Misplaced Pages

talk:Neutral point of view: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 00:22, 29 June 2008 editOrangemarlin (talk | contribs)30,771 edits →fairness of tone revision: Thoughts← Previous edit Latest revision as of 16:35, 14 December 2024 edit undoRemsense (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Template editors60,372 edits Undid revision 1263034059 by 73.181.151.189 (talk) rm non sequiturTags: Undo Mobile edit Mobile app edit iOS app edit App undo 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header|WT:NPOV}}
{{Policy-talk}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 250K
|maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter = 32
|algo = old(30d) |counter = 68
|minthreadsleft = 5
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(40d)
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Neutral point of view/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Neutral point of view/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
{{Notice|header=Are you in the right place? |For questions or discussions about the application of this policy to any specific article(s), please post your message at either the ] (any neutrality-related issue) or the ] (undue weight given to a minority view).}}
----
{{WikiProject banner shell|
'''The project page associated with this discussion page is an official policy on Misplaced Pages. It has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. Before you update the page, make sure that changes you make to this policy really do reflect consensus.'''
{{WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages}}
----
}}
{{Press
| subject = policy
| author = Nishant Kauntia
| title = The Edit Wars: How Misplaced Pages earned the ire of the Hindu Right
| org = '']''
| url = https://caravanmagazine.in/media/wikipedia-earned-ire-hindu-right
| date = 30 November 2020
| quote =
| archiveurl =
| archivedate =
| accessdate = 9 December 2020
| subject2 = policy
| author2 = Syeda ShahBano Ijaz
| title2 = How Conflicts and Population Loss Led to the Rise of English Misplaced Pages’s Credibility
| org2 = ]
| url2 = https://politicalsciencenow.com/how-conflicts-and-population-loss-led-to-the-rise-of-english-wikipedias-credibility/
| date2 = 29 May 2023
| quote2 =
| archiveurl2 =
| archivedate2 =
| accessdate2 = 30 May 2023
| subject3 = policy
| author3 = Aaron Bandler
| title3 = Misplaced Pages Editors Place a Near Total Ban on Calling Gaza Health Ministry “Hamas-Run”
| org3 = ]
| url3 = https://jewishjournal.com/news/united-states/376157/wikipedia-editors-place-a-near-total-ban-on-calling-gaza-health-ministry-hamas-run/
| date3 = 25 October 2024
| quote3 =
| archiveurl3 =
| archivedate3 =
| accessdate3 = 26 October 2024
}}
{{Archive box|search=no|box-width=250px|bot=lowercase sigmabot III|age=30|
{{#tag:inputbox|
bgcolor=transparent
type=fulltext
prefix=Misplaced Pages talk:Neutral point of view/Archive
break=yes
width=27
searchbuttonlabel=Search
}}


{{shortcut|WT:NPOV}}

{{Talk Spoken Misplaced Pages|Neutral_point_of_view_Part_1.ogg}}

{{sidebar|
;Archived discussions
: ] Discussions before October 2004 : ] Discussions before October 2004
: ] Closing out 2004 : ] Closing out 2004
Line 33: Line 76:
: ] to April 09, 2006 : ] to April 09, 2006
---- ----
'''Note:''' Edit history of 001-017 is in 017. '''Note:''' Edit history of 001–017 is in 017.
---- ----
: ]: Apr 2006 : ]: Apr 2006
: ]: Apr 2006 - May 2006 : ]: Apr 2006 – May 2006
: ]: May 2006 - Jun 2006 : ]: May 2006 – Jun 2006
: ]: Jun 2006 : ]: Jun 2006
: ]: Jul 2006 : ]: Jun–Jul 2006 (moving FAQ)
: ]: Jul-Aug 4 2006 : ]: Jul–Aug 4 2006
: ]: Aug 4-Sept 21 2006 : ]: Aug 4 – Sept 21 2006
: ]: Sept 22 - Oct 2006 : ]: Sept 22 – Oct 2006
: ]: Nov - Dec 2006 : ]: Nov – Dec 2006
: ]: Jan - Feb 2007 : ]: Jan – Feb 2007
: ]: Mar - May 2007 : ]: Mar – May 2007
: ]: May - September 2007 : ]: May – Sep 2007
: ]: October 2007 - : ]: Oct 2007 – Feb 2008
: ]: Feb – May 2008
: ]: May – July 2008
: ]: July 2008
: ]: July – Sep 2008
: ]: Sep 2008 – May 2009
: ]: April – Aug 2009
: ]: Aug – Nov 2009
: ]: Nov 2009 – Feb 2010
: ]: Mar - Apr 2010
: ]: Apr 2010
: ]: May 2010
: ]: May - Jun 2010
: ]: Jun - Oct 2010
: ]: Oct 2010 - Apr 2011
: ]: Apr - Nov 2011
: ]: Dec 2011 - Jun 2013
: ]: Jun 2013 - Oct 2014
: ]: Sep 2014 - May 2015
: ]: May 2015
: ]: May - Jun 2015
: ]: Jul - Nov 2015
: ]: Nov 2015 – Nov 2016
: ]: Oct 2016 – Sep 2017
: ]: Aug 2017
: ]: Sep 2017 – Feb 2019
: ]: Mar 2019 – Jun 2020
: ]: Jun 2020 – Jul 2021
: ]: Jun 2021 – Mar 2022
: ]: Mar 2022 – Jul 2022
: ]: Jul 2022 – Oct 2022
: ]: Sep 2022 – Jun 2023
: ]: Jun 2023 – Aug 2023
: ]: Aug 2023
: ]: Aug 2023 – May 2024
: ]: Oct 2023 – Nov 2023
: ]: Nov 2023 – Aug 2024
: ]: Aug 2024 – present
}} }}


When starting a new topic, please add it to the '''bottom''' of this page, and please '''sign''' your comments with four tildes: <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>. This will automatically place a date stamp, which will allow us to maintain this page better.
__TOC__ __TOC__


== Clarification for known issues or criticism sections ==
== ] ==

<s>How about renaming this page to ] (which already links here) and extending it with badly needed aspects on ''issues of relative coverage'' other than just the issue of POV pushing, which this policy page traditionally gives far too much attention? I think most non-neutrality in articles is due not to a POV mindset, but to a rather innocuous ignorance on many different aspects of article writing and layout.

Also, I'd welcome something on the imo hugely problematic POV issue of criticism sections. I&nbsp;] I&nbsp;] I&nbsp;05:18,&nbsp;],&nbsp;2007</s>

:Nevermind. I&nbsp;] I&nbsp;] I&nbsp;05:27,&nbsp;],&nbsp;2007

== tags ==

# {{NPOV}} — message used to warn of problems
# {{NPOV-section}} — tags only a single section as disputed
# {{POV check}} — message used to mark articles that may be biased. ({{bias}} may be used for short)
# {{POV-title}} — when the article's title is questionable
# {{POV-statement}} — when only one sentence is questionable
# {{articleissues}} — When an article or section fails to abide by multiple Misplaced Pages content policies

== Undue Weight? ==

Howdy. Having a bit of a disagreement on what is UNDUE over at ]. The latest addition to summary a source from University of Chicago is in contention. Any thoughts would be appreciated. ] (]) 19:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

== American (i.e. the United States, and not Anglo-American) POV ==

In the first paragraph of a recent featured article, ], you (roughly) read "Oil shales are located around the world, including the US." I read on to see if the US is particularly important as a resource. It isn't. For that reason I believe it is a NPOV violation and should be deleted from the article. It is probably caused by the common tone in the U.S. national surveys and reports that are--quite naturally--U.S. focused, but still a main part of the world's scientific literature.

The average English Misplaced Pages reader, who may or may not be a native English speaker, is not necessarily from the U.S., or particularly interested in where the U.S. stands re every subject. --] (]) 21:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

What the article does not say is that the US has tried to treat its oil shale reserves as a potential back-up in the event that it has no access to Middle East oil, and has spent gazillions of dollars to develop oil shale technology that has been exported worldwide, in the hope of becoming a number-one fossilfuel producer worldwide/energy independent. Some of the largest reserves in the world are in the US. All highly relevant to people around the world who want to know about oil shale.] (]) 04:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

== "Criticism of foo" articles ==

It's possible that I'm being overly literal in interpretation of the policy, but is an article that exclusively contains criticism of a topic capable of meeting the expectations on neutrality? For example, the ] article is substantially longer than the ] article. At what point is the "criticism" article just an excuse to only cover one side of a topic conveniently outside of an otherwise neutral main? A more carefully chosen article title, such as ], would give the expectation of a neutral coverage, whereas a "criticisms" article invites one-sided coverage. ] (]) 04:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

:If the subject matter of an article is a verifiable and noteworthy source of polarization, critique or dispute within a given society, subculture or institution, and writing about it is otherwise consistent with WP policy, then the motives for maintaining the content may not really be important.

:It's definitely an "edge case" scenario, but the mere existence of an article that is primarily or even exclusively devoted to "criticism" does not by itself constitute a violation of neutrality. As for determining when the line has been crossed, that's a matter of case-by-case discernment, no? ] (]) 06:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

::I guess it's partially a question of whether an individual article is neutral or whether Misplaced Pages's treatment as a whole of the subject is neutral. All of the "criticism of foo" articles I've read show a clear bias against "foo", and the name of the article more or less condones that bias because "it's about criticism." Just glancing through ], many of them are thinly disguised ], even if it is well-sourced. Naming disputes on these articles are common. ] is currently is in ] mode. ] is basically a ].

::I cannot see any case where a "Criticism of" article could not be recast as a "Controversies" article, a title that does not imply negative coverage. ] (]) 15:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

:::Perhaps. Those articles you linked to (especially the latter one) do seem to cross the line. Appropriately, the latter one is flagged as needing attention and may even merit removal or merging.
:::Nevertheless, replacing the terms "Criticism of" with "Controversies" seems like the kind of subtle distinction unlikely to dissuade people who are inclined to POV push. If the article content remains unbalanced and poorly referenced, a re-title offers little or no correction. ] (]) 17:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

== Fake images in aviation accident articles ==

I have ] on ] about fake images which involves both NPOV and NOR. Opinions are welcome. Thanks, ] (]) 12:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

:Moved to ] --] (]) 03:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

== Undue Weight Criteria ==

Concerns about Undue Weight have been raised in the article about trophy taking during World war II. ]
A free downloadable .
Now despite the topic being well known at the time, see for example May 22, 1944, it "appears" that many authors of WWII literature either don't know about it, or consider it unimportant, or prefer not to mention it for other reasons, such as for the protection of veterans image.

Another example of possibly similar downplaying is another uncomfortable topic: rape:
----
An estimated 10,000 Japanese women were eventually raped by American troops during the Okinawa campaign.
.
According to Peter Schrijvers, rape was "a general practice against Japanese women".
According to a ] article from June 1, 2000 regarding the 1998 discovery of the corpses of 3 U.S. rapists killed by Okinawan villagers after repeated rape-visits by the group: "rape was so prevalent that most Okinawans over age 65 either know or have heard of a woman who was raped in the aftermath of the war."
], June 1, 2000

Okinawan historian Oshiro Masayasu (former director of the Okinawa Prefectural Historical Archives) writes based on several years of research:
:Soon after the US marines landed, all the women of a village on ] Peninsula fell into the hands of American soldiers. At the time, there were only women, children and old people in the village, as all the young men had been mobilized for the war. Soon after landing, the marines "mopped up" the entire village, but found no signs of Japanese forces. Taking advantage of the situation, they started "hunting for women" in broad daylight and those who were hiding in the village or nearby air raid shelters were dragged out one after another.
By Yuki Tanaka, Toshiyuki Tanaka, page 111
----
Especially the New York times article is interesting for trying to understand why so little is mentioned of such massive raping in "war books for western consumption".

An even better example is the fate of the book on . (Publisher book summary ) It is a disgusting topic, and it is understandable that "greatest generation" authors such as ] seem to have chosen to ignore it completely.

But.... It raises an interesting question. Since it is a topic that most writers seem to choose to ignore for whatever reason, does it mean "Undue Weight" to write about it, and how should "Undue Weight" policy be interpreted in relation to such topics?

I may be stretching it with this comparison, but nevertheless. Imagine Germany had won World War II. Perhaps not much would have been written in scholarly literature about the Holocaust in the U.S., for example due to political and economic pressure not to antagonize the German superpower. How would "undue weight" then apply to the Holocaust article?

Or take this example: . There are a number of works from the last decades or so that have started facing up to this topic. But if you look at the full body of literature written since 1945 they probably are a distinct minority, with the others either blissfully unaware or deliberately avoiding the sensitive topic. Does that mean writing about it on Wiki can be considered Undue Weight?

I would be very much interested in knowing how Undue Weight policy relates to "suppressed" topics, perhaps the policy needs finetuning?--] <sup>]</sup> 03:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

:I've considered a similar problem with ], where the change in name to Myanmar has been alleged to be part of an ongoing campaign of ]. What happens when all official documents reflect a history that the outside world knows to be false? Do we report the "official" history along with the "real" history? Frankly, I'm ]. ''We have to ] on historians for history the same way we rely on scientists for science.'' Mainstream history has an opinion on these events, and since we are simply gathering information and not passing judgment on it, we must report what mainstream history has to say. ] is a longstanding problem for history, and wikipedia cannot fix it. We can only report that some historians have suspected that mainstream accounts are tainted by that problem, and let people make their own decisions on what to believe. ] (]) 03:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

::Intesting, but isn't my question here not so much about contradicting statements from different scholars, but more about about some sources saying something that other sources says little or nothing at all about. I.e. not one opinion against another, but more a recently developed "new opinion" versus a possible larger accumulated body of "no opinion"?--] <sup>]</sup> 03:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

:::This topic ''is'' discussed in scholarly books on the experiances of Allied servicement in the Pacific published over the last 20 years: it's just not accorded much space, presumably as the relevant professional historians consider it not to have been all that commonplace. There seem to be only two scholarly papers on this topic which in turn heavily draw on the handful of pages in professional historians investigations of combat experiances in the Pacific War. It's not correct to state that historians have only started to write about the killings of Japanese POWs in the last decade - this has been discussed in histories for several decades, and was even included in the Australian official histories of the war which were written during the 1950s and 60s. Again, given that few Japanese ever tried to surrender prior to August 1945 (which is proven in countless histories of the war and attributed to the Japanese military's attitude towards surrender), it's not a major part of the war. ] (]) 07:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

::::I presume you are here referring to the topic of mutilation of the dead and not the topic of mass rapes, or the policy of killing surrendering Japanese.
::::I think we should make it very clear that we represent two very different standpoints on the mutilation issue here. Ever since I started that article you seem to have been very antagonistic against it. And you have also made a number of very strange claims, such as ''""In 1984 Japanese soldiers remains were repatriated from the Mariana Islands. Roughly 60 percent were missing their skulls" (cited, but there's no context given for this - why were the bodies being returned 40 years after the war? How many bodies were returned? Was this an example of the Japanese military custom of returning a body part to Japan rather than the whole body?).'' My question here is, which alleged Japanese custom are you referring to exactly? A scholar doesnt seem to be aware of any such "practice "Also: ''"Everything I've read suggests the opposite: on the only occasions during the Pacific War when US troops encountered Japanese civilians (mainly on Saipan and Okinawa) the civilians were treated fairly well. The US occupation troops in Japan after the war also generally behaved well, and seem to have actually behaved better than the troops on occupation duties in Western Europe."'' This doesn't sound very convincing considering the rapes, which you later acknowledged. As to the "topic discussions" in literature that you refer to, and do some presuming about: My position is that snippets of information here and there, and the conclusions the individual authors draw based on their limited horizon, are woefully inferior to the conclusions drawn by scholars in peer reviewed journals who draw on all that information and much much more, to paint a complete and comprehensive picture. Given that we only know of 2 such articles, but that means little since we are hardly topic experts and how many on topic scholarly journals do we actually need?
::::As to the common practice of killing surrendering Japanese i wish to strongly challenge both your assumptions. It may have been mentioned here and there in the past, but certainly not that it was common practice, such as here. You state the following: "''Again, given that few Japanese ever tried to surrender prior to August 1945 (which is proven in countless histories of the war and attributed to the Japanese military's attitude towards surrender), it's not a major part of the war.''" I guess this comes from your exhaustive experience with the literature. May I direct you to some sources collected here:
::::] "Dower states that in "many instances ... Japanese who did become prisoners were killed on the spot or en route to prison compounds." According to Aldrich it was common practice for US troops not to take prisoners. This analysis is supported by British historian Niall Fergusson, who also says that, in 1943, "a secret intelligence report noted that only the promise of ice cream and three days leave would ... induce American troops not to kill surrendering Japanese.""Fergusson suggests that "it was not only the fear of disciplinary action or of dishonor that deterred German and Japanese soldiers from surrendering. More important for most soldiers was the perception that prisoners would be killed by the enemy anyway, and so one might as well fight on. U. S. historian James J. Weingartner attributes the very low number of Japanese in U.S. POW compounds to two important factors, a Japanese reluctance to surrender and a widespread American "conviction that the Japanese were "animals" or "subhuman'" and unworthy of the normal treatment accorded to POWs. The latter reason is supported by Fergusson, who says that "Allied troops often saw the Japanese in the same way that Germans regarded Russians — as Untermenschen."" It would seem that a very important factor for Japanese reluctance to surrender to the Allied troops was their tendency to get massacred if they were dumb enough to try it. Hell, there is even colour movie footage of massacres and mutilations. Lets quote Harrison: Hoyt (1986: 391) argues that what he calls the ‘unthinking’ practice of taking home bones as souvenirs was exploited so effectively by Japanese government propaganda that it contributed to a preference for death over surrender and occupation, shown, for example, in the mass civilian suicides on Saipan and Okinawa after the Allied landings." I do believe all these topics deserve much attention, and statements such as "''it's not a major part of the war''" only reflect a very biased literature selection. To return to your first sentence "''This topic ''is'' discussed in scholarly books on the experiances of Allied servicement in the Pacific published over the last 20 years: it's just not accorded much space, presumably as the relevant professional historians consider it not to have been all that commonplace."'' I think we only need look at the topic of rapes in Europe to get some nuance on that..
::::"'Lilly reveals a different side to the myth of the wholesome GI of World War II. This is a well-researched and courageous attempt to throw some light on an ugly underbelly that has remained unexamined for far too long. His harrowing descriptions of numerous rapes from official records make Taken By Force an uncomfortable read. Nevertheless, this is an important book, and one that deserves a far wider readership than just those with a scholarly interest.' - Lucy Popescu, Tribune"
::::How much space has this topic been given in the past? What conclusion can we draw from the silence by other authors? That it was unimportant, that someone is lying through their teeth, or that certain historians have had an ugly tendency to underplay or ignore certain aspects of war?--] <sup>]</sup> 15:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


It seems like known issues or criticism sections are not allowed in Misplaced Pages acording to @] see ]. I am deply worried on this agresion on the neutrality of Misplaced Pages. Many articles have similar sections and discussions in the past settled these sections as valid. See ] Could someone clarify? ] (]) 14:57, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
== What is the point of a neutral point of view? ==
:This user is beating a ]. It has already been explained to them that a section for "known issues" is (1) unencyclopedic and contravenes ], being an indiscriminate list of trivial matters that belong on a help center or ], not Misplaced Pages; (2) non-neutral, as it directly goes against ] and ] by having a section dedicated to non-notable software bugs, which also has issues with ]; and (3) unnecessary, as any major controversies can and will be integrated in existing sections, as it is currently being done. I'll once again remind the user that (1) ]; (2) ]; and (3) they should ] by simply repeating their arguments. ] (]) 16:54, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
:A more neutral framing is "Reception", which makes room for the full range of opinions. Calling the section "criticism" is non-neutral because the heading naturally excludes positive comments. Yes, you can find articles from the past that fail ]. But they should be tagged and fixed, not used as examples of why we ignore ]. ] (]) 18:54, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
::OK, thanks. I will move the issues under the Reception section. ] (]) 06:25, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
:::84.78, you need to do ''three'' things here:
:::# Use neutral language, like "Reception". "Reception", by the way, implies that it's about what relevant experts think.
:::# Don't put any criticism in a separate section if it could be reasonably placed in an existing one. It's better to have something like "It has 12345 GB, which has been criticized as too little storage" than to have "It has 12345 GB" in one section and "It has been criticized for having too little storage" in another.
:::# Don't include every single known or suspected problem. Only include the problems that multiple independent reliable sources believe are significant. For example, if ''multiple'' computer magazines say "This device only has a foo, and it really ought to have a baz", then that's probably fine, but you probably shouldn't include anything that can only be sourced to a single source. If it's a significant problem, then you should be able to find multiple reports. If you can only find one website (especially if it's largely driven by sales commissions, customer reviews, or social media), then you shouldn't include it.
:::] (]) 21:07, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
::::What the others said. Plus such section headings tend to towards including things that would otherwise not merit inclusion.<b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 21:28, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
::::{{ec}}#3 is the key point. Not every software bug is notable — in fact, most of them aren't. Only if they have attracted widespread coverage from reliable sources, of if they have special significance/relevance, do they warrant a mention. ] (]) 21:28, 30 September 2024 (UTC)


The later part of this thread focused on neutrality issues but another might be the primary one here. The guidelines / policies that others are referring to (with WP:Not at the core of them) are in essence emphasizing that we are an enclyclopedia covering topics in enclyclopedia-type articles. So this is not "all information" and so you might be seeking to include information that is not enclyclopedia article type information. <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 21:36, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
Is this political correctness? It extends to discussions as well as articles right? <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 02:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


:Do you mean that notable issues with a product should not be allowed in wikipedia and thus be removed? Please, calrify and I will start removing any notable issue from any product page in Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 13:17, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
:neutral point of view, as I understand it, primarily refers things that affect article content. talk page discussions should adhere to ], and the hope is that civil discussion on the talk pages will produce neutral perspectives in article content.
::No, that is not at all what North meant… ''notable'' (or perhaps noteworthy) issues with a product (ie those widely reported on) ''should'' be mentioned. However, we don’t mention EVERY issue with a product. Trivial issues can be (and usually are) omitted. An examination of the sources, discussion and consensus determines whether a specific issue is noteworthy or trivial. ] (]) 13:41, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
:::OK, thanks. All the issues that @] is trying to hide are notable (accoding to Misplaced Pages notability definition). ] (]) 15:55, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
::::... No they are not. Please substantiate your arguments rather than simply continue to make claims like this. What "definition" are you referring to, and how so? I also don't appreciate your continual ] that I am making Misplaced Pages non-neutral, {{tqq|trying to hide}} information, or {{tqq|seem like a Google employee}}. ] (]) 16:04, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::I assume that 90.167 means ] instead of ]. ''Notability'' is Misplaced Pages's jargon for whether a subject deserves at ], and I don't think they mean to say that each of these consumer complaints deserves a completely separate article. ] (]) 16:48, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::Good point… DUE vs UNDUE (which is determined by coverage in sources) is the criteria here, not Notability. ] (]) 16:58, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::The page Misplaced Pages:Notability ], but "notable" is often used generically as a synonym of "noteworthy", i.e. worthy of inclusion on a Misplaced Pages article. It's important for the IP user to recognize that ], so just because they can find a source for something doesn't mean it is not trivial and interests a general audience. This is discussed at ]. ] (]) 17:40, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::These issues are supported by multiple sources. So, they are considered ]. I think Misplaced Pages needs to clarify if these are allowed or not as there are many similar articles. ] (]) 20:00, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::The first issue was added like this:
:::::::::* Some owners are reporting a camera tilt issue. Google has not made any comments yet.
:::::::::The source added for this issue was:
:::::::::*
:::::::::That's one (1) issue with one (1) source. One source ≠ multiple sources. ''Each'' complaint needs coverage in multiple sources. How else are we to know whether that's a widespread problem, or just something that a couple of people complained about? ] (]) 21:54, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Sure, I will add more sources. ] (]) 07:00, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
{{od}}Either the IP user is ] or ], as they have once again restored the list of known issues despite being told multiple times that it violates ] and ]. They have also ignored repeated requests not to edit-war and wait for consensus to fully develop before altering the status quo, so I can no longer assume good faith.{{pb}}The "sources" that ] are not reliable (]). Virtually all of them are newsblogs, and at most two can be considered marginally reliable. The absence of significant coverage from reputable sources is an indicator that these software bugs are not noteworthy for inclusion, and the IP user should ] at this point. ] (]) 07:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
:All of the sources in the page are either from other weblogs or the primary source. Sould we remove the whole article altogether for lack of reliable sources? ] (]) 07:37, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
::That's not true. The article cites the Associated Press, ''The Verge'', ''Wired'', ''The New York Times'', Bloomberg News, and more. If you're not sure what constitutes a reliable source, please consult ] and see ] for a list of common sources. Your tone here is combative, and you seem to avoid addressing the issues at hand, namely, ], ], and ]. Editors have explained to you that an indiscriminate list of software bugs is unencyclopedic and does not belong on Misplaced Pages, and only if a particular issue has contextual significance and has received significant coverage from reliable sources can it be integrated into other sections in the article. If you are unable to understand this, or simply refuse to work with Misplaced Pages's policies or guidelines, then let's close this discussion and ], because ] on Misplaced Pages, and you must be willing to adhere to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines and work with other editors. ] (]) 16:03, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
:::@], I think this is what the ] processes are for. I doubt the IP has enough experience to know how it works, but they do seem to be trying to comply with all the rules. Would you be willing to show the IP how it's done, by starting a discussion on the talk page, and marching through the list, from ] all the way to RFC if necessary, addressing each individual item at a time? ] (]) 16:33, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
::::Although I have tried to assume good faith, it no longer seems to me that the IP user is trying to follow our PAGs. They have been asked several times, "Please don't edit-war, please don't restore your edit until consensus is reached", yet they continue to do so. They have also been told (by at least four editors), "A standalone list section dedicated to software bugs is unencyclopedic, please don't add it", yet they continue to do so. This discussion has been a ''de facto'' 3O request, so I am not optimistic additional discussion will be any more productive. I'm also not sure what an RfC would look like — a question along the lines of "should a list of software bugs be included" would likely yield the response I summarized above: "no, but if a particular issue is noteworthy they can be discussed in other sections" ... ]! I also recognize there may be a language barrier (the IPs geolocate to Spain), but ] and this is not an excuse for disruptive behavior. ] (]) 17:17, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::We could stop the edit warring at ], but I think the open question (i.e., the point upon which you and the IP differ) is whether the sources provided indicate that the material is DUE. An RFC question could look like "Shall we include <this sentence>, using <these sources>?" ] (]) 17:26, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::I would say it seems pretty clear that newsblogs are generally unreliable, especially if they lack meaningful editorial oversight, have a poor track record, tend to publish anything for clicks, and are rarely cited by other reputable sources. I think to justify an exemption to ], there would need to be stronger sources like the ones listed at ] — at the very least, it should be reputable enough to have its own Misplaced Pages article. But what are your thoughts? As I said, this discussion is essentially an informal 3O/RfC/DRN. ] (]) 17:45, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I don't know enough about the subject area to know what the usual sourcing standards are. For all I know, these could be highly reputable websites. Alternatively, they could all be AI-generated fakes. I don't have the background information to be able to tell them apart. I find it much easier to evaluate academic sources than news-ish websites. ] (]) 20:57, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::@] These news outlets are being used for references in many Misplaced Pages articles if you want to challenge them then you should challenge them Misplaced Pages wide. ] (]) 09:24, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
I'm starting up a new observation, I have an interest in a particular article, see my log. I'm seeking an analogy to the exception about hearsay evidence - that you can in fact establish that somebody said something - a speech act - while refusing to say that in any sense the truth of what they say is established. So, rather than focusing on the truth of a claim, whether that claim has been stated by a reputable source, that it could be established that a given claim is "out there", which to my way of seeking would involve a lower threshold to establish that - as compared to the truth of what is being claimed. If the current set of wikipedia ideas do not allow for this, I suggest that be a modification. If that is not possible, well, *groan* ] (]) 20:42, 15 October 2024 (UTC)


:So, there are two policy issues related to this:
:neutrality is not political correctness (which as I understand it simply avoids anything that might offend anyone); neutrality means that we are trying to present a view on the subject that either lacks a particular perspective, or offers all of the major perspectives without giving any undo preference to any of them. it's actually very difficult to achieve neutrality because none of us can really claim to be neutral, and there's no real objective guideline for when something is neutral, and sometimes neutrality means that a perspective some people find offensive has to be given. --] 20:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
:1- verifying that the person said it, and that Misplaced Pages is quoting them accurately. This is covered in WP:V and WP:RS.
:2- establishing that Misplaced Pages should mention the quote in the first place. This is covered at WP:NPOV, and specifically by WP:UNDUE.
:Essentially, we want to cite the original (primary) source for Verifiability purposes, but want to cite Secondary sources for DUE Weight purposes. Thus, best practice is to cite both. ] (]) 21:41, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
::The challenge is that saying "So-and-so said ____" implies that ____ is not only true but also relevant/important.
::In some areas, we can move to a higher class of sources (e.g., replace social media posts about politician's hairstyles with scholarly sources that look at the same politician's policy stances). In other areas, that's not possible.
::Editors will always have to use their judgment to determine whether a given point actually belongs in an encyclopedia article. ] (]) 00:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
:::OK, thanks for that. I'll see how I go applying this in the next few days.] (]) 00:32, 17 October 2024 (UTC)


Well sourced, journalist written, mainstream corporate media based critical contents is nowhere near as problematic as Awards & Accolades section citing the award granting group, other .org, trade groups. ] (]) 19:52, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
== Terrible sentence? ==


:I agree in theory, and I think this particular example hinges on whether you recognize these websites as "journalist written, mainstream corporate media" vs just some websites. ] (]) 22:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
Anyone agree that the following is a terrible sentence?


== Due and undue weight and articles on religion: potential guidelines for ordering for neutrality ==
*"Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization."
For articles on religious topics which do have a broad and NPOV material (not just the views of a single denomination), should there be some editorial guideline for ordering to the presentation of semi-controversial information to reduce undue weight or cumulative non-NPOV?


The guidelines that come to mind are:
-] (]) 10:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


0. Editors should NOT order the sections merely according to their length or the order they were added, unless the sections have already been arranged so that the length reflects some reasonably objective editorial metric or system: due weight or notability or chronology or genericity etc.
"radiate" isn't really lent to facts, opinions or stances.


1. If the presentation starts chronologically/historically, the article should generally continue chronologically/historically. I.e. for Christian-related topic, a series like Ancient/Patristic/Catholic-Orthodox/Protestant/Non-conformist/Liberal or whatever. E.g. ].
:well, ''terrible'' might be a bit strong, but it isn't great. :-) let me see if I can fix it; I wanted to clarify something in that section anyway. --] 20:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


1a. Where chronological listing might give undue weight to some marginal information, it could be put at the end, or grouped into a subsection like "Other". This may help flow of reading too.
== Headings ==


2. If the material is best thought of as a series of parallel developments without strong interaction, then organizing by topic/stream/denomination could be appropriate. For example, the ] article has its main split into an Orthodox section then a Catholic section, with chronological considerations in the paragraphs not the sections.
What excatly is the policy of NPOV in headings?


2a. In this case, the issue of the order of denominations is also appropriate to consider: I suggest that where some idea is notably or primarily or most simply associated with some single denomination or group (e.g. Orthodoxy and "energia" or Catholicism and "essence" or perhaps "sola fide" and Protestantism) then that denomination or group should be treated first.
My question comes about how band articles have History sections that a divided in ways such as: ===Mainstream success: 1992–1994===. First, isn't the heading somewhat ambiguous? What is the section talking about, the span of years, or mainstream success? Second, wouldn't it be POV if you had to mention both? I mean mainstream success is subjective, and then, there are no papers that can be cited where a historian has published that the years from 1992-1994 is the Mainstream success era for ]. Where as History sections such as in ] can have the the ] era because historians have written published work in peer-reviewed journals, the ] era DO NOT have historians that have written published work in peer-reviewed journals, where we have another problem, ]. <u>Yet we have another problem, ], since it can't be cited, it can't be included. </u>Years are objective, why Mainstream success, and other unnecessary discriptors, mind you, are subjective.] (]) 07:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


2b. But where the topic applies to multiple denominations where none is clearly the most notable, and then I suggest that notability should use the proxy of the numerical strength of that denomination, following ]. This would mean Catholic section first, Protestants second, Orthodox third, Church of east fourth, others at end.
:I haven't seen the article your example is taken from (if it's from an actual Wiki article), so I can't decide how appropriate the heading is for the content of the section in question. The heading in your example is not ambiguous. It conveys quite clearly that the section is about the history of the band between 1992 and 1994, and that the band enjoyed mainstream success during that period.


Would it be legitimate for an editor, e.g. me, to take an article e.g. ] and rearrange it chronologically/sizewise (to the order Catholic, Lutheran, Evangelical, Liberal, Neo-orthodx) just on these editorial considerations, without being accused of pushing a particular wheelbarrow?
:The purpose of headings is to allow the reader to get a quick idea of the content of different sections, and to help provide the reader a mental map of the article. It is not intended to provide details. A heading like "Mainstream success: 1992–1994" contains some degree of vagueness and subjectivity, but that's not necessarily a problem. Most people have similar ideas about what mainstream success is, but they don't have the same threshold-criteria for when a band has achieved mainstream success. It would be counter-productive to try to redefine "mainstream success" in terms of clear-cut criteria, as such a definition would correspond less well with how people actually understand the words.
This came up because I saw (or imagined) a pattern where many articles have a large Protestant section first then a small Catholic section later: the order suggests a logical priority which is surely not appropriate or intended: for individual articles...who cares? But cumulatively an ordering in many articles favouring particular smaller groups might be create a form of bias.


:(Currently, there are many articles on religious topics (Christian, presumably others) that feature only or mainly the view of one denomination or belief system. This is unavoidable, of course, given that some articles are sourced from e.g. the Catholic Encyclopedia or written by people interested or specialist in one tradition. (For example, the old article on ] had only Protestant material.) However, in the long term we hope that articles reform themselves as editors attend to WP:NPOV and undue weight etc. That is a different issue.) ] (]) 05:21, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
:Presumably, if a band achieved "mainstream success" during a certain period, the article section will contain details of their achievements, e.g. sales of recordings & concert tickets, chart rankings, awards, etc. It is perfect acceptable to leave it to the readers to get such details from reading the text, and not just the heading, of the section.


== the -est, "one of the first", in xxx superlatives in articles ==
:--] (]) 11:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
How do we feel about the liberal use of such sensationalistic superlatives in a lot of articles? I am seeing them everywhere.
"the biggest, the first, was featured in best/top 4,523 list of xxx" in the township/]/region/state/country/time zone. and so on. Even if it's mentioned in reliable sources, I'm seeing this used excessively.
] (])
*This is done to establish notability. ] (]) 22:37, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
*Is it accurate? If so, then I don't think it's a problem, especially if it's just one or two claims per article. I'd rather read "First pizza joint in the ]" than "It's a pizza joint in the ]". It's not ] to report 'favorable' facts.{{pb}} Also, Blueboar is correct. Our notion of a ] pretty much demands that editors add some sort of information along these lines, so we can't complain too much when they do what we insist they do. ] (]) 22:38, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
:I think the issue is the overly liberal use of such superlatives. I do not think that any reasonable editor would object to describing ] as the first human to journey into outer space. The quality of the sourcing is also important. If the preponderance of reliable sources describe the topic as "the first", then I have no problem including it. But sometimes these claims are sourced to low quality, lazy ] journalism. As in so many other areas of editing Misplaced Pages, a healthy dose of common sense and good editorial judgment is required. ] (]) 22:51, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
::And also, "Awards and Accolades" section being considerably larger than criticism even if there's just as much critical information based on news reports. ] (]) 22:56, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
:::Well, listicle formatting may give a false impression there (a list of three awards takes up more screen space than a prose sentence naming the same three awards), but the problem with unbalanced attention isn't really about the superlatives. Someone can be widely recognized as the best guitarist and a person with serious personal problems; a business can produce the finest widgets and the biggest polluter of the town's water supply. And because of the effects of ] on ], it is sometimes the case that what looks big at the moment turns out to be a temporary blip. It can be difficult to get the balance right, even when you're trying hard. ] (]) 23:38, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
::::It's certainly noteworthy to say that they're the worst town polluter though, along with being the finest maker of widget Y. ] (]) 00:13, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
::"was the first restaurant in township to phase out single use flatware, and has the largest solar generation among all sit-down restaurants in the county" sort of thing is what I was referring to. ] (]) 00:17, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
:::Assuming that they got some attention from (e.g.) the local newspaper about this, what's wrong with that? That might be what they're actually notable for. Maybe the next paragraph (or next year's version of the article) is going to say that the owners campaigned for a local ], or that their solar array caught fire and burned down the entire historic district. If that's what the sources give attention to that restaurant for, then deciding that this is unimportant is what this policy calls "editorial bias".
:::In some cases, what's important is that it happens at all. In such a case, the article might say less about "first" and "largest", and instead say something like "The owners are interested in environmental issues and have consequently stopped providing single-use flatware and installed a solar power system". But you really would have to consider everything the source says before deciding what to write. "They're eco-conscious" isn't a good explanation if the facts are that the solar power company was having a contest, and the super-competitive owner was determined to beat his arch-rival, Other Restaurant. ] (]) 00:52, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
::::But in grand scheme of thing, those insignificant claims like the biggest snail ever seen (on my property) usually don't belong in an encyclopedia. It can be in editorial gray zone, but those "first in township" like claims are clearly comparable to that watermelon example.
::::Although I'm not exactly known as being an inclusionist while some others are extreme inclusionist. ] (]) 04:27, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::If independent sources make a big deal out of _____, then it doesn't matter if _____ seems insignificant to a Misplaced Pages editor. Instead of imposing our personal biases on the sources (why did they waste space on that unimportant cruft?!), we should reflect the sources as best we can.
:::::Sometimes there are ways to represent the facts in a less-enthusiastic tone. "The biggest, oldest, and best restaurant in Smallville" may become "the only restaurant in Smallville". But ultimately, if the main reason the sources are writing about the restaurant is because they have solar panels on the roof, or a record-setting ball of twine in the garden, or because ], the Misplaced Pages articles really do need to reflect that fact.
:::::Sometimes it's not actually obvious why some "trivia" might be more important than it looks at first blush. For example, "24-bed hospital with the only emergency room within 25 miles of town" probably sounds like pure promotionalism to some editors – but they wouldn't think that if they knew what effect that particular combination of size and distance has on unlocking US federal funding. There could be a hidden importance behind other kinds of "unimportant" facts, too. ] (]) 07:33, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::I tend to agree if the attention is brought upon by the independent source in an intellectually independent way.
::::::I'll use real example.. " LA Weekly listed it as one of the ten best "Online Resources for Metal Knowledge" in 2013." in ], I find questionable. It's just in a list, but it was an editor decision to bring up that it's in a list. ] (]) 14:51, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
: I'm repeating what other people have said, but this is the easiest way to clear the ] hurdle, if it exists. I agree it can start to feel sensationalistic. That's why we avoid saying "X is the greatest movie of all time", and instead say "X was named the greatest film of all time by publication A, B, and C." The first is an opinion, the second is a fact (about an opinion). ] (]) 13:47, 3 November 2024 (UTC)


== Comedy is subjective ==
::I disagree with you because that just subjective. I has been raised that success can never be measured. In any case, this is just one case, just an excample. But still, wouldn't it be better to just list the years?] (]) 12:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


I see comedy hasn't been discussed in the archives. I added it to the subjective section. We should be careful about overweighting articles with suggestions of offense or the like, sourced to conventional sources. Consider that those '''not''' offended are unlikely to be reported on, resulting in POV issues. Thoughts here? ] (]) 21:24, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
== fairness of tone revision ==


:@] I see you reverted without explanation, would you like to discuss? ] (]) 15:11, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
I recently revised the 'fairness of tone' section to read as follows:
::Not really, I don't feel the need to justify reverting a unilateral addition to site policy. I did explain it, though: there's an "etc." on that list for a reason. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 19:11, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
:::] edits are a conventional way to collaborate on the project though it may feel a little strange sometimes! Objections/reverts are best received when discussed or explained. Do you have an opinion on comedians and how sources can get ]-y? ] (]) 04:41, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
::::Right. You made a bold edit, and I reverted it. We've completed ], as I've already explained my reasoning both in the edit summary and in a reply here. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 04:55, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
:I have notified ]. ] (]) 17:29, 6 November 2024 (UTC)


== How would you go about reporting groups of high reputation on Misplaced Pages if they violate NPOV and hold certain pages of Misplaced Pages hostage ? ==
{{quotation|Article tone can affect neutrality, sometimes in drastic ways, even where the article is otherwise unobjectionable. Many articles end up as partisan commentary ''even while'' presenting both points of view. Word choice in individual phrases can change the meaning of otherwise factual statements to imply endorsement or condemnation of the topic as a whole, and the particular arrangement and distribution of statements throughout the article can suggest or imply conclusions, creating an implicit and improper ]. In general, editors should consider the following:
;Necessary and sufficient sourcing:References in an article should be sufficient to establish a point, but not excessive. An over-abundance of references (even properly sourced references) adds little of factual value to the article, but can bias the topic through sheer numerical weight.
;Strength of statements:The strength of a statement can be a source of bias. In general, ''weak'' statements are preferable to ''strong'' statements - i.e. ''He dislikes...'' would be better than ''he hates...'' or ''he abhors...'' - because strong statements add an emotional charge that can influence the reader. However, overly-weak statements can also impose bias. For instance, referring to anti-semitism as a "''dislike'' of Jews" does not capture the proper sense of the term.
;Precedence, order, and repetition:In general, people remember most clearly the last thing said and the first thing said (see ]), statements that appear as stark contrasts (see ]), and statements that are frequently repeated. Placing important points in the middle of an article effectively discounts them; placing secondary points high in the article effectively magnifies them. Further, placing contrasting ideas close to each other in an article can magnify the importance of each, which may be useful or may be inappropriate.
;Structural issues:In general, Misplaced Pages articles should be structured into appropriate topical sections for easy navigation and reading, and the comments above should apply to sections as a whole, as well as to statements. In particular, creating sections that contain oppositional viewpoints can sometimes magnify one or another viewpoint. See ] for more details.


My concern is those large groups with high reputation that bully other users editing in good faith when they have genuine issues with the larger groups edits that they want to fix ] (]) 01:53, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
Articles in Misplaced Pages should maintain in tone that ''all'' positions presented are worthy of unbiased and respectful representation (see ] and ] for information on when views should not be presented on Misplaced Pages at all).}}


:Generally, we should ]. That said, follow the ] policy. —] (]) 06:24, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
it was (of course) immediately reverted, as are most of my posts on wikipedia <sigh...> :-) so I'm posting it here for comment and revision. the improvements this version represents are as follows:
#it's far more developed than the current version
#it avoids the current versions overlap with ] and keeps focussed on topic
#it spells out particular issues that might arise in editing, and how to deal with them
comments and revisions, please? --] 23:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
:Ludwigs, you have no support. Your recent revision actually deleted long-standing policy regarding giving weight to fringe issues. Notice how no one is giving support here. ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 00:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 16:35, 14 December 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Neutral point of view page.
Shortcut
The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Misplaced Pages. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic.

Are you in the right place?For questions or discussions about the application of this policy to any specific article(s), please post your message at either the NPOV Noticeboard (any neutrality-related issue) or the Fringe Theories Noticeboard (undue weight given to a minority view).
This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconSpoken Misplaced Pages
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Misplaced Pages
Media mentionThis policy has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:

Archives

Archive_001 Discussions before October 2004
Archive_002 Closing out 2004
Archive_003 Discussions begun Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr 2005
Archive 004 July to November 4, 2005
Archive 005 to November 13, 2005
Archive 006 to December 4, 2005
Archive 007 to December 30, 2005
Archive 008 to December 27, 2005
Archive 009 to January 16, 2006
Archive 010 to January 23, 2006
Archive 011 to January 25, 2006
Archive 012 to January 26, 2006
Archive 013 to January 29, 2006
Archive 014 to January 29, 2006
Archive 015 to March 8, 2006
Archive 016 to March 10, 2006
Archive 017 to April 09, 2006

Note: Edit history of 001–017 is in 017.

Archive 018: Apr 2006
Archive 019: Apr 2006 – May 2006
Archive 020: May 2006 – Jun 2006
Archive 021: Jun 2006
Archive 022: Jun–Jul 2006 (moving FAQ)
Archive 023: Jul–Aug 4 2006
Archive 024: Aug 4 – Sept 21 2006
Archive 025: Sept 22 – Oct 2006
Archive 26: Nov – Dec 2006
Archive 27: Jan – Feb 2007
Archive 28: Mar – May 2007
Archive 29: May – Sep 2007
Archive 30: Oct 2007 – Feb 2008
Archive 31: Feb – May 2008
Archive 32: May – July 2008
Archive 33: July 2008
Archive 34: July – Sep 2008
Archive 35: Sep 2008 – May 2009
Archive 36: April – Aug 2009
Archive 37: Aug – Nov 2009
Archive 38: Nov 2009 – Feb 2010
Archive 39: Mar - Apr 2010
Archive 40: Apr 2010
Archive 41: May 2010
Archive 42: May - Jun 2010
Archive 43: Jun - Oct 2010
Archive 44: Oct 2010 - Apr 2011
Archive 45: Apr - Nov 2011
Archive 46: Dec 2011 - Jun 2013
Archive 47: Jun 2013 - Oct 2014
Archive 48: Sep 2014 - May 2015
Archive 49: May 2015
Archive 50: May - Jun 2015
Archive 51: Jul - Nov 2015
Archive 52: Nov 2015 – Nov 2016
Archive 53: Oct 2016 – Sep 2017
Archive 54: Aug 2017
Archive 55: Sep 2017 – Feb 2019
Archive 56: Mar 2019 – Jun 2020
Archive 57: Jun 2020 – Jul 2021
Archive 58: Jun 2021 – Mar 2022
Archive 59: Mar 2022 – Jul 2022
Archive 60: Jul 2022 – Oct 2022
Archive 61: Sep 2022 – Jun 2023
Archive 62: Jun 2023 – Aug 2023
Archive 63: Aug 2023
Archive 64: Aug 2023 – May 2024
Archive 65: Oct 2023 – Nov 2023
Archive 66: Nov 2023 – Aug 2024
Archive 67: Aug 2024 – present
This page has archives. Sections older than 40 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Clarification for known issues or criticism sections

It seems like known issues or criticism sections are not allowed in Misplaced Pages acording to @InfiniteNexus see Talk:Pixel_9#Known issues section and neutrality. I am deply worried on this agresion on the neutrality of Misplaced Pages. Many articles have similar sections and discussions in the past settled these sections as valid. See Talk:Pixel 5#Known issues section blanking Could someone clarify? 90.167.218.96 (talk) 14:57, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

This user is beating a WP:DEADHORSE. It has already been explained to them that a section for "known issues" is (1) unencyclopedic and contravenes WP:NOTCHANGELOG, being an indiscriminate list of trivial matters that belong on a help center or issue tracking system, not Misplaced Pages; (2) non-neutral, as it directly goes against WP:CSECTION and WP:TRIVIA by having a section dedicated to non-notable software bugs, which also has issues with WP:UNDUE; and (3) unnecessary, as any major controversies can and will be integrated in existing sections, as it is currently being done. I'll once again remind the user that (1) two wrongs don't make a right; (2) consensus is not determined by the number of raw votes but by the strength of the arguments presented; and (3) they should stop going around in circles by simply repeating their arguments. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:54, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
A more neutral framing is "Reception", which makes room for the full range of opinions. Calling the section "criticism" is non-neutral because the heading naturally excludes positive comments. Yes, you can find articles from the past that fail WP:NPOV. But they should be tagged and fixed, not used as examples of why we ignore WP:NPOV. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:54, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I will move the issues under the Reception section. 84.78.243.26 (talk) 06:25, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
84.78, you need to do three things here:
  1. Use neutral language, like "Reception". "Reception", by the way, implies that it's about what relevant experts think.
  2. Don't put any criticism in a separate section if it could be reasonably placed in an existing one. It's better to have something like "It has 12345 GB, which has been criticized as too little storage" than to have "It has 12345 GB" in one section and "It has been criticized for having too little storage" in another.
  3. Don't include every single known or suspected problem. Only include the problems that multiple independent reliable sources believe are significant. For example, if multiple computer magazines say "This device only has a foo, and it really ought to have a baz", then that's probably fine, but you probably shouldn't include anything that can only be sourced to a single source. If it's a significant problem, then you should be able to find multiple reports. If you can only find one website (especially if it's largely driven by sales commissions, customer reviews, or social media), then you shouldn't include it.
WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:07, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
What the others said. Plus such section headings tend to towards including things that would otherwise not merit inclusion.North8000 (talk) 21:28, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
(edit conflict)#3 is the key point. Not every software bug is notable — in fact, most of them aren't. Only if they have attracted widespread coverage from reliable sources, of if they have special significance/relevance, do they warrant a mention. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:28, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

The later part of this thread focused on neutrality issues but another might be the primary one here. The guidelines / policies that others are referring to (with WP:Not at the core of them) are in essence emphasizing that we are an enclyclopedia covering topics in enclyclopedia-type articles. So this is not "all information" and so you might be seeking to include information that is not enclyclopedia article type information. North8000 (talk) 21:36, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Do you mean that notable issues with a product should not be allowed in wikipedia and thus be removed? Please, calrify and I will start removing any notable issue from any product page in Misplaced Pages. 80.103.136.237 (talk) 13:17, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
No, that is not at all what North meant… notable (or perhaps noteworthy) issues with a product (ie those widely reported on) should be mentioned. However, we don’t mention EVERY issue with a product. Trivial issues can be (and usually are) omitted. An examination of the sources, discussion and consensus determines whether a specific issue is noteworthy or trivial. Blueboar (talk) 13:41, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
OK, thanks. All the issues that @InfiniteNexus is trying to hide are notable (accoding to Misplaced Pages notability definition). 90.167.219.84 (talk) 15:55, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
... No they are not. Please substantiate your arguments rather than simply continue to make claims like this. What "definition" are you referring to, and how so? I also don't appreciate your continual bad-faith assertions that I am making Misplaced Pages non-neutral, trying to hide information, or seem like a Google employee. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:04, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
I assume that 90.167 means WP:Due weight instead of Misplaced Pages:Notability. Notability is Misplaced Pages's jargon for whether a subject deserves at WP:Separate, stand-alone article, and I don't think they mean to say that each of these consumer complaints deserves a completely separate article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:48, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
Good point… DUE vs UNDUE (which is determined by coverage in sources) is the criteria here, not Notability. Blueboar (talk) 16:58, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
The page Misplaced Pages:Notability does not apply to content within articles, but "notable" is often used generically as a synonym of "noteworthy", i.e. worthy of inclusion on a Misplaced Pages article. It's important for the IP user to recognize that verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, so just because they can find a source for something doesn't mean it is not trivial and interests a general audience. This is discussed at WP:INDISCRIMINATE. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:40, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
These issues are supported by multiple sources. So, they are considered WP:Due weight. I think Misplaced Pages needs to clarify if these are allowed or not as there are many similar articles. 80.103.137.123 (talk) 20:00, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
The first issue was added like this:
  • Some owners are reporting a camera tilt issue. Google has not made any comments yet.
The source added for this issue was:
That's one (1) issue with one (1) source. One source ≠ multiple sources. Each complaint needs coverage in multiple sources. How else are we to know whether that's a widespread problem, or just something that a couple of people complained about? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:54, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
Sure, I will add more sources. 90.167.218.158 (talk) 07:00, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Either the IP user is intentionally being disruptive or unable to understand the relevant policies and guidelines, as they have once again restored the list of known issues despite being told multiple times that it violates WP:NOT and WP:CSECTION. They have also ignored repeated requests not to edit-war and wait for consensus to fully develop before altering the status quo, so I can no longer assume good faith.

The "sources" that the IP has just added are not reliable (WP:RS). Virtually all of them are newsblogs, and at most two can be considered marginally reliable. The absence of significant coverage from reputable sources is an indicator that these software bugs are not noteworthy for inclusion, and the IP user should WP:DROPTHESTICK at this point. InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

All of the sources in the page are either from other weblogs or the primary source. Sould we remove the whole article altogether for lack of reliable sources? 90.167.203.206 (talk) 07:37, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
That's not true. The article cites the Associated Press, The Verge, Wired, The New York Times, Bloomberg News, and more. If you're not sure what constitutes a reliable source, please consult WP:RS and see WP:RSPS for a list of common sources. Your tone here is combative, and you seem to avoid addressing the issues at hand, namely, WP:NOT, WP:UNDUE, and WP:CSECTION. Editors have explained to you that an indiscriminate list of software bugs is unencyclopedic and does not belong on Misplaced Pages, and only if a particular issue has contextual significance and has received significant coverage from reliable sources can it be integrated into other sections in the article. If you are unable to understand this, or simply refuse to work with Misplaced Pages's policies or guidelines, then let's close this discussion and move on, because competence is required on Misplaced Pages, and you must be willing to adhere to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines and work with other editors. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:03, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
@InfiniteNexus, I think this is what the Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution processes are for. I doubt the IP has enough experience to know how it works, but they do seem to be trying to comply with all the rules. Would you be willing to show the IP how it's done, by starting a discussion on the talk page, and marching through the list, from Misplaced Pages:Third opinion all the way to RFC if necessary, addressing each individual item at a time? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:33, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Although I have tried to assume good faith, it no longer seems to me that the IP user is trying to follow our PAGs. They have been asked several times, "Please don't edit-war, please don't restore your edit until consensus is reached", yet they continue to do so. They have also been told (by at least four editors), "A standalone list section dedicated to software bugs is unencyclopedic, please don't add it", yet they continue to do so. This discussion has been a de facto 3O request, so I am not optimistic additional discussion will be any more productive. I'm also not sure what an RfC would look like — a question along the lines of "should a list of software bugs be included" would likely yield the response I summarized above: "no, but if a particular issue is noteworthy they can be discussed in other sections" ... which is what I've told the IP since the beginning! I also recognize there may be a language barrier (the IPs geolocate to Spain), but competence is still required and this is not an excuse for disruptive behavior. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:17, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
We could stop the edit warring at Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection, but I think the open question (i.e., the point upon which you and the IP differ) is whether the sources provided indicate that the material is DUE. An RFC question could look like "Shall we include <this sentence>, using <these sources>?" WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:26, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
I would say it seems pretty clear that newsblogs are generally unreliable, especially if they lack meaningful editorial oversight, have a poor track record, tend to publish anything for clicks, and are rarely cited by other reputable sources. I think to justify an exemption to WP:NOTCHANGELOG, there would need to be stronger sources like the ones listed at WP:RSPS — at the very least, it should be reputable enough to have its own Misplaced Pages article. But what are your thoughts? As I said, this discussion is essentially an informal 3O/RfC/DRN. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:45, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
I don't know enough about the subject area to know what the usual sourcing standards are. For all I know, these could be highly reputable websites. Alternatively, they could all be AI-generated fakes. I don't have the background information to be able to tell them apart. I find it much easier to evaluate academic sources than news-ish websites. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:57, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
@InfiniteNexus These news outlets are being used for references in many Misplaced Pages articles if you want to challenge them then you should challenge them Misplaced Pages wide. 85.48.187.242 (talk) 09:24, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm starting up a new observation, I have an interest in a particular article, see my log. I'm seeking an analogy to the exception about hearsay evidence - that you can in fact establish that somebody said something - a speech act - while refusing to say that in any sense the truth of what they say is established. So, rather than focusing on the truth of a claim, whether that claim has been stated by a reputable source, that it could be established that a given claim is "out there", which to my way of seeking would involve a lower threshold to establish that - as compared to the truth of what is being claimed. If the current set of wikipedia ideas do not allow for this, I suggest that be a modification. If that is not possible, well, *groan* JohnAugust (talk) 20:42, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

So, there are two policy issues related to this:
1- verifying that the person said it, and that Misplaced Pages is quoting them accurately. This is covered in WP:V and WP:RS.
2- establishing that Misplaced Pages should mention the quote in the first place. This is covered at WP:NPOV, and specifically by WP:UNDUE.
Essentially, we want to cite the original (primary) source for Verifiability purposes, but want to cite Secondary sources for DUE Weight purposes. Thus, best practice is to cite both. Blueboar (talk) 21:41, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
The challenge is that saying "So-and-so said ____" implies that ____ is not only true but also relevant/important.
In some areas, we can move to a higher class of sources (e.g., replace social media posts about politician's hairstyles with scholarly sources that look at the same politician's policy stances). In other areas, that's not possible.
Editors will always have to use their judgment to determine whether a given point actually belongs in an encyclopedia article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
OK, thanks for that. I'll see how I go applying this in the next few days.JohnAugust (talk) 00:32, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Well sourced, journalist written, mainstream corporate media based critical contents is nowhere near as problematic as Awards & Accolades section citing the award granting group, other .org, trade groups. Graywalls (talk) 19:52, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree in theory, and I think this particular example hinges on whether you recognize these websites as "journalist written, mainstream corporate media" vs just some websites. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Due and undue weight and articles on religion: potential guidelines for ordering for neutrality

For articles on religious topics which do have a broad and NPOV material (not just the views of a single denomination), should there be some editorial guideline for ordering to the presentation of semi-controversial information to reduce undue weight or cumulative non-NPOV?

The guidelines that come to mind are:

0. Editors should NOT order the sections merely according to their length or the order they were added, unless the sections have already been arranged so that the length reflects some reasonably objective editorial metric or system: due weight or notability or chronology or genericity etc.

1. If the presentation starts chronologically/historically, the article should generally continue chronologically/historically. I.e. for Christian-related topic, a series like Ancient/Patristic/Catholic-Orthodox/Protestant/Non-conformist/Liberal or whatever. E.g. Biblical_inerrancy.

1a. Where chronological listing might give undue weight to some marginal information, it could be put at the end, or grouped into a subsection like "Other". This may help flow of reading too.

2. If the material is best thought of as a series of parallel developments without strong interaction, then organizing by topic/stream/denomination could be appropriate. For example, the Essence–energies_distinction article has its main split into an Orthodox section then a Catholic section, with chronological considerations in the paragraphs not the sections.

2a. In this case, the issue of the order of denominations is also appropriate to consider: I suggest that where some idea is notably or primarily or most simply associated with some single denomination or group (e.g. Orthodoxy and "energia" or Catholicism and "essence" or perhaps "sola fide" and Protestantism) then that denomination or group should be treated first.

2b. But where the topic applies to multiple denominations where none is clearly the most notable, and then I suggest that notability should use the proxy of the numerical strength of that denomination, following List_of_Christian_denominations_by_number_of_members. This would mean Catholic section first, Protestants second, Orthodox third, Church of east fourth, others at end.

Would it be legitimate for an editor, e.g. me, to take an article e.g. Biblical_inspiration and rearrange it chronologically/sizewise (to the order Catholic, Lutheran, Evangelical, Liberal, Neo-orthodx) just on these editorial considerations, without being accused of pushing a particular wheelbarrow?

This came up because I saw (or imagined) a pattern where many articles have a large Protestant section first then a small Catholic section later: the order suggests a logical priority which is surely not appropriate or intended: for individual articles...who cares? But cumulatively an ordering in many articles favouring particular smaller groups might be create a form of bias.

(Currently, there are many articles on religious topics (Christian, presumably others) that feature only or mainly the view of one denomination or belief system. This is unavoidable, of course, given that some articles are sourced from e.g. the Catholic Encyclopedia or written by people interested or specialist in one tradition. (For example, the old article on Priesthood of all believers had only Protestant material.) However, in the long term we hope that articles reform themselves as editors attend to WP:NPOV and undue weight etc. That is a different issue.) Rick Jelliffe (talk) 05:21, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

the -est, "one of the first", in xxx superlatives in articles

How do we feel about the liberal use of such sensationalistic superlatives in a lot of articles? I am seeing them everywhere. "the biggest, the first, was featured in best/top 4,523 list of xxx" in the township/Bay Area/region/state/country/time zone. and so on. Even if it's mentioned in reliable sources, I'm seeing this used excessively. Graywalls (talk)

I think the issue is the overly liberal use of such superlatives. I do not think that any reasonable editor would object to describing Yuri Gagarin as the first human to journey into outer space. The quality of the sourcing is also important. If the preponderance of reliable sources describe the topic as "the first", then I have no problem including it. But sometimes these claims are sourced to low quality, lazy listicle journalism. As in so many other areas of editing Misplaced Pages, a healthy dose of common sense and good editorial judgment is required. Cullen328 (talk) 22:51, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
And also, "Awards and Accolades" section being considerably larger than criticism even if there's just as much critical information based on news reports. Graywalls (talk) 22:56, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
Well, listicle formatting may give a false impression there (a list of three awards takes up more screen space than a prose sentence naming the same three awards), but the problem with unbalanced attention isn't really about the superlatives. Someone can be widely recognized as the best guitarist and a person with serious personal problems; a business can produce the finest widgets and the biggest polluter of the town's water supply. And because of the effects of Outrage journalism on WP:RECENTISM, it is sometimes the case that what looks big at the moment turns out to be a temporary blip. It can be difficult to get the balance right, even when you're trying hard. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:38, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
It's certainly noteworthy to say that they're the worst town polluter though, along with being the finest maker of widget Y. Graywalls (talk) 00:13, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
"was the first restaurant in township to phase out single use flatware, and has the largest solar generation among all sit-down restaurants in the county" sort of thing is what I was referring to. Graywalls (talk) 00:17, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
Assuming that they got some attention from (e.g.) the local newspaper about this, what's wrong with that? That might be what they're actually notable for. Maybe the next paragraph (or next year's version of the article) is going to say that the owners campaigned for a local plastic straw ban, or that their solar array caught fire and burned down the entire historic district. If that's what the sources give attention to that restaurant for, then deciding that this is unimportant is what this policy calls "editorial bias".
In some cases, what's important is that it happens at all. In such a case, the article might say less about "first" and "largest", and instead say something like "The owners are interested in environmental issues and have consequently stopped providing single-use flatware and installed a solar power system". But you really would have to consider everything the source says before deciding what to write. "They're eco-conscious" isn't a good explanation if the facts are that the solar power company was having a contest, and the super-competitive owner was determined to beat his arch-rival, Other Restaurant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:52, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
But in grand scheme of thing, those insignificant claims like the biggest snail ever seen (on my property) usually don't belong in an encyclopedia. It can be in editorial gray zone, but those "first in township" like claims are clearly comparable to that watermelon example.
Although I'm not exactly known as being an inclusionist while some others are extreme inclusionist. Graywalls (talk) 04:27, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
If independent sources make a big deal out of _____, then it doesn't matter if _____ seems insignificant to a Misplaced Pages editor. Instead of imposing our personal biases on the sources (why did they waste space on that unimportant cruft?!), we should reflect the sources as best we can.
Sometimes there are ways to represent the facts in a less-enthusiastic tone. "The biggest, oldest, and best restaurant in Smallville" may become "the only restaurant in Smallville". But ultimately, if the main reason the sources are writing about the restaurant is because they have solar panels on the roof, or a record-setting ball of twine in the garden, or because George Washington Slept Here, the Misplaced Pages articles really do need to reflect that fact.
Sometimes it's not actually obvious why some "trivia" might be more important than it looks at first blush. For example, "24-bed hospital with the only emergency room within 25 miles of town" probably sounds like pure promotionalism to some editors – but they wouldn't think that if they knew what effect that particular combination of size and distance has on unlocking US federal funding. There could be a hidden importance behind other kinds of "unimportant" facts, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:33, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
I tend to agree if the attention is brought upon by the independent source in an intellectually independent way.
I'll use real example.. " LA Weekly listed it as one of the ten best "Online Resources for Metal Knowledge" in 2013." in Metal Injection, I find questionable. It's just in a list, but it was an editor decision to bring up that it's in a list. Graywalls (talk) 14:51, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
I'm repeating what other people have said, but this is the easiest way to clear the WP:N hurdle, if it exists. I agree it can start to feel sensationalistic. That's why we avoid saying "X is the greatest movie of all time", and instead say "X was named the greatest film of all time by publication A, B, and C." The first is an opinion, the second is a fact (about an opinion). Shooterwalker (talk) 13:47, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Comedy is subjective

I see comedy hasn't been discussed in the archives. I added it to the subjective section. We should be careful about overweighting articles with suggestions of offense or the like, sourced to conventional sources. Consider that those not offended are unlikely to be reported on, resulting in POV issues. Thoughts here? SmolBrane (talk) 21:24, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense I see you reverted without explanation, would you like to discuss? SmolBrane (talk) 15:11, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
Not really, I don't feel the need to justify reverting a unilateral addition to site policy. I did explain it, though: there's an "etc." on that list for a reason. Remsense ‥ 论 19:11, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
WP:Bold edits are a conventional way to collaborate on the project though it may feel a little strange sometimes! Objections/reverts are best received when discussed or explained. Do you have an opinion on comedians and how sources can get WP:TABLOID-y? SmolBrane (talk) 04:41, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
Right. You made a bold edit, and I reverted it. We've completed the classic pattern, as I've already explained my reasoning both in the edit summary and in a reply here. Remsense ‥ 论 04:55, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
I have notified Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Comedy. SmolBrane (talk) 17:29, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

How would you go about reporting groups of high reputation on Misplaced Pages if they violate NPOV and hold certain pages of Misplaced Pages hostage ?

My concern is those large groups with high reputation that bully other users editing in good faith when they have genuine issues with the larger groups edits that they want to fix Nicholasjosey (talk) 01:53, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Generally, we should assume good faith. That said, follow the Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution policy. —Bagumba (talk) 06:24, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
Category: