics, formal logic, as a term of art in law, and perhaps a few other very limited situations. IMO, it would better serve the intent of the policy statement if it were replaced by "If you are able to show", or "If you are able to provide evidence in support of an idea [that few or none currently believe]", or something to that general effect.
... Kenosis (talk) 17:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps something like the following might be suitable? "If you are able to provide evidence in support of something that few or none currently believe, Wikipedia is not the place to première such evidence. Once an idea has been presented and discussed elsewhere, however, it may be used, subject also to the limitations presecribed in Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability" ... Kenosis (talk) 17:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC) ... Come to think of it, I'm going to be just a bit bold and go ahead and insert this sentence in place of the existing one-- and see where it goes. ... Kenosis (talk) 17:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Your points about the word "prove" are valid. However, after reading your changes, I realized that "prove" actually served a particular purpose there better than your rewording. That was as a message to editors working in some real life specific area who think they have "proven" something, either some mathematical proof, or demonstration of some medical breakthrough, or even having some hard evidence for a particular unsubstantiated news story or biographical tidbit. I have seen examples of all three in the not distant past, and while this is more a reliable source issue, having this spelled out unambiguously on this particular page makes life easier. Again, I will not be changing anything here, but want to put my thoughts on the table for all to see. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure, this makes sense too. Except that "prove" or "proof" is a subset of "provide evidence in support of [a given proposition]" ... Kenosis (talk) 19:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the last paragraph presented by Jayen above is generally a very sensible way of expressing how WP:UNDUE works. In particular, the emphasis about weight among the reliable sources helps prevent the occasional editor from pushing popular cruft as deserving "majority viewpoint" treatment in situations where reliable sources disagree with popular impressions. ... Kenosis (talk) 17:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Including the change Kenosis has already implemented, and a slight tweak in the last para, we'd have:

Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, a view of a distinct minority.

In articles specifically on the minority viewpoint, the views can receive more attention and space; however, on such pages, though the minority view may (and usually should) be described, possibly at length, the article should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view (and that it is, in fact the minority view). The majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from the widely-accepted one, and controversies regarding parts of the minority view should clearly be identified and explained. How much detail is required depends on the subject: For instance, articles on historical views such as flat earth, with few or no modern proponents, may be able to briefly state the modern position, then discuss the history of the idea in great detail, neutrally presenting the history of a now-discredited belief. Other minority views may require much more extensive description of the majority view in order not to mislead the reader. Wikipedia:Fringe theories and the NPOV F.A.Q. provide additional advice on these points.

Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as a majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies not only to article text, but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, and all other material as well.

From Jimbo Wales, paraphrased from this post from September 2003 on the WikiEN-l mailing list:

If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

If you are able to provide evidence in support of something that few or none currently believe, Wikipedia is not the place to première such evidence. Once an idea or an assertion of evidence has been presented and discussed elsewhere, however, it may be used, subject also to the other limitations prescribed in Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability. See also the guideline WP:FRINGE.

Keep in mind that in determining proper weight we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors. This principle does not just apply to viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to selected primary sources and other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should strive to treat each aspect with the weight appropriate to its significance to the subject, as established by the most reliable sources. For example, if there is a substantial body of scholarly literature on a subject, then the weighting of information in the Wikipedia article should reflect the weight that information is given in the literature. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.

Could we drop that in?

And Olive, can we leave the change you propose in the second para for a subsequent discussion? I'd like to take it one bit at a time. Cheers, Jayen 466 18:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

That looks good. Let's put that in and work from there. One thing we might want to consider (once it is in) is whether we need to specifically say something like "...and if a minority view has been the subject of criticism, that criticism must also be given appropriate weight and space. If the criticism is more prominent or prevalent than the view itself, that should be clear." - not particularly controversial, I suspect, but I suspect it might help in some of the more battlefield articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoemaker's Holiday (talk • contribs)

(ec)(ec)Nah, don't like the easter egg (most reliable sources). For the other changes: what is in the policy is far from ideal, but this is no improvement but a step in the wrong direction. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've dropped it in. Jayen 466 19:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, will revert. Don't agree, and your impatience is far from helping your cause at this point. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Fine, I thought we had a workable consensus there. Do share your concerns. Cheers, Jayen 466 19:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem in waiting with my addition. I just realized that because I am also somewhat involved (made some comments) in the Arb Fringe Science case, I probably shouldn't be rewriting anything here so best to wait anyway.(olive (talk) 19:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC))

Please share your thoughts on #The "illustration" analogy. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I think 30 to 50% is too much; and I see the same potential concerns as to the selection of the illustrative material. But I agree, for example, that it is nice to have some notable samples of, say, Shakespeare's writing in his article. I always appreciate such samples when I see them, and have missed them in some articles. Jayen 466 20:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

True, the selection of primary source material is what concerns us in connection to the WP:NPOV policy. Then don't write policy text (proposals) that give the impression that primary source material is problematic per se, it isn't, at least not in such a general way.

On the other hand I'm still convinced that the solution of that selection issue has to pass through a refocussing of our appreciation of WP:PSTS issues, along the lines I sketched in essays and proposals like Wikipedia:Use of primary sources in Wikipedia, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a tertiary source and Wikipedia:Sources - SWOT analysis. We need more of that awareness, and the solution of selection/weight problems will become a lot more easy, I'd even predict trivial in the end.

"Don't use primary sources but as illustration of what can be found elsewhere in the article" is such an easy principle, which, combined with WP:V, precludes that all *actual* content of the articles (apart from those illustrations - it is however impossible to illustrate what otherwise wouldn't be there), is based on secondary or tertiary sources.

Re. percentages: allowing for navigational templates, succession boxes and the like (which I'd limit to 10% anyhow), and considering that I'd have 50% as an absolute minimum for "body of text based on secondary and tertiary sources", 40% would probably be more suitable as a maximum for "illustrations". But ideally, as in "FA" grade, I'm still inclined to advise about 30% (*surface* of article, not bytes!), certainly no less than 25%. Compare current FA recommendation "It has images..." which is indeterminate about amount, and doesn't even suggest to find quotes as illustrations for those topics that have few or no image connections, e.g. what is this purported image of Cicero doing in the Tacitus article? - lack of inspiration on how to provide illustrations imho, not near to what should be presented as a FA. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

"I'm not a social worker. I don't do it for this reason. I do it for Christ. I do it for the church"

Mother Teresa^[3]

"don't write policy text (proposals) that give the impression that primary source material is problematic per se, it isn't": That was not the intent of the proposal. I can see that, as presently worded, it could be misread that way, especially by someone who has argued for more intense use of "primary source illustrations". :) But the proposal was only meant to address giving "Undue weight" to selected primary sources in an article: that means that the editor selects and prominently features primary source content in the text or elsewhere in a way that makes the article move away from the image presented in the most reliable sources, focusing unduly on points of contention etc. It was not meant to imply that "any weight given to primary sources is undue".

I gave four examples of what I would consider undue use of primary sources in the text of an article above. As I said, these are representative of real-life examples whose inclusion editors defended, arguing they were sourced and verifiable. Taking the Mother Teresa example, you might get an editor creating a quote box like the one shown on the right here in her article. While that quote is strictly speaking taken from a secondary source, rather than a primary source like a TV interview, there is an obvious potential for abuse in giving undue weight to verifiable and sourced primary source statements in order "to tell the (widely unknown) truth about a person". Jayen 466 12:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that your proposed policy text does not address the problem of selection of primary sources in order to avoid undue weight: the changes you propose miss that objective by miles, so why would I support any of this? --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Then please propose a more appropriate wording. Jayen 466 15:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Another concern, don't push this too hard during Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology, I mean: those parts that seek to indemnify you there. We've got time (how long has the current wording been there?)... better look for a good an suitable wording, and take a few weeks for it, than rush in the heat of a RfAr. Others have fared less well, attempting to rewrite policy in their favour during that particular RfAr. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not arguing for these changes in order to be "indemnified", but because I think – and have said before on this page – that the inappropriate use of primary sources has been a contributory factor to the article quality problems of which the current arbcom cases are symptomatic. These cases will carry on for several months yet, and in any event, I don't think arbcom have ever rewritten policy pages, nor will they apply any new policy retroactively in assessing editors' behaviour. On the other hand, the sooner the underlying situation is addressed, the better, so please state your concerns with what was proposed and met at least with a reasonable amount of approval here. Jayen 466 20:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the paragraph will help deal with problems of undue weight given to specific claims. And a lot of this goes on now. Too many editors become all worked up over some salacious or quirky detail about a subject (many of them "hot topics" on youtube , blogs, tabloids etc which are ignored or receiving just passing notice in reliable sources), and the obscure gets far more play in the article than is warranted. Mother Teresa's article comes to mind. Who are most of her critics identified there, and why are they given so much attention in her article? Christopher Hitchens's complaints against her have received some measure of notability in third-party sources, but it looks to me like the others are very much on the outer fringes in terms of the great body of secondary sources available on her. It's not Britannia level criticism, it's undue weight on a fringe claim. Professor marginalia (talk) 22:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Apart from some reordering,

Changed:
- For instance, historical views such as flat earth, with few or no modern proponents, may be able to briefly state the modern position then discuss the history of the idea in great detail
to:
- For instance, articles on historical views such as flat earth, with few or no modern proponents, may be able to briefly state the modern position, then discuss the history of the idea in great detail
OK, minor: a bit more wordy, but OK.
Changed:
- If you are able to prove something that few or none currently believe, Wikipedia is not the place to première such a proof. Once a proof has been presented and discussed elsewhere, however, it may be referenced. See: Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability.
to:
- If you are able to provide evidence in support of something that few or none currently believe, Wikipedia is not the place to première such evidence. Once an idea or an assertion of evidence has been presented and discussed elsewhere, however, it may be used, subject also to the other limitations prescribed in Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability. See also the guideline WP:FRINGE.
Here the wordyness becomes a burden imho, although I'm not opposing to change "proof" to "evidence" in this context (the first is more direct and clear, which is an advantage, but the second has a broader application which is maybe better). Re. link to WP:FRINGE, there's already a link to WP:FRINGE above in that section, and in the "Other resources" list: don't overdo imho.
Changed:
- Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.
to:
- This principle does not just apply to viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to selected primary sources and other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should strive to treat each aspect with the weight appropriate to its significance to the subject, as established by the most reliable sources. For example, if there is a substantial body of scholarly literature on a subject, then the weighting of information in the Wikipedia article should reflect the weight that information is given in the literature. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.
which is changing innocent and tedious gibberish (which should just be removed) to something not much more comprehensible but at least wrong: "...giving undue weight to selected primary sources..." should only be in the WP:NPOV policy insofar as these selected primary sources express a viewpoint that unbalances the article, otherwise it's merely a MoS issue, depending on good taste and aesthetic considerations, not eligible for inclusion in the WP:NPOV policy page. Thus "Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to selected primary sources..." is gibberish and wrong, and I don't see how it would defeat the problems P. marginalia goes lyric about.

I already objected to the easter egg "most reliable sources" above, comment completely ignored by Jayen (Jayen keeps repeating "please state your objections", well I did, didn't I: then do something with it, other than just ignoring).

"For example, if there is a substantial body of scholarly literature on a subject, then the weighting of information in the Wikipedia article should reflect the weight that information is given in the literature." - gibberish and ineffective regarding the stated problems, and imho has too much of Jayen's penchant for scholarly literature (which is guideline matter, included to a certain degree in WP:RS, not policy matter).

--Francis Schonken (talk) 07:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

As for wikilinking the phrase "the most reliable sources" to the WP:RS#Scholarship guideline, we could link to WP:V#Sources instead. I guess that is better. Please note though that the key statements in WP:RS#Scholarship, in particular the idea that scholarly sources are usually the "most reliable" in areas where they are available, are taken from WP:V#Sources policy. You can't really claim it's just "guideline matter". Jayen 466 11:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Jayen, your bias is getting tiring, there's no such inequality in WP:V, "...the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers." - bolding what you consistently try to minimize, and The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context, which goes hand in hand with "the idea that scholarly sources are usually the "most reliable" in areas where they are available": your policy writing is biased by omission of the context. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Francis, I conceded the point already: I said let's link "most reliable sources" to WP:V#Sources instead. Beyond that, the proposal gives scholarly literature as an example of reliable sources, saying that if there is a substantial body of such literature, our article should follow that. This raises the question what to do in cases where the scholarly literature does not have the same preoccupations as the press. In medical articles, for example, it could be argued that matters that regularly make headlines should be covered prominently, even if they are less prominent in the scholarly literature. (I'd rather not have that debate here and now.) But to the extent that this proposal was meant to address cases like the 4 real-life examples I gave above, note that I would have been happy with any newspapers mentioning these primary sources. I am simply concerned if there is nothing, neither scholarly nor media sources, referring to some primary source(s), and editors want to write whole articles based on these primary sources. So, taking that on board, here is a revised version:

Keep in mind that in determining proper weight we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors. This principle does not just apply to viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to selected primary sources and other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should strive to treat each aspect with the weight appropriate to its significance to the subject, as established by the most reliable sources. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.

This wikilinks "most reliable sources" to WP:V Policy, and removes the possibly contentious sentence about any present body of scholarly literature having to be used to establish due weight, to the exclusion of other RS (which is a discussion that might be interesting to have some time). Any better? Jayen 466 12:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Btw, Francis, WP:V#Sources also says, "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science." Those were the words I was using; to me they imply some degree of policy privileging scholarly literature over newspapers, a degree that will be more or less pronounced depending on context, and is expanded upon in WP:RS#Scholarship and WP:RS#News organizations. Jayen 466 13:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, those were the words, *exactly* why I said you deformed the message, by omitting the rest of the paragraph that balances out an overemphasis on scholarly sources. How many repeats do we need?

As you picked out only two remarks out of my five or six objections, I don't see how you can imagine that I'd agree with your above proposal. Do I have to repeat each one of my thoughts twice or trice or even more before you'd be managed to notice them? This exercise is going nowhere if you're only prepared to pay attention to what you point out yourself, not even bothering to find alternate arguments to articulate objections or suggestions. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Fine, let's go through it.

Point (1) in your comments above expressed agreement, and I have re-implemented the change.

Point (2) concerns changes made by Kenosis; I'll leave Kenosis to argue the case. But I agree with you that the result was wordy, notably the phrase "subject also to the other limitations prescribed in", and I also noted that we seemed to have too many references to WP:FRINGE now. I liked the rationale behind this change better than the actual execution.

Point (3) in your comments describes present policy as "innocent and tedious gibberish". Obiously, I don't agree. If we deleted that whole paragraph, then WP:Undue would only be about fringe/minority/majority viewpoints and nothing else. I don't think the community would support that, nor does it reflect how WP:Undue is generally used and interpreted. Undue weight can also be given to facts, rather than viewpoints. Facts do not express a viewpoint, but their inclusion or exclusion may do. Here we should be guided by published viewpoints in the most reliable sources (quality newspapers, scholars): what they consider important and have commented upon, we should include. I don't see how the MoS comes into it if someone wants to include detailed information about the content of an affidavit, produced in the course of a divorce case and copied on a website, where the spouse alleges mental cruelty, violence, sexual perversion, drug abuse and so forth, if these specific claims have not been picked up and repeated by any reliable source out there. I do not see what is "gibberish" and "wrong" about that. As Kenosis said, this type of thing, wishing to dish out the dirt on someone, is popular Internet cruft, but it has no place in an encyclopedia, regardless of how popular or unpopular the subject is. The principle that the most reliable sources should establish due weight for which facts to include, and how prominently to include them, and in what amount of detail, is important; the failure to respect it leads to innumerable conflicts.

Lastly – I will not let this go – you said above, "there's no such inequality in WP:V", as though WP:V said that scholarly sources and newspapers were in all cases, or "on average", equal. There clearly is such an inequality, because WP:V specifically says, in addition to listing scholary and news sources among the most reliable generally, that "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available", and it does not include an equivalent statement about news sources.

Even so, the proposal with which we are here concerned would require special weight given to primary sources to be justified by any type of reliable secondary source, without privileging scholarly sources over news sources. It simply says, if you intend to give great weight to a primary source in an article, you should be able to show that the most reliable secondary sources – newspapers, magazines, or scholars – also give such weight to the primary-source information you wish to include. Please see that this is not about adding additional privileges of scholarship over news sources, but about editors needing secondary sources to justify the prominent inclusion of contentious primary source material. Jayen 466 15:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Paraphrasing: I liked the rationale behind these changes better than the actual execution.

And I note that it appears impossible for you to not deform what other have to say. E.g. in your comments describes present policy as "innocent and tedious gibberish" - more heat than actually rendering what I said. Not useful if you want to take this discussion anywhere. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, please propose a better wording. At any rate it is clear from your comments above that you don't think the present wording of that policy paragraph is successful either. So let's try and get it into shape. Jayen 466 15:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi again Francis. As a matter of principle, I'm not opposed to your effort to hold the line on unnecessary policy bloat. Somewhat consistently with what you indicated above, I think it is reasonable to proceed with a degree of restraint if any change(s) and/or expansions(s) of the language of the policy are to withstand the test of time, though IMO there's no need whatsoever to wait until ongoing arbitration cases are brought to a conclusion. The proposals here are nothing controversial; they're merely clarifications of already existing policy. I also think the title of this section is somewhat misleading; it's not really a "rewrite" because what's proposed are some clarifications.
W.r.t. Point #2 above:
...... If the words "subject also to the other limitations prescribed in WP:V and WP:NOR" seem excessively verbose, then remove them. I think, though, that they more accurately express why the words "see also WP:V and WP:NOR" are already there in the first place.
...... If the words "See also WP:FRINGE" are redundant because they've been mentioned earlier, then remove them. But I think they're most relevant to that passage and deserve repeating in the additional three-word mention. After all, WP:FRINGE more or less defines the low-end limit of WP:WEIGHT-- a region, if you will, where light-WEIGHT falls off into WEIGHT-less. .
...... As to the change from the words "If you are able to prove something" to the words "If you are able to provide evidence in support of something", I think it's important to seek accuracy here, though IMO not quite worth fighting over. When speaking in non-technical language, essentially everybody who speaks English knows what "provide evidence in support" means, just as well as they know what "prove" means. The words "provide evidence in support" have the additional benefit of including the entire range of things-in-the-world that fall short of concrete, bulletproof proof; while the word "prove", to whatever extent the word might reasonably apply to a given situation (e.g. a mathematical proof), is included in the class of things-in-the-world covered by the words "provide evidence in support".
...... I already noted Baccyak4H's points posted at 18:55, 9 January, above in this thread, and responded. In addition to what I said about it in response to Baccyak4H, I should add that the word "prove" is basically a sloppy, inaccurate way of saying "provide compelling evidence in support" (prove to whose satisfaction? to what standard of proof? etc.). So I don't see what the big deal is about the change from "prove" to "provide evidence in support of". Maybe I missed something there. ... Kenosis (talk) 17:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Note that for BLPs, the principle that primary sources must only be used if a secondary source has already cited them has long been established in policy (see last para of WP:WELLKNOWN). We are not breaking new ground here. Jayen 466 12:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Irrespective of whether you're breaking new ground: if you want to expand the scope of that limited BLP rule to a general policy that applies whenever there's a primary source in play, then you'd need to take that to WP:PSTS, not WP:NPOV. NOTE (not to give you false hope): was there, and has been rejected in the past: so no we won't put this in WP:NPOV as a general principle: it needs to be in its natural place (WP:PSTS) first if you want to make that a policy-level rule. And once it is there we probably won't be copying that here: I oppose to copying the same content in several policies, it makes them bloated and overcomplicated. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

As I said above, people at NOR thought it would be more appropriate to address it here. The principle is very simple: Articles should be based on secondary sources. You cannot establish what a neutral presentation is without referring to secondary sources: because neutrality is defined as presenting viewpoints in due proportion to their prominence among the most reliable published sources. Jayen 466 21:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I think they just refused it at NOR, and probably (maybe even unwittingly) gave you some false hope to go look for luck elsewhere. No, if it's not going to be in in WP:PSTS, it's certainly not going to be in WP:NPOV, NOR IS THERE A REASON TO HAVE IT IN THE NPOV POLICY PAGE as you erroneously propose: opposing views in contradictory primary sources can be treated with the techniques described in WP:NPOV as satisfactory as opposing views in secondary sources (or views opposing between primary and secondary sources or whatever), there's no NPOV "must be" reason to start talking about primary and secondary sources in this policy. If people at NOR don't want it, I really see no reason why it should be wanted in WP:NPOV. And I'm getting tired of your circular reasonings: there's not enough support to have it at policy level, that should be about clear by now. Consensus can change, but it hasn't changed since I suggested it for WP:PSTS, over a year ago. And then you don't want it either the way I suggested it (...which is the only way I think it useful, via the "illustration" analogy), and I oppose your way of wording it (in reality that wording doesn't even address the problems it is supposed to alleviate). So, no consensus on a format to present it either, all individuals with separate approaches, and your efforts to come closer to the approach I proposed are nil too. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the illustration analogy, or your idea of using primary sources as article illustrations, has anything to do with NPOV; isn't it more a style issue? If it ever were to be taken up, the problem of selecting primary sources to illustrate the article with would be just the same: such selections shouldn't reflect Wikipedians' personal preferences, but be guided by secondary sources. That's all we are talking about.

I don't believe anyone with any standing in this project would advocate that Wikipedians should create articles based on primary sources they have selected themselves. As far as your proposal of 30 to 50% surface area devoted to primary sources is concerned, I would tend to oppose it for that reason: I believe it would encourage abuse, with all sorts of primary source material selected "for illustration" to give prominence to points that do not enjoy such prominence in secondary sources – in other words, to give them undue weight. Sorry. Cheers, Jayen 466 00:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

QED - you're not interested in bringing viewpoints nearer to each other, hence your excessive use of straw man argumentation, deformation of argumentation by others and the like.

Maybe continue the ArbCom case you're involved in first. After it reaches some conclusions this discussion might be easier. Again, there's no hurry. E.g. that Wikipedians should not create articles based on primary sources they have selected themselves is already enclosed in WP:N - prior attempts to get that to policy level were unsuccessful, and the project hasn't been thriving less for it.

What you propose is hardly new, and has been rejected before. There's no indication that consensus has changed over it. For those aspects of your proposals that are somewhat new, your argumentation style will probably not lead to success (and will hopefully be modified in the future, for instance as a consequence of the Scientology ArbCom case). --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, you didn't summarise your "illustration" idea very well. Having now read Wikipedia:Use of primary sources in Wikipedia, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a tertiary source and Wikipedia:Sources - SWOT analysis – which I failed to do at the time – I note that the texts actually addressed some of the concerns I expressed above, which you might as well have pointed out. :-) Allowing for the fact that the context in Wikipedia:Use of primary sources in Wikipedia makes it clear that "illustration = use of primary sources", passages like

"General principle: no "illustration" without treating the illustrated topic on the basis of secondary and/or tertiary sources. In other words, (links to) illustrations that are not covered by attributable descriptions have no place in Wikipedia."

and Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_a_tertiary_source#Wikipedia_is_an_encyclopedia are quite similar in nature to what I proposed.

As for support/consensus or the lack of it, if you care to look through the above discussion, you will notice that you were actually the only one objecting, as against a half dozen voices in agreement. ;-)

So, why not do something constructive, and try to get the essence of Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_a_tertiary_source#Wikipedia_is_an_encyclopedia, as it relates to WP:UNDUE, into this policy? Jayen 466 19:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Re. "I note that the texts actually addressed some of the concerns I expressed above, which you might as well have pointed out" - Pardon? I did point that out above, I hope you don't mind me taking offence from such gratuitous remark. So you admit tot laziness and try to turn that into a reproach... towards others. Your contribution above has too much of an atmosphere of arrogance to my taste.

Re. "why not [...] try to get the essence of Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_a_tertiary_source#Wikipedia_is_an_encyclopedia, as it relates to WP:UNDUE, into this policy" - well, what arrogance, again. Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_a_tertiary_source#Wikipedia_is_an_encyclopedia is a summary ("essence" as you say it), summarizing it any more would lead to reproaches in the sense of of leaving something essential out and so forth. And more essentially, it's in its place at WP:PSTS as expressly stated, multiple times. It was rejected there (oh, I probably didn't repeat that enough times for you to read it? Or are you going to reproach me you didn't read it because all the repetitions made my text too long? etc, the endless concatenation of whatever mindless reproaches), and, again, I won't support to pass it here, when it has been expressly rejected at policy level elsewhere: if it goes anywhere at policy level it would naturally go at WP:PSTS.

Re. "you were actually the only one objecting, as against a half dozen voices in agreement", I objected to taking an anti-primary source stance, or addressing problems by policy changes that would do anything but address the stated problems etc. So you think you can corner me on that? Really?

Please let me know when you're done insulting, then maybe we can get started, and that would be at the talk page of WP:PSTS as far as I'm concerned in that case. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, there's plenty of people discussing over there already, feel free to join in. And please let me assure you that it has not been my intention to insult you. I have no reason to, having enjoyed what I thought were quite cordial exchanges with you, over the months spent on the Rawat pages and elsewhere. Cheers, Jayen 466 20:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to add the word "some" to make a sentence a little less generalized

Hi. At Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Characterizing_opinions_of_people.27s_work in the second sentence we have this: "Wikipedia articles about art, artists, and other creative topics (e.g. musicians, actors, books, etc.) have tended toward the effusive." What, all of them? Blimey! I would like, please, to add the word Some at the beginning of the sentence to give this: "Some Wikipedia articles about art, artists, and other creative topics (e.g. musicians, actors, books, etc.) have tended toward the effusive." I think this reads much better and more fairly - the original is itself perhaps a tiny touch POV, seeming to condemn whole swathes of editors as sensitive types so busy gibbering over the Appassionata that we lose our grip entirely. "Some" at least offers an exit route to a few of us arty, flamboyant, shrieking, long-haired bohemian editors who might try very hard to retain some semblance of control while tempted beyond all reason by the swell on the belly of a finely-honed Strad ... I mean come on ... what do you think? Thanks and best wishes DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 09:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

This has not exactly overturned a hornet's nest of heated debate. Is it too bold that I have after 4 days now added the word? Cheers, DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 08:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

IMO, your added qualification was quite reasonable. The language of the whole section tends to read a bit like part of an advice column rather than like editorial policy statement, overly generalizing how articles about creative topics are presently written and proceeding to give advice about how to do it more in accordance with NPOV. The qualification "Some [articles about art, artists, and other creative topics] ... " is, IMO, an improvement. ... Kenosis (talk) 19:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much - I am pleased you liked the proposal. Best wishes, DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 22:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Definition vs POV

As I read it, the notion of POV contained within this policy (per the "Reasoning behind neutrality" section) is tied to the existence of competing opinions on a subject in reliable sources. For example, our article on Cat needs to note that the domestic cat is considered both a popular pet and an environmental menace (and it does).

But is this policy intended to apply on a "meta" level as well and require that the scope of an article must cover all possible definitions of a term? For example, a broader definition of "cat" includes not only the domestic cats that our article covers, but a wide variety of wild cats including extinct varieties like the Sabre-tooth tiger. As I see it, this is a pragmatic issue of scoping an article, and is not a POV issue. What do others think?

~~(This issue has come up at glider, and I wanted to check my understanding here before wading in any deeper! :) ) --Rlandmann (talk) 20:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)~~

Taking it to the noticeboard --Rlandmann (talk) 19:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Exceptions to NPOV policy

Am I correct in stating that Wikipedia's NPOV policy does not apply in practise to certain points of view, for example, some points of view regarding sexism, racism, racialism, homophobia, and anti-semitism ~~feminism~~. Also, certain other points of view considered politically incorrect, those that might hurt the image Wikipedia hopes to project of itself to the public, or views that might hurt fund raising efforts. These points of view may be covered by the NPOV policy but not actually supported in practise. It seems that Wikipedia administrators apply their own individual policies regarding these views and it is an accepted practice. --Slim five (talk) 00:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

You're confused by the word "neutral" and don't understand the policy. If you did, you wouldn't be asking the above question. Jkelly (talk) 00:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The neutral point of view is the point of view that is supported by mainstream, reliable sources. The neutral point of view on a subject for which no single mainstream point of view has overwhelming support is the one that objectively reports the significant viewpoints. A lot of people new to Wikipedia think the neutral point of view is to list what every side says about something, but radical viewpoints are not significant. Also, the neutral point of view states that radical, minority viewpoints should be described as the mainstream views them, and not how they see themselves. See homophobia for instance. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Nice bad example. considering the majority of the world is not homosexual, and the majority of those (global perspective, remember) see homosexuality as an abomination of some sort or another (not this author), then the majority, mainstream view would be that homophobia is the rational and acceptable concern about "fags lookin' at yer ass" or "god condemning the perverts". Because that's what most of the morons out there think. Mainstream and majority. in other words, your reference to homophobia illustrated the original petitioner's point perfectly. Of course, i suspect that wasn't your goal, but still96.225.212.89 (talk) 06:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Well the policy states that articles must be written to represent "fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources". However, when it comes to unpopular or politically incorrect views such as the examples given above, that doesn't seem to happen on Wikipedia; the cornerstone NPOV policy is selectively enforced. Sexism and racism for example are significant points of view regardless of how reprehensible they are considered to be by educated Americans. --Slim five (talk) 02:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, I am not referring to the articles on sexism or racism for example. I am referring to other articles in which a certain viewpoint may be considered sexist or racist, these viewpoints are often presented as being insignificant or removed. --Slim five (talk) 03:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Please see also the section on WP:NPOV#Undue_weight. Taken as a whole the NPOV policy accounts for your concerns. When a topic focuses specifically on a minority or obsolete viewpoint, the article may focus on that viewpoint so long as it does not become a POV fork trying to displace the mainstream view. An example is Flat Earth, which takes a neutral point of view and does not attempt to displace the mainstream view of the shape of the Earth as discussed in the article on Earth or in the article on the Shape of the Earth. ... Kenosis (talk) 03:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I know what the NPOV policy says, what I am saying is that the policy is not always being adhered to. Do you disagree with this? --Slim five (talk) 03:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course it's "not always adhered to", as you say. It's the policy nonetheless. You gave at the outset five specific examples, sexism, racism, racialism, homophobia, and anti-semitism. AFAICT, these articles adhere fairly well to the NPOV policy. As for considerations that might cause WP users to slant articles in some way that facilitates attracting funding, such as you seemed to be indicating in your first comments, I would respond that the purpose of encyclopedia articles is not to make moral judgments or slant the facts in a way that WP users think will facilitate funding, but instead to describe topics from the NPOV to the best extent WP users are able. ... Kenosis (talk) 03:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, but I want to reiterate that I am not referring to the articles on sexism, racism, racialism, homophobia, and anti-semitism. I am referring to other articles that could involve POVs, statements, or information that could be described as sexist, racist, homophobic, or anti-semetic. For instance, someone deletes a statement from an article because it is sexist/racist/homophobic/anti-semetic regardless of its significance to the article. --Slim five (talk) 04:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

RE "want to reiterate that I am not referring to the articles on sexism, racism, racialism, homophobia, and anti-semitism." : It seemed to me you were referring to these articles specifically. What you said in your statement above was: "Am I correct in stating that Wikipedia's NPOV policy does not apply in practise to certain points of view, for example, some points of view regarding sexism, racism, racialism, homophobia, and anti-semitism." The answer to that question is "no, it does indeed apply to all articles".
..... As to your later statement that you were referring to "other articles that could involve POVs, statements, or information that could be described as sexist, racist, homophobic, or anti-semetic": I think I can reasonably direct you to WP:CENSOR. This policy presently states, in part: "Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness, but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content." So in general, the answer to that question would depend on the context, on the statement's relevance to the topic, on whether the statement is derived from a reliable source, whether the statement is expressing a notable viewpoint, etc. ... Kenosis (talk) 04:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I see that what I wrote initially was confusing, perhaps because the person sitting at the computer next to me kept singing when I was typing and I was in a hurry. I apologize for this. I will try to restate it again more clearly. It seems that Wikipedia's NPOV policy is not always practiced with regards to POVs, statements, or information that can be considered sexist, racist, homophobic, or anti-semetic for example. (I am not referring specifically to the articles on sexism, racism, anti-semitism, etc.; that's not where the problem is.) For instance, someone deletes a statement from an article because it is sexist/racist/homophobic/anti-semetic regardless of its significance to the article. Other editors are less likely to object to this when it involves those types of subjects. Also, administrators are less likely to properly enforce the NPOV policy when dealing with those types of subjects, perhaps because they are concerned with Wikipedia's image to the public, it offends them personally, it is politically incorrect, or whatever. What I am saying is that it doesn't seem that Wikipedia's NPOV policy is always adhered to. --Slim five (talk) 05:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you give an example? Someguy1221 (talk) 05:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I really agree that if this is to be discussed then we need some concrete examples. At the moment it has, with all due respect and in my personal opinion only, the feeling of perhaps a bit of an essay or fishing expedition or something. Of course there will always, but always, be content disputes and some of these may be motivated by political feelings. So, sure, the policy is not always adhered to, like proper citations are not always given, punctuation is not always used correctly, Middlesb/o/rough is not always spelt correctly, dates are not always linked and unlinked correctly. It's an imperfect world. But I don't see what the editor is getting at here - what is it that you want an admission of, exactly? I willingly confess that I am imperfect and I happily contend that this encyclopaedia is imperfect too, but most reasonable editors are trying to make it better and are actively pursuing the policy of NPOV with a view to improving the articles in here. Why a content dispute over a matter of say homophobia or race is any different from one over say ship notability or footballers is something I don't yet see, because it would run on in the same way - just people trying to improve articles basically - and it perhaps needs explaining better, for my benefit at least. DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 08:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I concur with these two replies. An example would be greatly clarifying. One point: there is a context in which the OP is correct, that is when such a statement reflects on a living person. In such a case, the statement, if unsourced, should be removed immediately (check the link to the BLP policy), and that stands as well for when these is sourcing but of poor quality. There is a gray area here for what a poor source is, but that is what talk pages are for. If the sourcing is good, then the inclusion of the content is a matter of editorial discretion, but one fully informed by NPOV. (The BLP issue is not a result of trying to put on a good appearance or whatever, but rather to avoid real world harm.)

Again, an example will make our lives easier. But perhaps you were simply witnessing a BLP issue handled correctly? Baccyak4H (Yak!) 15:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Another exception to this policy I've seen is that Wikipedia, whether as a written rule or not, takes argument by authority very seriously, and uses these statements as fact. In reality, if you ask the majority of people what Pluto is, they will say that it's a planet. only a very few will say that it's a dwarf planet, and many of those will say it in a rather skeptical fashion.

When it comes to Pluto. Wikipedia throughly supports the IAU reclassification of Pluto as a dwarf planet regardless of many otherwise thoroughly respectable and esteemed astronomers who dissent. Pluto is to be described as a dwarf planet, and any mention of controversy must be relegated to a smallish section near the bottom so that no one notices it. That's just the way it is. This is just one example of this, of course, but it's a very strong example.96.225.212.89 (talk) 06:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia works through verifiability of its sources. The majority of people are not verifiable nor reliable and their opinions on the definition of a planet or Pluto's status is not relevant when writing a reference work. It's not an "exception" to properly contextualize controversy and debate. That's what WP:WEIGHT and WP:VALID is all about. This is important because giving undue attention and prominence to points that are more-or-less minority opinions is the opposite of a "neutral treatment" of a subject. NPOV goes hand-in-hand with WP:MAINSTREAM. It has to, or we'd wouldn't have an encyclopedia. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Uh, actually, there are as many sentences in the lead of the article describing the "planet POV" (both historical and modern) as there are calling it a dwarf planet. And the remainder of the controversy is shoved off to the bottom of the article because the article is about the planet and not whether it fits the definition of a planet. By the way, that "smallish section" is 23% of the article (might actually be excessive) and links to several related articles on the naming controversy. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

royal rumble

congragulation for breaking the record for the shortest time in a royalrumble from caleb —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.226.150.44 (talk) 20:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Minor edit: does it need consensus?

In the section Neutrality_and_verifiability, the second comma in this sentence should be a colon or semicolon: In these types of disputes, it is important to note that verifiability lives alongside neutrality, it does not override it. It seems to me as though this kind of minor edit shouldn't need consensus, but practically given the nature of the internet it probably does. Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 13:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

No, it really doesn't need consensus. Go ahead and make grammatical fixes to your heart's content =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Explanation of TS's revert of an edit by Anonymous44

In this edit by User:Anonymous44, the editor changes the policy as follows.

Before:

The neutral point of view is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject: it neither endorses nor discourages viewpoints. As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy on the grounds that it is "POV". Article content should clearly describe, represent, and characterize disputes within topics, but without endorsement of any particular point of view. Articles should provide background on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular; detailed articles might also contain evaluations of each viewpoint, but must studiously refrain from taking sides.

After:

The neutral point of view is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject: it neither endorses nor discourages viewpoints. As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy on the grounds that it is "POV". Article content should clearly describe, represent, and characterize disputes within topics, but without endorsement of any particular point of view. Articles should provide background on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular; detailed articles might also report comments on, endorsements of or objections to each view, but must studiously refrain from taking sides.

I've reverted for discussion. Does this strict characterization help or hinder? --TS 21:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

My first thought is that I can describe flat earth hypothesis as one having little support, and perhaps cite an opinion poll. I have evaluated the hypotheseis within the meaning of NPOV, but I haven't "taken sides". --TS 21:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

IMO, what you are describing is already expressed by the words "which view is more popular", earlier in the sentence. In contrast, the "evaluation of each viewpoint" bit is likely to mean "discussing and determining the value/merits of each hypothesis", i.e. providing arguments for and against it, and, probably, concluding which one is best. That's because "evaluate" means something like "determine and describe the value (quality, nature) of". Now, the current formulation being "articles may contain evaluations", it remains unclear whose evaluations these are. Therefore, it can be interpreted as endorsing original research by the editors themselves: "A says the earth is round, B says the earth is flat, and I (the editor) say that facts X, Y and Z support the Flat Earth Theory, and that consequently the value/accuracy of FET is superior". This happens much too often already. Even if this is just one possible interpretation of the sentence (frankly, I think it is the only natural one), it is still extremely harmful to have any kind of ambiguous wording on this page, of all places. BTW, the original formulation until some time in 2008 was "mutual evaluations", which at least excluded this interpretation. --Anonymous44 (talk) 20:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Controversial

What sort of general tests do people use to determine if application of "controversial" or "controversy" to an article is a neutral expression which helps the reader understand the subject, or an editor projecting a negative point of view? Is it merely sufficient to show that if "non-controversial" cannot be proven, the default of "controversial" applies? patsw (talk) 02:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

you can't ever prove a negative, not even that something is non-controversial. to my mind, if the editor is using the term 'controversial' to reflect that there is an obvious ongoing dispute in the sources about the topic, that's perfectly acceptable. if the editor is using the term 'controversial' to apply to only one side of a debate, however, more care is called for. 'controversial', used in the latter way, is often a form of poisoning the well, and really shouldn't be used unless it's clear that reliable sources find that term appropriate. --Ludwigs2 22:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Proof exists only in mathematics, logic, and advertising. ;) If the controversy has layers of complexity then it's best to describe those layers. Vaccination could be very controversial to a school board member facing two angry camps of parents at a PTA meeting, but uncontroversial at a conference of pathologists. Or vaccination may be controversial among the pathologists for entirely different reasons, in terms of the best ways to prepare against potential epidemics. A simple 'vaccination is controversial' could mislead the reader if the specialists are debating funding priorities and at-risk populations, rather than whether vaccination itself is a good idea. Durova^Charge! 02:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Neutral?

I am interested, especially in light of the article on abortion, why the neutral point of view policy does not extend to the unborn child. --T.M.M. Dowd (talk) 20:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

AFAICS that area is covered neutrally, and is covered in as much depth it needs to be covered in that particular article, in the second paragraph of the Abortion#Abortion debate section and in the Abortion#Fetal pain debate subsection. Summary-style wikilinks are provided there to other articles which cover those topics in greater depth. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 23:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

New template related to POV proposed

Please see here for my proposal of a new template, that would be put on articles that need to have their sources globalized - i.e. on articles that rely on a very similar set of sources likely representing one and the same POV.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 13:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Undue weight and description of minority views

I have had a couple of experiences where editors have used WP:WEIGHT as an excuse to distort or minimize the views of AIDS dissidents, even in articles about those views. My understanding of WP:WEIGHT is that it applies to subjects (like scientific claims) about which there are multiple points of view, and asks us to favor the most prominent viewpoint. But sometimes the subject is a person's opinion about a fact, rather than the fact itself, for instance as often occurs in a biography. As I understand it, in this case, WP:WEIGHT is not directly applicable, except as it pertains to mainstream and minority views on the opinion itself, and perhaps as it asks us to mention the existence of more mainstream opinions. In other words, if the opinion is relevant to the article, then it should be described in enough detail to convey its content and basic reasoning, and not trivialized because of any "fringe" nature.

But some people are using WP:WEIGHT to do just this. In this edit, MastCell removes the name and qualifications of Gordon Stewart and reduces his account of the Durban conference, and his reactions to the Durban Declaration, to a simple endorsement of free speech. In this edit, Keepcalmandcarryon replaces an accurate, referenced description of Henry Bauer's views with something misleading, inaccurate, and vaguely racist-sounding. In both instances, WP:WEIGHT was given as justification. My question is, are these kinds of edits justified under WP:WEIGHT? I can see why an article on the Solar system would not dwell on pre-Copernican views, or why the article on AIDS would not dwell on the views of the dissidents; what I don't really understand is how it is that Galileo affair can describe pre-Copernican views at length, while AIDS dissident views are censored even in articles about those views. A5 (talk) 20:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

yeah, well, you've run into one of wikipedia's bugaboos. AIDS denialism is one of the topics that is guaranteed to trigger an instant, aggressive, kneejerk opposition. I think MastCell's edit was a bit heavy (but then so was yours, in that place - you might try editing in a compromise version of maybe half the length); keepcalm's edit wasn't as iffy (try adding some of what you wrote as a footnote, rather than in main text). MastCell is very reasonable, actually, and if you discuss the matter with him calmly and succinctly you'll make some progress. However, if you're going to pursue this you should recognize that aids denialism is scientifically speculative and politically sensitive, which is a baaaaad combination on wikipedia, editorially speaking. --Ludwigs2 23:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

That's funny, I see this in exactly the opposite way. IMO, MastCell's edit was quite legitimate, because that article is about the Durban declaration and not about Gordon Stewart's fringe opinions about it, so these should be given approximately as much detail as MastCell gave them and not as much as A5 gave them (MastCell's edit keeps the really relevant content, afaics; 9/10 of the rest is rhetoric). In contrast, Keepcalmandcarryon's edit can't be justified by Undue Weight, because that article is about Henry H. Bauer, and Henry H. Bauer's opinions ought to be explained there in detail.--Anonymous44 (talk) 01:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

lol - well, I'll bow to your judgement. this really isn't a topic I know much about: I made my assessment because MastCell was actually changing the tone of the passage while Keepcalmandcarryon just seemed to be simplifying. Your analysis is better, and more to the point.

--Ludwigs2 22:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your replies, Anonymous44 and Ludwigs2. Note that other declarations, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, feature criticism. Why not the Durban declaration? More to the point, is citing WP:WEIGHT valid for removing such criticism? The article is not about AIDS, after all, it is about the history of science. The present article reads like one side of a telephone conversation: the declaration condemns allegations which are nowhere summarized; and Wain-Hobson and Weiss's reply to Stewart is given without the context of Stewart's response to the Declaration. Without the material I had inserted, the article gives the impression that the dissidents have unquestioned answers; but Stewart alleges they have unanswered questions. Pulling the phlogiston card, as Wain-Hobson and Weiss do, seems less suave when they could have just enumerated the questions of Mbeki and their scientific answers. But readers of Wikipedia do not get to entertain this judgment, whether it is valid or invalid, because half of the historic exchange has been hidden from them.

I didn't try making my Durban Declaration edit shorter because MastCell's application of WP:WEIGHT seemed unamenable to compromise. I think that WP:WEIGHT is being consistently misused by people who, for whatever reason, want to make AIDS dissidents sound like fools. Perhaps they are only innocently defending, through censorship, a Truth which they see as precariously fragile against dissent.

But it would seem advisable to try to make the editing process more agenda-proof by deciding exactly how WP:WEIGHT should apply to descriptions of scientific theories found in biographies and history of science articles - and, in particular, if it can be used as an excuse to remove information which is otherwise relevant to the subject. Calling "AIDS denialism" one of "Wikipedia's bugaboos" sounds sadly fatalistic to me. A5 (talk) 00:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT is meant not only to prevent Wikipedia becoming yet another internet forum for fringe groups, but also to ensure coverage proportional to that in reliable sources. The Durban Declaration was published in a leading medical/scientific journal. In a short period of time, thousands of scientists at an AIDS conference, all of them with advanced degrees and most with specific HIV/AIDS expertise, had signed an affirmation of the scientific community's long-held consensus that HIV causes AIDS. The declaration was covered in many prominent news sources internationally. Criticism of the declaration was notably voiced by South Africa's Mbeki, whose administration's actions had indeed prompted concerned scientists to draft the document. This criticism is reported in detail by the Wikipedia article. Several AIDS denialists also wrote a letter to the editor of Nature. This criticism is probably not notable, given the type of publication (a letter); that most or all of the writers are notable only as AIDS denialists, if at all; and that the arguments presented by the authors are rejected by mainstream scientists with credentials in the field. The distribution of reliable sources indicates that a sentence about Mbeki's response would suffice. If the AIDS denialists' letter to the editor is mentioned at all, it shouldn't get its own paragraph, which is what A5 seems to want. Nor should the article on the Durban Declaration mention by name an unknown author of a critical letter to the editor when not a single one of the declaration's signers are mentioned. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 00:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

No wonder my ears were burning. AIDS denialism is the textbook case of WP:FRINGE: a discredited viewpoint propounded by a tiny group of committed believers. It is a notable fringe view, given that its irresponsible promotion and acceptance have led to hundreds of thousands of preventable deaths in South Africa (PMID 18931626). But it is a fringe view; I'm not aware of any other respectable reference work which covers the topic. Most ignore it as complete below-the-radar lunacy. It makes Wikipedia look ridiculous to treat a widely rejected tiny-fringe view as if it were part of some nonexistent "debate"; this is exactly the sort of thing that WP:WEIGHT was intended to forestall.

Since AIDS denialism has been scientifically discredited, it is promoted largely via the Internet (Smith & Novella, 2007). This is a case in point. If AIDS denialism seems to be one of Wikipedia's "bugaboos", that may be because groups of advocates occasionally coordinate assaults on Wikipedia to attempt to slant our coverage toward their fringe view, and Wikipedia doesn't always handle such organized agenda-pushing as well as it should.

The Durban declaration generated numerous published responses in Nature. Curiously, A5 chose to excerpt only one of these at length - the one authored by an AIDS denialist. This is poor editing at best, and actively dishonest at worst; it gives the reader an incorrect impression of the actual debate, and makes the rhetoric about "censorship" seem rather hypocritical. My subsequent edit was an attempt to partially correct this oversight, by providing a somewhat fuller sample of the responses to the declaration. MastCell ^Talk 04:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

don't make my 'bugaboo' comment wrong, MC. I'm not supporting AIDS denialism (my own impression of it is that it's a valid scientific perspective that's been effectively refuted by the weight of evidence, but is still waved around for political reasons - too bad, that). and I wouldn't go so far as to say that there's any coordinated efforts to do anything on either side - or at least, the amount of coordination on both sides of the fight is probably pretty equal. my point was to you A5: the hope for a properly neutral article is unlikely to be fulfilled given the current wikipedia environment, and the bias is going to weigh against the fringe side, because the skeptics (as a rule) have a better understanding of the WP system. the more you push the point, the more they'll use the rules against you, and the more ground you'll lose. It would be nice to think that wikipedia worked correctly on contentious issues like this, but it doesn't. You had best accommodate yourself to the realities of the situation if you want to make any progress at all. --Ludwigs2 06:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Or maybe the science types have RS and VERIFY on their side, and they need to use those particular guidelines to keep the fringe theorists out of science articles. AIDS denialism is NOT a valid scientific perspective. Never has been. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

OM, I don't think you really appreciate the difference between a valid scientific perspective that's been refuted and an un- or non-scientific perspective. At least, I've tried to explain the difference before without much luck. I'll give it one more shot, without expectations, but in the full knowledge that I've proved my point whatever the outcome. so...

any theory where the researchers involved use something resembling valid scientific thought (defined in terms of falsifiable hypotheses, proper forms of inference, and reasonable practices of experimentation that produce tangible results) is scientific
- if it can't be reproduced, or flaws are discovered in the logic or practices, then the theory is refuted, but that doesn't make it any less scientific
- if other researchers (or worse, non-researchers) revive the theory for some kind of manipulative (eg, political or economic) purpose, that doesn't make the original theory any less scientific or any less refuted; it's just sad.
any theory which is merely a statement of belief, without reasonable practices of experimentation or tangible results, is non-scientific or unscientific.
- doesn't matter if the theory is couched in scientific-like language; scientists look at practices and results, not at the language used.

AIDS denialism, so far as I can tell, was a valid theory proposed by researchers who were trying to be scientific - there just isn't really a shred of evidence that supports it. the fact that some of them continue to push the idea despite that failure means that those researchers have stepped over the line (or come close to stepping over the line - I'm not sure how far they've gone with it) into unscientific practices. it doesn't mean that the original thought was unscientific, or invalid, or bad.

so ends the lesson; do with it what you will. --Ludwigs2 07:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

How many times have you been blocked for personal attacks? You have no clue what I know or don't, and I have a perfectly fine idea what has been refuted, and what is pseudoscience. Your insults are just going to get you blocked again. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

(un-dent) If your car tyre gets shredded on the road, you don't pick up the pieces of rubber because they're "still part of your car" - you change to the spare and drive on. When your scientific research produces data which disprove your hypothesis, the scientific thing to do - i.e. the course of action which is in keeping with the process of science - is either drop the hypothesis altogether or refine it in some way. Hanging onto ideas which have been proven incorrect is inherently unscientific. You simply can't, with a straight face, stand up and say "this idea is still scientific". You have to leave it behind and move on.

In the interest of full disclosure, my opinions on AIDS denialism and pseudoscience can be inferred from my user page. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with Ludwigs2 in general, but AIDS denialism is not at all "a valid theory proposed by researchers who were trying to be scientific". It's more like "an unsupported recycling by a scientific outsider of once-valid theories proposed, tested and soundly rejected in the early 1980s by experts in the field". By the time the AIDS denialists got to these theories in the late 1980s, there was little or no evidence remaining for them, there was plenty against, and another theory had accumulated enough evidence to amass scientific consensus. Since then, all of the evidence continues to favour causation by HIV and to reject a hypothesis like recreational drugs. And that's to mention only the most respectable AIDS denialist hypothesis of all.

About the assertion that there are no "coordinated efforts to do anything on either side - or at least, the amount of coordination on both sides of the fight is probably pretty equal", let's be clear about the sides involved: this is not a fight about ideas, it's a fight about whether to implement Wikipedia policies and guidelines. As for co-ordination, there have been numerous clear-cut cases of off-Wiki recruiting by AIDS denialists. In at least one case, a user password was made public for disruptive purposes. I would encourage Ludwigs2 to remind me (because I honestly don't know) of when editors such as MastCell, OM, SheffieldSteel (or any of the other editors who regularly oppose fringe POV promotion) have engaged in behaviour like that. For my part, I don't know the off-Wiki identity of any of these people, and although I often bump into them while editing, I've never to my knowledge co-ordinated with them in a way that violates a Wikipedia guideline. If I have, I would like to know so that I can avoid such behaviour in future. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 18:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

SheffieldSteel, Keepcalmandcarryon: you know, I agree with both of you about 93% (eh, let's just say 'a lot', and avoid the fake numbers

). I think it's absurd to keep beating a dead horse, particularly when the horse died from lack of evidence. however, I draw the line at saying it was never a horse in the first place. rejecting theories is a core element of the proper working of science; to my mind the most effective approach to this problem is to say 'yes, this was a valid scientific theory, which was rejected for these reasons; its continued use is not scientifically valid' (something I see done by science editors on a lot of more conventional articles, incidentally, but the approach seems not to be recognized much on fringe articles).

with respect to the issue of coordination: I've seen enough fringe-opposing editors show up out of the blue to cast votes on things, revert problematic edits when a different editor is close to violating 3rr, add commentary to talk pages when they've never edited the page before, and etc. to be aware that there is background communication going on. it might be something as innocent as 'common interests', might be a more-or-less unobjectionable requests for assistance, might be something more nefarious (and there are probably elements of any of those among different cliques and groups of anti-fringe editors). the fact that you phrase it as "never ... co-ordinated ... in a way that violates a Wikipedia guideline" tells me that you (and assumedly the other anti-fringe editors) are well aware of the limits imposed by WP policy, which leads me back to my opinion above that the anti-fringe editors are currently able to work the system better than fringe editors. I don't (personally) buy into the bit about it being ' a fight about whether to implement Wikipedia policies and guidelines'; if one believes that policies and guidelines are built on consensus, then the notion that one has to fight to maintain them is (to use a gentle term) paradoxical. fighting to maintain consensus is like having a war to maintain peace - might make sense in the short term, but after a while you end up destroying the very thing you're trying to maintain.

no offense, I hope: I'm the world's most pragmatic idealist (or maybe that's the world's most idealistic pragmatist), and so I can't help pointing out both the way things actually are and the way they ought to be. sometimes I give myself headaches.

--Ludwigs2 23:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:NPOV is not a matter of consensus. It's a fundamental Foundation-level principle, and is non-negotiable. Sadly, given the prominence of Wikipedia and its attractiveness as a venue to raise the profile of ideas rejected from choosier venues, it is often necessary to "fight" to defend it. The system itself is designed to present rejected minoritarian views as rejected minoritarian views, not as equally plausible alternatives to reality. That's essential to the creation of a serious, respectable reference work. You're not seeing one side "working the system" - you're seeing the system working. MastCell ^Talk 04:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Ludwigs thinks that consensus rules. NPOV rules, and it's simple as that. He has been beating this horse for months, despite several increasing levels of blocks for not accepting these fine guidelines. BTW, retired? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

To go with the horse analogy, AIDS denialists found a horse that expired a few years previously, claimed it was still alive, and have been dragging the stinking carcass down the road for twenty years now, telling everyone they meet how healthy the damn thing is and how many pounds of oats it ate this morning. Ludwigs2 calls the last bits of bones a "valid" horse because the horse was once alive. That's Ludwig's opinion. Fine. More disturbing are Ludwigs2's continuing accusations of illicit (or borderline) behaviour by me and other editors who try place NPOV ahead of pseudoscience. I watch many pages related to AIDS denialism and other forms of quackery. When I see edits, I check them out. Other editors do the same thing. MastCell once informed me that I was being discussed on a notice board...after the person who brought the complaint didn't see fit to let me know about. Is that gaming the system? A conspiracy? Or independent editors who have overlapping interests, respect each other, and follow the rules? Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 16:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Remember that in general a lot more reading than writing goes on. Case in point: Look at the editors who've commented here. What are the chances of such a similar subset of registered Wikipedia users editing both AIDS denialism and Talk:NPOV? Must be some sort of collusion going on, right? Alternatively of course, it could just be thatwithout anyone writing anything, people with similar views tend to read similar pages and to respond similarly. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 16:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, never underestimate the power of The Watchlist. case in point: you won't see my name that much on these pages, but I am quite up to speed with the issues involved Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm really not sure why you guys has difficulty with this consensus issue; this is pretty straight forward. allow me to quote wp:POLICY at some length: "Policies and guidelines express standards that have community consensus. Both need to be approached with common sense: adhere to the spirit rather than the letter of the rules, and be prepared to ignore the rules on the rare occasions when they conflict with the goal of improving the encyclopedia. Those who edit in good faith, are civil, seek consensus, and work towards the goal of creating a great encyclopedia should find a welcoming environment." logically, then:

Policies express standards that have community consensus
NPOV is a policy
NPOV express standards that have community consensus

further, since most of the people in this discussion have engaged in efforts to change bits and pieces of NPOV at various points (on occasion trying to circumvent consensus to do so), the claim that NPOV is a 'non-negotiable principle' is disingenuous at best. please don't feed me lines that are that obviously inconsistent.

with respect to the other stuff, you should read what I actually wrote more carefully. if you feel insulted by it, that's something for you to reflect on, not something inherent to what I said. sorry. --Ludwigs2 22:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Ludwigs2, you've placed me (and the others) in the same category with a group of fringe POV editors, including single-purpose accounts who share passwords for the stated purpose of disrupting Wikipedia. That's not something for me to reflect on, it's an outright accusation of poor behaviour, backed up with no evidence. I'm not insulted, as it turns out, just confused about why you've assumed bad faith of me and other editors. It now appears it has something to do with a personal history I don't know about, and since we've veered far off the topic of NPOV (not that this was the proper forum for A5's concerns in the first place), I'm signing off on this one. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 23:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

again, no offense, KC. I've never had the pleasure of editing with you before this, so I wouldn't presume to make comments about what you do. I do reserve the right to have a (well justified) cynicism about the motives and practices of a handful of other editors, but that's based on personal experience that (you're correct) doesn't need to be brought into this discussion. in other words, please don't leave on my account; I happen to find your input useful and relevant.

--Ludwigs2 00:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I have certainly altered NPOV in the past. One of the changes was an attempt to remove the cruft from the UNDUE section, which didn't get support, while another was a rewrite of the first sentence, which did. For convenience, here it is: Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. Ludwigs2, I suggest you follow the link to meta:Foundation issues in order to gain some understanding of the cases when consensus alone cannot determine policy. Also I'd recommend per WP:NPA that you avoid commenting on what you believe the motivations of other editors to be. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

thanks for your suggestions. I am fully aware of the issues involved.

--Ludwigs2 22:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Ludwigs2, for your warnings, advice, and observations; and especially for the risks and criticism you endured in making them. I was myself surprised to be warned on my talk page regarding WP:FORUM by the same user who directed me here - was I supposed to make my case without citing examples? Further, I seem to be the only editor in this conversation who has not expressed a personal view on AIDS, and in light of that it is especially ironic that I am also the only one who has been warned not to use this page as a "forum". I am still not sure which of my statements broke the WP:FORUM rule.

MastCell appears to argue that Durban declaration is a scientific paper on AIDS, which seems at odds with his view that Michael Specter's emotional state and the South African phrase for "trash can" are both relevant to it (and also at odds with the fact that it has no authors, 5000 signatories, and calls for "solidarity"). Perhaps a separate article could be created for the paper's scientific claims, which occupy less than one sentence in the present article; or they could be moved to a sub-section in which different rules are applicable. As it currently stands, the article seems to be mostly about the history of science.

So far as I can tell, nobody has answered my question concerning the proper interpretation of the WP:WEIGHT rule. My understanding is that it can always be used to add information to articles, to contextualise "fringe" views by contrasting them with their mainstream counterparts. I maintain that this positive application of WP:WEIGHT is always powerful enough to confront the danger, which has been voiced by some editors, that Wikipedia might mislead readers into confusing "pseudoscience" for science.

Also, we can always delete information which is irrelevant to an article. And WP:WEIGHT can be applied negatively, to delete information about controversial views from articles discussing the subject matter of those views, e.g. to delete pseudoscience from science articles. But can WP:WEIGHT be used to delete "fringe" views from contexts where they are otherwise relevant, for instance from articles about the history of science, or biographies - which happen to discuss the views themselves? As far as I understand it, the policy's answer is "no". We cannot try to explain theories, even ones which have been discredited, without reference to their own internal consistency. To make the situation clearer for editors, I propose adding a table like the following to Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ or Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Examples. The "OK to remove?" column stands for "Is it OK to use WP:WEIGHT to remove information about the given subject from the given article?". For the Durban declaration, I have provided two rows, to address MC's concern, which would apply separately to the separate articles or sections covering each aspect of the declaration. Of course, there will always be other ways for editors to remove relevant information from articles, but it would at least be a step in the right direction to clarify the proper use of WP:WEIGHT.

Subject	Article	OK to remove?
pre-Copernican astronomy	Solar System	yes
pre-Copernican astronomy	Galileo affair	no
pre-Copernican astronomy	Ptolemy	no
Phlogiston theory	Combustion	yes
Phlogiston theory	Phlogiston	no
Phlogiston theory	Johann Joachim Becher	no
Biblical creation	Big Bang	yes
Biblical creation	1860 Oxford evolution debate	no
Biblical creation	Christianity	no
Moon landing hoax	Apollo program	yes
Moon landing hoax	Apollo Moon Landing hoax conspiracy theories	no
Moon landing hoax	Bill Kaysing	no
AIDS dissent	AIDS	yes
AIDS dissent	Durban declaration (scientific paper)	yes
AIDS dissent	Durban declaration (declaration)	no
AIDS dissent	AIDS denialism	no
AIDS dissent	Henry H. Bauer	no

Sorry for writing so much. Comments are welcome. Please let me know (with support from the policy text) if I have misinterpreted WP:WEIGHT. A5 (talk) 00:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

A5 might want to consult WP:TLDR, so I'll summarise for others: it seems A5 is proposing that WP:WEIGHT should not allow removal of pseudoscientific material, only addition of mainstream material to balance it. Thus, the flat earthers should have their say at Earth and anywhere else they like, so long as additional material is put into the article for balance.

That's not my take on WEIGHT at all. The extent to which fringe material is removed or, instead, balancing material is added depends on, well, how fringe fringe is in the particular case. Flat earth is an example given by WEIGHT as so "fringe" it does not merit inclusion. AIDS denialism, to use the examples from WEIGHT, is in the flat earth, not the psychoanalysis category. Like flat earth, AIDS denialism is not (or no longer, as Ludwigs2 has stated) a valid scientific position, it is supported today only by a small number of extremists and altmed profiteers, and would probably not be notable enough for Wikipedia if it were not for its embrace by Thabo Mbeki and the many deaths it has caused, most notably in South Africa. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that WP:WEIGHT is doing what it is supposed to be doing, and that there is no problem with it (at least as far as this thread goes). Verbal chat 20:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Verbal: I wouldn't say that the undue weight clause is bad at all; but it does (in its current incarnation) lend itself to some staggering abuses. the exclusion of tiny minority opinions, in particular, is a problem. As far as I can see, the original purpose of that clause was to ensure that articles did not get side-tracked into tangential discussions of hordes of inconsequential (valid or not) viewpoints - it was meant to keep articles succinct, on point, and informative. it is still used that way, of course, but has been co-opted by people who simply want to exclude viewpoints they disapprove of (which I can't believe was ever its intent).

Keepcalm: I've said this before (so pardon me if I'm repeating myself) but there is no 1:1 relationship between 'weight' and 'fringe'. Flat earth may be a fringe theory, but the weight it gets depends on its importance to the article in question. flat earth theory gets has no weight in an article on plate tectonics, but may in fact be the dominant theory in an article about flat earth theory. Likewise, Aids Denialism (which I doubt is the term those people use for themselves - what do they call their theory?). would have no weight in an article about the microbiology of HIV (well, possibly in the history section, if there is one), but it might carry some small weight in the Durban Declaration, just as a notable counter-voice.

I'll add, just as an FYI, that the reason I keep pushing this point is mainly scientific/pedagogical. I get too many students (college students, mind you) who shy away from science/math/computers/... because (in their minds) science is something where you're either right or wrong, and they're convinced they're going to be wrong, so they don't want to try. but you know, science works by people doing things wrong. if you don't respect the earnestly screwed-up theories and theorists, you end up reinforcing the idea that wrong=bad, and you drive a few more people into scientific illiteracy. not anyone's intended result, I think. --Ludwigs2 21:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The AIDS denialism article explains the denialist beliefs and the mainstream consensus as WP:WEIGHT suggests. Fully half of Durban Declaration describes the AIDS denialist letter to the editor and the response to it, which is out of balance and much more than WP:WEIGHT would require. Henry Bauer explains the author's pseudoscientific AIDS theory, in more detail than its relative prominence (the author's own website and book) would justify. If anything, it appears we're giving fringe positions like AIDS denialism more weight than necessary for their verifiable prominence in reliable sources.

For those who wish to use wacky theories like AIDS denialism or racial superiority or the Loch Ness Monster as counterpoints in the classroom, the detailed claims of fringe theorists are present all over the internet. Wikipedia may describe the more notable fringe theories in their proper context but ultimately is an encyclopaedia, not a random collection of poorly-sourced speculation or a promotional site for adherents of these ideas. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Wrong again. We don't have to "balance" fringe theories. The reason that they're fringe is because they're only accepted by fringe POV pushers. You are attempting to allow anti-science belief sets into well written articles. And AIDS denialists don't get to name themselves...those with a strictly scientific interpretation of what causes AIDS get to call the AIDS denialists whatever we want. I was going for murderous nutjobs, but I was voted down. Now, despite your continued long winded and unreadable diatribes, what makes you think that fringe POV ideas should be anywhere but in an article about fringe ideas. You're right, the flat earth article should talk about the history and current belief in flat earth, but it should state, in one clear and unambiguous statement--this fails all science and is a fringe, nutjob, theory. There we go. I've simplified your life. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The resolution to these discussions have been decided. Ludwigs, find something else to do. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Keepcalm: couldn't agree with you more. I'm maybe a little more tolerant of them than you are (just because I have an appreciation for the fact that someone(s) once said and believed these things to be true, and I think that should be reported; plus I'm a bit too kind-hearted

), but there are distinct limits to the silliness I'll allow to be propagated. --Ludwigs2 02:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

To get back on topic, I think that the answer to A5's question, as I understand it, must be 'no'. WP:WEIGHT is essentially the portion of WP:NPOV that deals with quantity rather than quality of material. Depending on the circumstances, then, it might be appropriate to invoke WEIGHT when adding or removing material, depending on the situation. In other words, I don't think you could rule out its being used in either case. Hope this helps. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 00:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd tend to agree with you, except for the part about that summing up to 'no'. but this has all gotten ridiculously out of hand, so... --Ludwigs2 03:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

KCCO's attempt to summarize my (long) suggestion without reading it says, "Thus, the flat earthers should have their say at Earth and anywhere else they like, so long as additional material is put into the article for balance.", which is quite incorrect. Perhaps a look at the table will clear this up. Articles such as Earth are exactly where I'm suggesting it is OK to remove material on "flat earth". But if it's OK to remove fringe views wherever they appear, such as "flat earth" from Flat earth, then I worry about the consequences for Wikipedia. For instance, will an article on biblical creation eventually describe it as "the discredited theory that the Big Bang happened 6,000 years ago" as anything more detailed would give undue weight to "fringe" views? How exactly does Wikipedia plan to avoid such a fate, if removing otherwise relevant "fringe" views from articles under WP:WEIGHT is always acceptable? And if that is a valid interpretation of WP:WEIGHT, then shouldn't the policy guidelines say so explicitly? A5 (talk) 13:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think WEIGHT says that removing fringe views is always acceptable. It says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints [...] in proportion to the prominence of each. This is qualified by the context of the article in which it appears.

Of course, if there is a problem with the proportion of material covering a particular view in a particular article, that problem should be corrected. So much is implicit in all policy. But it is not going to be productive, I don't think, to try to frame additional policy text containing specific rules about exactly when it is necessary to add (or remove) mainstream (or fringe) material. That just invites wikilawyering from POV pushers. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Sheff, granting what you say here as true, many, many problems arise from application. I mean, you know... I've seen editors calmly and coldly suggest that the majority of fringe articles (like Homeopathy) should be devoted to criticisms of homeopathy, since criticisms represent the majority (if not the entirety) of the scientific publications on the matter. that attitude strikes me as completely lacking in common sense - the article is on Homeopathy, so the majority of the article should discuss and describe homeopathy, with a relatively small but prominent section on critiques - but the attitude is technically supported by a literal, pedantic reading of the policy. undue weight was never intended to be used as a tool to reduce articles on fringe topics to articles on the criticisms of fringe topics, but there is a pronounced tendency to use it that way. clarity on that issue written into policy would be helpful.--Ludwigs2 01:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The one thing that should be clear, though, is that the mainstream opinion (WP:YESPOV) is that Homeopathy has been discredited and flies in the face of everything we know about science. We can document it in full, but the reader should be left with no ambiguity. Our focus on the topic should not lend any credence to the topic when the topic is WP:FRINGE, and we should not drown the reader with details which leave them confused as to what the mainstream view is. Structurally, the article should open with "homeopathy doesn't work" and each subsection should include at least one phrase like "this theory, which has been discredited, stated that..." The entire article shouldn't be criticism, but like any fringe topic it should be clear that the only opinions worth reporting are those of homeopathy's detractors. SDY (talk) 16:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

you know, this is a great example of what makes it difficult to discuss these things. I really don't have a problem with the basic idea of what you're saying (sure, we need to clarify that modern scientific theory and research don't support homeopathy), but the aggressive 'we must debunk it' attitude inappropriate for an encyclopedia. literally, if the chief editor of a commercial encyclopedia heard one of his writers voicing an attitude like that, that writer would find his final paycheck sitting on his desk. wikipedia is openly editable, but that doesn't mean we should lower our standard on encyclopedic content. homeopathy may not work, but it's no more dangerous than (say) astrology or New Age philosophy (meaning that it will only hurt people to the extent that people allow themselves to be deluded by it; which is pretty much true of most things in life). the obligation an encyclopedia has is to clearly and effectively describe what a topic is and what reliable sources say about it. If we find ourselves trying to argue that it's true or false, then we're engaged in advocacy, not encyclopedic writing. granting that 'science advocacy' is marginally preferable to 'fringe advocacy', I still believe that we shouldn't have advocacy at all, of any sort. --Ludwigs2 16:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

We aren't debunking it, we're just reporting that it has been debunked. Homeopathy is debunked, and reliable sources say it is debunked. What is so wrong about reporting that? We're not advocating anything, we're simply reporting the consensus that exists in a clear and straightforward fashion. You're advocating that we have no point of view, which is not what the policy says. SDY (talk) 17:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

actually, no... Homeopathy hasn't been 'debunked' by science, because scientists don't 'debunk'. the most a scientist (when speaking as a professional) can say about homeopathy is that there is no evidence (to date) that homeopathic preparations have any physiological effect on the body, and that there is no basis in chemical and physical theories for thinking that homeopathic preparations should have an effect (which is damaging enough, to my mind). 'debunking' is a social/political act, where a 'debunker' goes well beyond the limits of scientific analysis in order to destroy an idea outright. that's what makes it a kind of advocacy. and while I understand why debunkers do what they do (they usually see themselves as defending poor, hapless, ignorant people from the influences of charlatans and delusional fanatics), they are not at all neutral in their efforts, and often sacrifice scientific rigor in order to push their debunking harder.

my favorite example is from orgone: Reich has this odd little fringe theory, and actually gets Albert Einstein to come take a look at it. Einstein arrives, looks at Reich's experiments, and then basically shrugs his shoulders and says 'I don't see what you're talking about' and leaves. No debunking, just a simple observation that there's no tangible evidence. debunkers come later, trying to insist that Reich's theory is wrong (rather than merely useless), and that Reich is a charlatan and criminal (rather than some guy stuck in a failed corner of research). the scientist dismisses the work, while the debunkers attack the man and the idea.

"reporting that it has been debunked" is fine, if you attribute the 'report' to the people who did the debunking. but that's not what happens, usually; many editors here want to report debunking as some kind of scientific consensus, which is (a) an incorrect assessment of the scientific position, and (b) debunking (advocacy) in its own right. that's not at all encyclopedic. --Ludwigs2 19:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The scientific consensus is that homeopathy has no measurable therapeutic effect, and that and no more is what I mean by "debunk." From what I am reading of what you are saying, you are not contesting that point, simply that the word used is poorly chosen since it implies some intent. I concede that the word is poorly chosen. The article by any measure would never use the word "debunk." "There is no evidence" in the context of something that has been adequately tested or investigated is essentially scientific jargon for "we think it's false but we reserve the right to change our minds" and I don't see a problem with calling a spade a spade when there's a possibility that the reader will not understand the jargon. Alternatively we could explain what is meant by "no evidence." This is one of wikipedia's problems: we don't define a target reader. If the expected reader is someone who is savvy about science, saying "there is no evidence" is plenty because they will know what that means (i.e. 97.5% certainty). If the expected reader is a middle school student, "there is no evidence" can very easily be read to mean "it might be true and it might be false, no one knows." (i.e. 50% certainty) The article should lead the savvy and the naive to the same conclusion about the topic. SDY (talk) 19:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The difficulty with trying to second-guess the reader in this way is that readers are often very aware of it. I'd be tempted to to say that middle-graders are particularly aware of it: there's no surer way I can think of to get a thirteen year old interested in something like homeopathy than to tell him it's wrong, with just a liiittle too much emphasis. that's why I like keeping things very detached and scientific. sure, a kid might not be able to evaluate what 'there is no evidence' means in the precise way a knowledgeable adult can, but the phrase is so non-confrontational that the kid can't make an emotional decision about it either. that leaves a kind of vacuum where the kid will either mark it off as a boring fact and forget about it, or (if curious) the kid will seek out more information (from elsewhere on the web, or by asking around). the problem with a lot of fringe science articles on wikipedia is that some editors get tied up in these strident efforts to make sure that no one can possibly take the topic seriously, and that's just counter-productive anyway you look at it. --Ludwigs2 20:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) It can be taken too far, I wholeheartedly agree. The problem is that advocates of pseudoscience try to abuse the language of science (q.v. "only a theory"), so keeping the articles jargon-free and plain spoken avoids that problem. There's no need to be judgmental (i.e. accusations of fraud), but there is a specific and active reason to go beyond the language of science and into common English. As the old yarn has it, "do not write to be understood, write so that you cannot be misunderstood." SDY (talk) 20:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

That I'd agree with completely. I just wish it were easier to negotiate in practice. between the people being adamant on one side and the people being adamant on the other, the only consensus that ever gets developed is an agreement that we all have headaches.

--Ludwigs2 21:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Relevant proposal at WP:NOR

I have introduced a policy proposal at WP:NOR that has some bearing on the NPOV and the treatment of fringe theories. Please join the discussion. --Phenylalanine (talk) 11:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Abusing POV

POV is a nice shield for people to hide behind. "YOUR EDIT BLA BLA IS POV BLA BLA" and "I DELETE THIS BECAUSE OF POV BLA BLA" is the two most popular lines on Wikipedia. I also see that some people dont even want to talk about this... too sad.--hnnvansier (talk) 14:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

believe me, that does suck. it only happens on certain pages, though; most of wikipedia is POV-warrior free. if you're having trouble like that on some page, let me know and I'll take a look. of course, you might be at fault, but if not, well... let's just say I dislike that kind of behavior.

--Ludwigs2 03:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Conspiracy to Violate NPOV through Edit War and Information Suppression

Here is an organized and concerted conspiracy to violate NPOV by removing any use of the word "cold" to describe the mantle even though the verifiable and reliable peer-reviewed science uses the word "cold" over and over again to describe the mantle. Also see Expanding Earth where a deliberate organized attempt is being made to suppress any information that might portray the hypothesis in NPOV. And Subduction where all critical citation is suppressed. Wikkidd (talk) 04:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

RfC closed, socks blocked. - Eldereft (cont.) 20:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Editing policy on integration of policies

A discussion here deals with the question of whether the editing policy should recommend that editors remove material that "clearly fails" our content policies. Some input from editors with more experience of policy than I have would be appreciated. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Nomination

Why dosent something to tell you how to nominate an article as biased?SJHQC (talk) 21:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

You could try the WP:HELP DESK, they're very helpful if you have questions about using the software. There are Wikipedia:Template messages that are generally used to mark articles as having problems, but if you have a concern with an article, it's generally best to start a discussion on the talk page first. If you believe an article has major problems with bias and feel that it should be brought to immediate attention, there is the WP:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. SDY (talk) 00:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Criticism sections and articles

Can we get a consensus on them? NPOV as it stands should/does discourage them because they are solely devoted to one view point (in violation of the concept of neutrality, let alone the policy). However, people keep pointing to the "no consensus" line in WP:CFORK to justify their existence. So, discuss away. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

as far as I can tell, criticism sections are primarily used on wikipedia as a 'flame' tactic (though I've seen some artful people who've created criticism sections in order to hide criticism away to give the rest of the article that special angelic glow). I'm suspicious the instant I see one. there are useful places for criticism sections, I think (mainly on articles about academic topics, where the scholarly world presents explicit statements and criticisms), but otherwise they're just a sign that someone's not editing cooperatively. --Ludwigs2 03:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Notable, verifiable viewpoints are as often critical of a topic as not. But since NPOV calls for all notable, verifiable views to be included they are necessary for a complete and balanced article. The only question here is whether they are broken out into their own section or rolled into the article. I prefer the latter and so does the MOS. Using the clause of NPOV that discourages criticism sections to claim policy demands removing critical viewpoints is silly. Odd nature (talk) 22:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. No one appears to be endorsing removing all criticism, it is simply a question of how it is presented. I agree that dedicated sections are either lazy or tendentious, and I have yet to see a dedicated article that doesn't look like a whinefest for people that dislike the subject. SDY (talk) 01:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm a complete noobie around here, just starting to read what feels like 10,000 pages of wikipedia guidelines, rules, regulations, and edicts (that might be an over-exaggeration), but some articles just need to have a strong criticism section to remain neutral on the surface. Right now, I've just been reading medical articles--criticism seems to be supported by citations. But if I'm going to read an article on Flat Earth, which appears to be the gold standard of an article that needs criticism, I want a solid section telling me how it's bunk. Wouldn't a fork article that just has criticism be more POV than a balanced article that has both pro and con? SciMedKnowledge (talk) 16:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Just to reply to one of your other concerns, you may want to read WP:YESPOV. We wouldn't include a "pro" side for flatearthism, since it's a WP:FRINGE topic. Like most things in Wikipedia, there may be a lot of rules, but they make a fair amount of intuitive sense and they exist primarily so that "right makes might" and the trolls don't take over by sheer numbers. SDY (talk) 02:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

of course it would, but (for a number of reasons) an article in which pro and con attitudes are integrated in the text is better than an article where pro and con arguments are separated into separate sections. just a short list:

pro sections/con sections can over estimate support or criticism (people click to one section, read all these pro or con statements, and come off with a very wrong impression)
pro sections/con sections are troll magnets: easy for someone to start edit warring to promote, remove, minimize or etc an entire section. not so easy when they have to work with integrated text
pro sections/con sections are bad from a writing perspective: it tends to read as choppy and dissociated
pro sections/con sections are bad from a logic perspective; the ideas presented in isolation makes it harder for readers to understand how they interrelate in real scholarly discussions --Ludwigs2 17:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

P.s. Sorry about the last edit summary - damned Safari autofill...

--Ludwigs2 17:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Just so that everybody's aware -- this discussion here is actually (very ironically!) a content fork from the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Content forking where Sceptre (talk · contribs) decided to unilaterally remove an existing RFC and start a new one over here. Nice tactic, eh? -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 16:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it's time to clean up WP:CRITICISM as a proposed guideline and hammer out some sort of agreement there. It's obvious that a lot of people have opinions on how we should handle this. SDY (talk) 16:14, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, it would be very good if we could get everybody together at the same place to really thresh out the issues and come to some sort of conclusion. The problem is, when you have someone who's so absolutely convinced that they are right that they cannot respect other editors, and they react to the opening of an RFC -- which is just such an attempt to thresh out the issues and reach a consensus -- by unilaterally closing that RFC and opening their own -- well, then, what can possibly be done to make such a control-obsessed person refrain from sabotaging that process? what can be done to make them abide by the consensus if it doesn't match the personal opinion which they have already announced is non-negotiable? -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 23:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I have opened a separate RFC at WP:CRITICISM to gather input on whether a formal "rulemaking" process would actually help or just cause more problems. I half-expect that someone will close it, but since it asks a simple and direct question I still have some hope. SDY (talk) 01:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment on RFC Articles opened explicitly to bash on somebody without using reliable sources may qualify as attack pages and be deleted thereby. However, the term criticism in its original sense is not meant to be negative, but to refer to both positive and negative feedback. Thus I think a better solution when opinion about a particular topic is sufficiently notable and great to spill out of the original article is to edit the article so that all significant views are decently represented. Of course, we may still reasonably expect the topic of the article not to be overly broad and indiscriminate, and to retain a focus on some well-defined set of events. Ray^Talk 07:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
That's a good point. Of course, Roger Ebert didn't stop being a critic when he gave Watchmen a good review... but outside of the arts, the usage tends to be solely negative. Sceptre ^(talk) 08:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Use "commentary" instead of "critism" a much more neutral and accurate phrase. Articles like this can be terrific, though yes, they cold use a better name. E.g. Commentary on Microsoft. ;-)

Another neutral word is "Reception". That allows for the full range of views. I agree that we shouldn't have articles that contain only one half of the views on a topic. On the other hand, there are many topics where if we included all of the significant viewpoints the article would be overwhelmed. That's why the "Criticism of" articles have been helpful. As for sections within articles devoted to the views of a topic, they are very important but they also need to adhere to NPOV and include the full range of views. Will Beback talk 20:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't think these articles jive well with WP:NPOV, especially WP:LTRD. It states that we should just list the facts and in no way seek to bias them. I'll note that while we have several forks of Adolf Hitler, none of them is flat-out criticism. We don't need to say "many people including X,Y, and Z think Hitler was very bad for what he did". We just need to report accurately on what he did and let the facts speak for themselves. If there's evidence for the criticism, there will be evidence for the facts behind it. Notable events of criticism should be reported as such, like a big anti-war rally, but an overall topic of "criticism of X" teeters on POV. Them From Space 03:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment from RFC - Criticism articles (the type, not articles with Criticism in the title...) should be avoided like the plague. They almost inevitably become WP:COATRACKish via continual recentist additions that tread the borderline of WP:NOT#NEWS - which creates massive WP:UNDUE issues (as well as abysmal style and structure). And the actual, valid, notable criticism is almost always more relevant somewhere else, on a the more specific topic the criticism relates to. "Criticism of Person X" articles are particularly bad because of the WP:BLP implications; and there's usually somewhere more relevant to put the criticism of what they've done - if the criticism is actually notable. See also Wikipedia:Pro and con lists. Rd232 ^talk 20:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

UH OH

so much for NPOV. well, it was a blast while it lasted. see: http://www.xkcd.com/545/ Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

That's easy. If it doesn't receive significant coverage in reliable sources, it's not notable. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Question & Comment

Frankly I have little time to go through all the finer points on NPOV (neutral meaning no bais). Instead why don't we go for holistic understanding (inclusive of all points of noteworthy views APOV that contributes to the whole understanding of the subject). Even within Science there are always the official mainstream version and significant other views that are repressed. For example the section Climate Change do not allow adding another equally strong group of scientists or views The Great Global Warming Swindle listed in wikipedia. If wikipedia is about collaboration and open sharing of knowledge then we must have space for all credible and significant sources and emerging unofficial views. May be not in the same article (to avoid edit wars) but in the end sections or external links like 'see also' which should always remain open an unprotected. SusMita Barua 14:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC) isis07

that's really what NPOV says, though it's rarely observed in practice. I'd probably support (for instance) the inclusion of the anti-global-warming perspective (even though I personally think it's idiotic, I can see the case for it being notable). but the most active editors on pages like that are not generally the most reasonable editors. sorry. --Ludwigs2 18:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Can I have a reason for my reversion?

Can I please know why my edit was reverted? The only reason I reverted the revert was that I wasn't given a reason.--Canaris 4 (talk) 12:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I assume you're talking about this? there are a number of reasons, but primarily you shouldn't make comments about other editors, or place your signature, anywhere except on Talk or Administrative pages. If you don't like the logic used, then change it to something more effective on the page itself, or bring up the fact that you don't like it on the Talk page, so that you can discuss it with other editors. Articles are only for substantive points; anything personal or discussion-oriented belongs in talk. --Ludwigs2 15:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

For another answer to your question, see the box at the top of the article: This page documents an official English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that should normally be followed by all editors. Any edit to it should reflect consensus. Consider discussing potential changes on the talk page first. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok SheffieldSteel had the better reason.--Canaris 4 (talk) 08:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

History and rationale

The section was created out of an older section on 16 January 2006 by user:Bensaccount.

Some archived talk sections discussing the section in the article:

Archive 15#Can anyone find a relible source for this key policy? (Feb. 2006)
Archive 17#Last paragraph of Reasoning behind NPOV section (Mar. 2006)
Archive 17#First para of Reasoning behind NPOV section (Mar. 2006)
Archive 17#Should the Abortion example be replaced?(Mar. 2006)
Archive 31#History of NPOV (March 2008)

This page is kinda a critical policy page which we expect people to read. As a courtisy we should make it as short as posible. This section may be full of interest but it isn't policy and isn't needed therefor it should not be included.Geni 23:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Given that this is a core policy that we actually want people to read and understand, it should be kept short, sweet and to the point. Historical discussions and rationales are interesting, but it would be better suited in an auxiliary page. henrik•talk 00:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I doubt there would be a problem with moving this section to its own page, but deleting it altogether seems wrong; and there's some chance that it would help destabilise the policy in the long run.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 01:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I have a proposal: separate the page into sections, each of which covers a different topic. Separate the sections using bold words that tell people what the topic or theme is. We can make a table of contents ... Does someone out there understand IT enough to create a way to link the table of contents so that people can go directly to the section they want? I know I am reaching toward the impossible here and I hope I explaining myself clearly, the idea is to break this into sections so no one has to read all. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess a secondary project will be to find a way to install in all the robots who use Wikipedia some kind of "free will" chip that will enable them to choose for themselves what sections they need to read. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh while I m at it I have an idea what do you guys think: people new to Wikipedia, even if they read the whole page (which is gosh, what percentage of a Reader's Digest article?) are not going to get the finer points of how we do things. I think this is inevitable no matter how short or perfectly written this policy because there is no substitute for experience. Can we create a policy that tlls other users not to be impatiently abrupt with new users? Slrubenstein | Talk 01:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, the wikipedian way is to use summary style in situations like this.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 01:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Sections don't really help because new users see a wall of text and give up. Always going to be a problem with this policy but there is no reason to make it worse than need be.Geni 00:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Another possibility is to use the {{hst}} and {{hsb}} templates so that it doesn't take up so much space, yet gives the reader an easy way to view it if desired, like so:

History and rationale

History of NPOV

Shortcut

WP:NPOVHISTORY

The neutral point of view policy is one of the oldest policies on Wikipedia.

Nupedia's "Non-bias policy" was drafted by Larry Sanger in spring or summer of 2000.
"Avoid bias" was one of the first of Wikipedia's "policies to consider" proposed by Sanger.
Jimbo Wales elaborated the "avoid bias" rule with a statement about "neutral point of view" in the early months of Wikipedia: see copy in web archive (note: that page also contains comments by other Wikipedians up to 12 April 2001) – in subsequent versions of the NPOV page, Jimbo's statement was known as the "original formulation" of the NPOV policy.
A more elaborate version of the NPOV policy was written by Larry Sanger, at Meta-Wiki in December 2001: see "Neutral point of view--draft," Larry Sanger's version of 20 December 2001.
After several transformations (see edit history of "draft" at Meta) the version by Larry Sanger et al. was moved to this page on 25 February 2002, and was further edited (see edit history of this page), resulting in the current version.
Another short formulation was introduced by Brion Vibber in meta, 17 March 2003: see Meta's "Neutral point of view," version of 17 March 2003
Development of the Undue weight section started in 2003, for which a mailing list post by Jimbo Wales on 29 September 2003 was instrumental.
Jimbo Wales describes neutrality as "non-negotiable", consistently, throughout various discussions: November 2003, April 2006, March 2008 (compare also User:Jimbo Wales/Statement of principles #1).

Further historical notes at Wikipedia:NPOV, V and OR.

Reasoning behind neutrality

Shortcut

WP:NPOVREASON

Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, which means it is a representation of human knowledge at some level of generality. But human beings disagree about specific cases; for any topic on which there are competing views, each view represents a different idea of what the truth is, and insofar as that view contradicts other views, its adherents believe that the other views are false and therefore not knowledge. Where there is disagreement about what is true, there is disagreement about what constitutes knowledge. Wikipedia works because it is a collaborative effort; but, while collaborating, how can we solve the problem of endless "edit wars" in which one person asserts that p, whereupon the next person changes the text so that it asserts not-p?

A solution is that we accept, for the purposes of working on Wikipedia, that "human knowledge" includes all different significant theories on all different topics. We are committed to the goal of representing human knowledge in that sense, surely a well-established meaning of the word "knowledge". What is "known" changes constantly with the passage of time, and so when we use the word "know," we often enclose it in so-called scare quotes. Europeans in the Middle Ages "knew" that demons caused diseases ^[4]^[5]; we now "know" otherwise.

We could sum up human knowledge (in this sense) in a biased way: we could state a series of theories about topic T and then claim that the truth about T is such-and-such. But then again, consider that Wikipedia is an international collaborative project, and that nearly every view on every subject will be found among our authors and readers. To avoid endless edit wars, we can agree to present each of the significant views fairly and not assert any one of them as correct. That is what makes an article "unbiased" or "neutral" in the sense presented here. To write from a neutral point of view, one presents controversial views without asserting them; to do that, it generally suffices to present competing views in a way that is more or less acceptable to their adherents, and also to attribute the views to their adherents. Disputes are characterized in Wikipedia; they are not re-enacted.

To sum up the primary reason for this policy: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a compilation of human knowledge. But because Wikipedia is a community-built, international resource, we cannot expect collaborators to agree in all cases, or even in many cases, on what constitutes knowledge in a strict sense. We can therefore adopt the looser sense of "human knowledge" according to which a wide variety of conflicting theories constitute what we call "knowledge." We should, both individually and collectively, make an effort to present these conflicting views fairly, without advocating any one of them—with the qualification that views held only by a tiny minority of people should not be represented as though they are significant minority views and perhaps should not be represented at all.

There is another reason to commit ourselves to this policy, that when it is clear to readers that we do not expect them to adopt any particular opinion, this leaves them free to make up their minds for themselves, thus encouraging intellectual independence. Totalitarian governments and dogmatic institutions everywhere might find reason to oppose Wikipedia, if we succeed in adhering to our non-bias policy: the presentation of many competing theories on a wide variety of subjects suggests that we, the editors of Wikipedia, trust readers to form their own opinions. Texts that present multiple viewpoints fairly, without demanding that the reader accept any particular one of them, are liberating. Neutrality subverts dogmatism. Nearly everyone working on Wikipedia can agree this is a good thing.

Example: Abortion

It might help to consider an example of how Wikipedians have improved a biased text.

On the abortion page, early in 2001, some advocates had used the page to exchange barbs, being unable to agree about what arguments should be on the page and how the competing positions should be represented. What was needed—and what was added—was an in-depth discussion of the different positions about the moral and legal aspects of abortion at different times. This discussion of the positions was carefully crafted so as not to favor any one of the positions outlined. This made it easier to organize and understand the arguments surrounding the topic of abortion, which were then presented impartially, each with its strengths and weaknesses.

There are numerous other success stories of articles that began life as virtual partisan screeds but were nicely cleaned up by people who concerned themselves with representing all views clearly and impartially.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 18:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Again this is a policy page. If something is being compressed like that it is a pretty clear admission it isn't needed.Geni 18:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Although I would dispute the conclusion that compressing something means it isn't needed, deleting the History and rationale section is OK with me. I only suggested the compression as a compromise in case consensus couldn't be reached. If someone wants the History and rationale info in the Wikipedia, it seems that they can put it on a separate page with a link to it, or use compression. Either way is OK with me. But I do agree with Geni with the basic premise that policy pages shouldn't be cluttered with unnecessary info. It distracts from the significant points of the policy and dilutes the message.--Bob K31416 (talk) 22:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I am reinstating the sections. So far less than a handful of editors have participated in the debate. I think if it is to be removed then it should be a decision made by more than that. It would be useful if someone would put in links at the top of this section to the sections in the archives which have already discussed the article section as there will be arguments there for why it was created and maintained in the first place, and at the moment the conversation seems to be taking place in a vacuum. --PBS (talk) 09:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

If you think such debates exist you are free to find and link to them yourself. Until then will people stop it with the flawed procedual rule lawyering?Geni 13:50, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The person who initiated this debate should have read the archives to see the reasons why the section under discussion was developed (there is no need to rehash old arguments), and put courtesy links in so that other editors could see those debates. If there has never been any discussions on this subject then that in itself is relevant information which should have been included in the first posting to this section. That you have not looked to see if these discussions have taken place (you comment shows that you have not bothered to look) is why I think that further discussion is needed. --PBS (talk) 15:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

PBS, Re "So far less than a handful of editors have participated in the debate. I think if it is to be removed then it should be a decision made by more than that." - So far, this position is the opinion of only one editor, you. Shouldn't you have discussed the reversion here before you made it? Also, it may be that even fewer editors than the number in this discussion put that section into WP:NPOV in the first place. Before restoring it, shouldn't you have checked that too? I'm sorry to say but frankly, your reversion was unilateral and dictatorial. You should have discussed it before making it. Unless there is a reasonable amount of support for your action, change should be reverted, in my opinion. I'm not suggesting that you need a consensus, just some reasonable amount of support for your move. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:34, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

It is customary to gain consensus before a policy page is changed and this is a large removal of several sections not the placement of a comma so I think it better that the subject is more thoroughly discussed. I did not change the page, I reverted it to to how it was before a large edit was made. --PBS (talk) 15:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Philip that this is too much to remove without more discussion. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 14:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

PBS and SlimVirgin, I appreciate your participation but I notice that you haven't offered any discussion about the merit of the section and haven't responded to criticism of the section. One might view your participation as simply obstructive. Please contribute to the discussion. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:49, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I have now looked through the archives and put in links at the top of this article to those sections in the archives that discuss this section. I may have missed some and if I have then please feel free to add some more.

I think that we need to discuss this in the context of the three subsections in the overall section and whether one or more of those subsections should be removed:

History of NPOV
Reasoning behind neutrality
Example: Abortion

I think all three have some validity, and one important consideration is that "Well, the wikipedian way is to use summary style in situations like this" is not an option with policies. Information on policy pages is policy and that in other things are guidelines essays etc. This difference is important because as WP:Policy and guidelines says "Our list of policies are considered a standard that all editors should follow, whereas our guidelines are more advisory in nature,".

Of these subsections I think that the first one should stay in the article as it reminds people that this is not a new policy but one that has existed for a long time. Several times I have had to add the history of WP:NC into conversations on the talk pages of that policy and associated guidelines. Rather than deleting it from this policy it is something that is probably worth adding to WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NC. As to the other two sections, we have to ask ourselves do they add anything to the policy or would it be better if they were deleted or moved into a FAQ or guideline? --PBS (talk) 17:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Well done! I will be carefully looking at the links you provided.

I think there is an important general issue regarding what should go into Policies that stems from something you mentioned,

"Of these subsections I think that the first one should stay in the article as it reminds people that this is not a new policy but one that has existed for a long time. Several times I have had to add the history of WP:NC into conversations on the talk pages of that policy and associated guidelines."

The issue that this brings to mind concerns the function of a policy page. Shouldn't the policy page be for editors who are seeking information for using the policy rather than for editors that are involved in editing the policy page? It seems that information for the latter should be on a separate page that policy page editors can refer to, rather than on the policy page where it can distract from and dilute the message of the policy. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

In Ireland if you stop in the countryside and ask directions to a place, if it is difficult to describe how to get there you will sometimes be told "If I had to go there I wouldn't start from here". A brief history helps people understand how the policy has got to where it is now. Let me give you an example last year we added "use reliable sources" to the naming conventions policy page. Why had it not been added earlier? Because the naming conventions are older that the verifiability policy. If the verifiability policy had existed before the naming conventions, then almost certainly mention of using reliable sources to help select the name of a page would have been included from day one as it helps to harmonise the names of articles with their content. It has made large chunks of the naming conventions guidelines redundant, as they were written as work-arounds because some editors were including unreliable sources when deciding on the best name for an article. Knowing the history of a policy helps a person make informed decisions on why parts of the policy exist. --PBS (talk) 00:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Nicely put, Philip. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I think we are in agreement that understanding the history of a policy page can be useful for editors that are working at improving the WP:NPOV policy page. So the NPOV History is useful in that regard.

You gave an example of how you added "use reliable sources" to a policy page, and that would have been done earlier if only the editors who developed that policy were better informed about the related history of that policy page. I will trust you on the details of this, and I basically agree with your point.

But these points relate to the editors that develop those two policy pages, not the editors that go to those policy pages looking for an explanation of the policy that they can use in their editing of regular Wikipedia articles. For the latter editors in their role as policy users, I don't think the history is very helpful. For the former editors in their role as policy developers, the history is very helpful.

I feel that what is in the policy page should be for the editors who are looking for help (users) and info for policy development editors (developers) should be in a separate page.

Is my point about the different needs of the users and developers clearer now? And did I understand your points about developers correctly? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Policy changes are worked out on the talk page not the policy page. Thus there is no reason to have information related to changeing the policy on the policy page.Geni 21:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

^ [11]
^ [12]
^ The Debate Over Sainthood. (9 October 2003). CBS News. Retrieved 26 May 2007.
^ Manchester, William A World Lit Only By Fire: The Medieval Mind and the Renaissance – Portrait of an Age Little, Brown and Company. 1992 pp. 60 – 62 ISBN 0-316-54556-2 (pb)
^ Roberts, J.M. A History of Europe Penguin Group. 1996 pp. 139 – 140 ISBN 0-7139-9204-2

[1] [11]

[2] [12]

[3] The Debate Over Sainthood. (9 October 2003). CBS News. Retrieved 26 May 2007.

[4] Manchester, William A World Lit Only By Fire: The Medieval Mind and the Renaissance – Portrait of an Age Little, Brown and Company. 1992 pp. 60 – 62 ISBN 0-316-54556-2 (pb)

[5] Roberts, J.M. A History of Europe Penguin Group. 1996 pp. 139 – 140 ISBN 0-7139-9204-2

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]