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 04:06, 7 September 2008 editDurova (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers60,685 edits →Massive changes: agree with objections← Previous edit Latest revision as of 16:35, 14 December 2024 edit undoRemsense (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Template editors60,904 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 = {{talkarchivenav}} |archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 250K |maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter = 34 |counter = 68
|minthreadsleft = 5
|algo = old(14d)
|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
}} }}
----
{{shortcut|WT:NPOV}}
'''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.'''
----

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


{{sidebar|
;Archived discussions
: ] Discussions before October 2004 : ] Discussions before October 2004
: ] Closing out 2004 : ] Closing out 2004
Line 34: 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
: ]: Oct 2007 - Feb 2008 : ]: Oct 2007 – Feb 2008
: ]: Feb - May 2008 : ]: Feb – May 2008
: ]: May 2008 - July 2008 : ]: May – July 2008
: ]: 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 ==
== Controversial Olympic article/NPOV help ==

I'm running into some difficulties with the articles ] and ]. To summarize, these are two of the athletes involved in the Olympic gymnastics age controversy. There are reliable and verified sources suggesting one birthdate, and other reliable and verified sources suggesting another. Ergo, neither can be taken as undisputed truth, and to agree with one or the other would be to violate NPOV. In the interest of NPOV, and in the hopes of stopping infighting between editors on one side of the debate or the other, the birthdates in their infoboxes have been listed as "Disputed". The controversy is explained and cited in detail in the body of the article, along with both possible birth dates.

Other editors have preserved the "disputed" tags so they ''are'' there by consensus. I've felt that this is the best way to stop edit warring and to create a neutral article. However, we've had an influx of IP editors who insist that the disputed tag is wrong, we should use the birth date on one of the reliable sources and not the other, etc. etc. etc.

I'd appreciate '''any''' advice, criticism and help from editors on these pages, and the use of the 'disputed' tag. At the moment, the largest article of controversy is ]. Thanks. ] (]) 05:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

:Not having spent any time looking at the particulars, my take is that if it were me I would footnote the "Birth date: Disputed" entry in the infobox with an explanatory note about conflicting sources, and cite those sources. -- ] (]) 11:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

::That sounds like an excellent suggestion to me. <font color="006622">]</font><sup><small><b>]</b></small></sup> 19:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

:::Thanks to you both! I've taken that suggestion. ] (]) 02:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

== Let the facts speak for themselves ==

I have added ] as a shortcut to the ] section. <span style="background:black;color:white">&nbsp;&nbsp;'''''—&nbsp;''''']&nbsp;&nbsp;</span> 10:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

== Proposed expansion of WP:WEIGHT ==

This was proposed by another editor ], and I think it's a good idea, so I'm posting it here for comments:

::''Neutral point of view requires that viewpoints be presented in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. When considering the relative weight to be given to different viewpoints, the extent to which those viewpoints are held among Misplaced Pages editors is not a criterion; it is only their relative prominence in reliable sources relevant to the topic that is to be considered.''

This obviously belongs to the WP:WEIGHT section; it expands on the idea that weight is determined by ], not merely editor consensus. I believe that the impetus was ongoing hassles with ], which is one of those topics that primarily attracts only the true believers. ] (]) 00:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

== Facts & opinions ==

The policy says (more than once, I think) that we have to give due weight to all opinions in reliable sources. ] defines a reliable source as one with a reputation for fact-checking. Can anyone explain why a reputation for ''fact''-checking is relevant to the status of ''opinions''? ] (]) 16:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
::Because Misplaced Pages policies don't distinguish between opinions and fact. See ]. ] (]) 17:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

:I've often been concerned about this issue. The basis of the "fact-checking" approach camr from ], and necessarily so, because the law describes the sources that have to be used to avoid legal problems in terms of fact-checking, and the language has to reflect this legal requirement. However, I believe it was a mistake to expand this definition outside its ]-specific context. For example, it has very little application to science sources. Science editors generally prefer sourcing prestigious journals and reputable experts. Prestige and reputation in science generally come from interesting novel theories, new research methods, and similar types of research results, not from the sorts of literature cite and data checking that is typically delegated to graduate students and which the prestige people rarely do themselves (and often don't do well). The highest-prestige journals print the front-line stuff, results which haven't been replicated precisely because they are fresh and hence are particularly tentative (Prestigious journals print scoops, not results which have been established long enough for people to replicate. The old, more certain stuff simply isn't as prestigious). Much as is true in science, reliability in many other fields is actually based mostly on reputation as on authority. Authority and reputation may or may not have much to do with how well one checks facts or is reputed to check facts. As you note, in subjects which are essentially matters of opinion, it has no relationship at all. The policy itself is an example. It has little empirical basis; facts were simply not checked before coming up with it. Yet it is relied on. Best, --] (]) 18:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

== Recent rewording of UNDUE ==

I don't think the following is clear at all. It could even be read as contradictory to the preceeding paragraph:
<blockquote>Minority views appropriately receive full attention on pages specifically devoted to them—]. But on such pages, though a view should be be described fully in the necessary detail,, some appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint should be made where relevant; such pages are not intended to rewrite majority-view content solely from the perspective of the minority view.</blockquote>
So I reverted it:
<blockquote>Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them—]. But on such pages, though a view may be described in detail, appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint should be made wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view.</blockquote>
Seems like this should be worked out here. --] (]) 00:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

;Recent diff: I am taking my own medicine and bringing this revert (which I see as part of ]) to talk. The first rewording changes "can receive attention on pages" to "can be presented in articles". My issue here is that presentation of a minority opinion is not the only thing that can happen in pages devoted to the minority opinion. In particular, major detractors of the minority opinion and appropriate framing should also be presented. My fear is that this subtle change in wording may mislead some editors into thinking that we can present minority opinions microcosmically on their own pages without any other text to distract from their presentation. The next problematic word change is the change from "though a view may be described in detail" to "minority view should be described in detail". This goes against the very spirit of WEIGHT and also may run afoul of ], ], ], etc. considering that a "detailed description" may not be had based on ] considerations, for example. Minority opinions should be described to the extent that they have been described by secondary sources: no more, no less. Removal of the phrase "wherever relevant" is extremely problematic as well because without it we give a free-pass to describing minority theories in an in-universe setting rather than from an objective NPOV setting. Finally, "nor to rewrite minority view positions from the perspective of the majority" was inserted, it is claimed, in the interests of "fairness". However, the fact is that if the only secondary sources we have exclusively reference "minority view positions from the perspective of the majority", there will be no way around this issue. The framing of the minority opinion will always be in the lens of the majority: that's the whole key to the WEIGHT proviso. Finally, if someone proves something that "none" believe, then we've run into a weird situation where the person who proved the thing doesn't believe their own proof. Just too weird for my tastes. So there's the gauntlet. Please someone pick it up. ] (]) 15:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

::lol - please, let's not make it a gauntlett. I'd rather just discuss the issue. {{=)}} Let me go through what you said point by point:
::#''"My fear is that this subtle change in wording may mislead some editors into thinking that we can present minority opinions microcosmically on their own pages without any other text to distract from their presentation."'' That, I think, is a valid fear. the balance I was trying to strike here was between articles which solely present the minority-view to the exclusion of every other perspective, and articles that are primarily critiques of the minority view to the exclusion of the view itself. however, when you look at the entire sentence in context - ''"Minority views can be presented in articles specifically devoted to them, since Misplaced Pages is not a paper encyclopedia. In such articles, the minority view should be described in detail, with appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint"'' - it seems clear that this would not be a problem
::#''"though a view may be described in detail" to "minority view should be described in detail"'' - since we are tqalking about minority views in this paragraph, I can't really see the difference between these two phrases (except that the latter is clearer).
::#removing 'wherever relevant' - that's a stylistic change I could go either way on.
::#adding "nor to rewrite minority view positions from the perspective of the majority" - you are incorrect where you assume that the "framing of the minority opinion will always be in the lens of the majority". there are always sources which will frame the minority opinion in its own perspective. these sources are perfectly valid for establishing what the main beliefs of the minority view are, and can then be tempered and given perspective by including mainstream sources. the problem comes when you try to talk about a minority viewpoint ''only'' from the perspective of mainstream sources; that can only produce a biased misrepresentation of what the minority position actually ''is''.
::that being said, I think the revised version is clearly better, though I can see how it might need some revisions. --] 19:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
#I disagree strongly with such a distinction even being possible on Misplaced Pages. "Criticism of..." articles are generally eschewed. See ].
#The difference is that the proposed sentence states directly that minority theories should be presented in detail and makes no allowances for cases where this is impossible.
#No further discussion necessary.
#Your concern seems to be that minority views won't be ''described'' if we use sources which are not in lock-step with that view. This is a rather dramatic claim and I do not think there is consensus for this sentiment. In particular, I believe that excluding mainstream sources from the ability to describe, contextualize, and frame minority views is such a dramatic departure from standard operating procedure on Misplaced Pages that I don't think we can make any more progress on this issue. I think you'll have to show that there actually is a consensus at this encyclopedia that minority views should be described on their own terms. Also, since the wording of the policy does not mention describing minority viewpoints ''only'' from the perspective of mainstream sources, I think your attempt to attack this interpretation is a solution looking for a problem. After all, those who hold to minority positions can also produce biased misrepresentations of what their position actually ''is''. Take a look at ] where the main claims of the proponents as to what the view actually is has been shown in a court of law to be misleading at best and outright lying at worst. We are under and obligation at this encyclopedia to make sure the reader is aware of this. Eliminating mainstream sources from the description of this particular subject would be a great disservice to readers of this encyclopedia.

] (]) 19:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

While I agree with SA's concerns, I think they are groundless. We will still have to present the contrast between mainstream and minority views.

"However, the fact is that if the only secondary sources we have exclusively reference "minority view positions from the perspective of the majority", there will be no way around this issue."

This isn't true: we can use sources written by fringe proponents with appropriate ATT to describe their views, then we can also describe the view of the secondary sources.

"'''The framing of the minority opinion will always be in the lens of the majority: that's the whole key to the WEIGHT proviso'''"

I highlight this here for the community. ——''']'''</span> ] Ψ ]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 22:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

:::I don't think I've ever heard someone of agreeing with groundless concerns. Simply put, if there are no ] that acknowledge that the minority perspective is had by a particular person then that particular person's self-published pronouncements should not be used in Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 22:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

::SA - what are you talking about? usually it's better to read what was written ''before'' responding, rather than just spouting off what ever happens to be in your head at the moment. nowhere did I advocate 'criticism only' articles, or the exclusion of mainstream views.

::you're just spewing gas. if you'd take the time to discuss the matter, you'd see that I'm not arguing with you anywhere near as much as you think I am. please pull yourself together and try again. --] 22:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

:::"usually it's better to read what was written ''before'' responding, rather than just spouting off what ever happens to be in your head at the moment" and "you're just spewing gas." are two comments that are both ] and ]. Please consider striking them. I also commented on your edit-summary attacks in an edit summary of my own. ] (]) 22:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
::::Ludwigs, you've been blocked what 2,3,4 times over the past couple of months? You shouldn't be attacking anyone like you just did. Please refactor. ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 00:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

:::::I'm sorry, I see no reason to refactor (except possibly the part about spewing gas, which is unnecessarily colorful). the fact of the matter is, SA's response has little or no bearing on the issue at hand, and is a gross misrepresentation of what I said. how would you have dealt with that problem? I could explain it again, if you like... --] 01:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

== Questions on UNDUE ==

:As long as ] is in a fluid state, there are issues we have ] which would do well to be addressed and maybe clarified if there is enough agreement. Such as, to what extent does UNDUE restrict the content of an article ''about'' a minority view? Does it exclude any ''sources'' per se? Etc. ] (]) 04:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
::UNDUE is not in a fluid state. --] (]) 15:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
:::I meant since UNDUE is getting considerable attention, perhaps now would be a good time to get opinions on those questions, and clarify it if there is enough agreement. ] (]) 15:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
::::I disagree with your suggestions, PSWG1920. Sorry. ] (]) 15:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
:::::] concerns the amount of coverage different views of a topic should receive, and as such is nothing to do with whether a given article should exist, or whether a particular source should be used. I think it is a mistake to try to set out how each wikipedia policy affects each other policy, not least because there are so many of them. <font color="006622">]</font><sup><small><b>]</b></small></sup> 15:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Repeating PSWG1920's questions:
* "to what extent does UNDUE restrict the content of an article ''about'' a minority view?"
* "Does it exclude any ''sources'' per se?"
--] (]) 15:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

*] and ] are what restrict content of an article about a minority view.
*NPOV makes no claims on sourcing.

] (]) 16:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
:As all three of Misplaced Pages's core content policies note, in their leads, it is a serious mistake to interpret any of them in isolation from the others. The content of all articles, including those on minority views, is governed by ], ], and ]. Using a poor-quality source may violate ]; using it to advance a novel conclusion may violate ]; or giving it equal time to "rebut" the conclusions of much more reliable sources may violate ]. Generic questions about policy are almost always futile, because the applications are often content- and subject-specific. That's what article talk pages are for. The policies aren't ends in themselves, but means to build a serious, respectable reference work. ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 18:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

::I don't think that's quite correct, MastCell. the content of articles is not ''governed'' by policy; if anything, the content of articles is governed by ''consensus'', and policy is used to help settle disputes where consensus fails. in an article about a minority view, it seems reasonable that any reference which gives a clear description of the minority view should be acceptable, so long as that view is not presented as true, or as validated or accepted by any group other than its proponents. --] 18:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

:::No. While ''de facto'' consensus rules on content, ''de jure'' consensus cannot overrule policy. This is most prominent in cases of ] but it applies elsewhere. Please read ]. A reference which gives a clear description of the minority view may be acceptable if the reference is ]. Even if some random guy writes a webpage on some minority view that is very clear, that is not an acceptable source for an article on the minority view unless it can somehow be established that the source lives up to ], ], and ]. ] (]) 18:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
::::''(edit conflict)'' Well said. --] (]) 18:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

:::Indeed not. Content is driven toward building "a serious, respectable reference work" (nod to MastCell), using the application of policy via editor consensus. The latter are tools. Where consensus goes against policy in a content issue, either the policy should be changed (via consensus!) so as to be more conducive to writing a good encyclopedia, or the policy should be enforced against (perhaps temporary) consensus, again with the thought of writing a serious, respectable reference work. The forest must not be lost for the trees, even though the trees make the forest. ] (]) 18:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

:::::'''MastCell.''' first off, I don't think anyone suggested that we use a webpage "some random guy" made; that would be a bit silly, and a complete strawman argument. that aside, consensus ''de jure'' can, should, and does override policy when policy is extended beyond where it's supposed to apply. as it says in ]: {{quotation|Organizations and individuals that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist should be used only as sources about themselves and in articles about themselves or their activities; any information used must be directly relevant to the subject.}}
:::::noting the important ''"only"'', of course, this suggests that such views are perfectly reliable sources for expressing minority views in minority topic articles. trying to exclude them would be a narrow and over-extended use of policy which ought to be ignored. As long as the comments about primary sourcing in ] are kept in mind, where's the problem?
:::::'''Yak.''' did you seriously just suggest that consensus is only a tool? ] says ''"Consensus is Misplaced Pages's fundamental model for editorial decision-making"'', which seems pretty specific. --] 22:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
::::::No, the "only" is your insertion, which renders the statement quite different than what I originally meant. Your WP quote actually suggests it is indeed a very powerful tool (or perhaps metatool, if you wish to split hairs), which I agree with. But it is not infallible (like, say, the law of gravity); WP:IAR exists as an acknowledgement of that, as well as that "adhering to policy" isn't either (though both work just fine an awful lot of the time). ] (]) 04:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Nothing is infallible, and wikipedia is never going to be 'right', and basically I agree with you. {{=)}} I just start to frown a bit when I hear editors start to talk about the various core policies as though they give some special access to the truth. NPOV, NOP, and VERIFIABILTY may be really good rules, but they don't quite constitute a holy trinity, if you know what I mean...

== Application to articles ''about'' a minority view ==

My main point is that UNDUE could more clearly distinguish its application to articles ''about'' a minority view from its application to more general-subject articles. Perhaps it could be split into two subsections? ] (]) 18:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
:I do not understand the problem. If the subject is <mumblefrotz>, then the aspects of <mumblebfrotz> should be presented in due proportion to their importance to <mumblefrotz>. Importance is determined by how much attention reliable sources place on that aspect (and not, say, the attention given them by Misplaced Pages editors that happen to be adherents). (Please remember that said attention can be positive or negative: "X is complete garbage because..." is still attention, and it's not just reliable-sources-among-proponents that you survey for this purpose.)
:If the topic itself is a minority view, then you do not redundantly repeat the majority view at great length -- not because we're presenting the minority view as being correct, or as being without critics, or even as being plausible, but because the details of the majority view are largely irrelevant to a description of the minority view (and if they aren't irrelevant, then the articles need to be merged). To give an example, if you have an article on the ], you don't fill that article with long descriptions of the beliefs of all other times and cultures (although you may certainly mention them by way of explaining concepts, providing enlightening contrasts, or eludicidating the widely accepted demerits of the beliefs held by ancient residents of Rome, such as the idea that ] ought to be run by private companies that wouldn't put out the fire until you agreed to pay their price).
:What exactly is the problem that we're trying to solve? ] (]) 19:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
::Ah, I see. The article that PSWG1920 and Ronz have in common is ], a discredited early-20th century idea that eye exercises could eliminate refractive vision problems. ] (]) 19:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
:::Yes, I was just explaining that but there was an edit conflict and now I see there's no need to. UNDUE has been cited there a few times, but it seems to me that most of it is more applicable to whether and to what extent the Bates method merits mention in a more general optometry-related article than what should and shouldn't be in the Bates method article itself. Hence my suggestion for a more clear distinction between UNDUE's application to an article ''about'' a minority viewpoint and its application to a more general-subject article. ] (]) 19:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

"Generic questions about policy are almost always futile, because the applications are often content- and subject-specific. " MastCell has here hit on the principle which we need to incorporate specifically: weight is relative to that subject of an article, as are the sources which are acceptable (FRINGE already says that almost).

The the content of articles is governed by policy in that it is goverened by WEIGHT and RS etc., and consensus cannot overrule policy. However, it's true that a ref which would not be acceptable in one article will be in another, due to the information needed. A reference which gives a clear description of the minority view may be acceptable even it if it is not an intrinsically reliable source: a Creationist is a good source for what Creationists believe.

"Even if some random guy writes a webpage on some minority view that is very clear, that is not an acceptable source for an article on the minority view unless it can somehow be established that the source lives up to WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:NOR." This is utterly wrong, and we should make clear that it is utterly wrong- unless it is meant that you could establish the guy as an expert on the fringe subject (whether believer or no) and then use the source. Sometimes to explicate what a fringe idea is about, you have to use self-published or otherwise unreliable sources. This is ok, as long as you use ATT.

"My main point is that UNDUE could more clearly distinguish its application to articles about a minority view from its application to more general-subject articles. Perhaps it could be split into two subsections?"

Excellent suggestion: let's do it.

"I do not understand the problem. If the subject is <mumblefrotz>, then the aspects of <mumblebfrotz> should be presented in due proportion to their importance to <mumblefrotz>."

WhatamIdoing, the problem is that a lot of people object to this very obvious principle.

The principle we need to incorporate is that the weight we give to anything is realtive to the subject of the article. This is an utterly obvious principle which is unconsciously used on every article. Yet, because it's not explicated in policy, people can argue against it in specific instances, to the detriment of the article and NPOV. MastCell and WhatamIdoing are right. ——''']'''</span> ] Ψ ]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 21:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

::''Sometimes to explicate what a fringe idea is about, you have to use self-published or otherwise unreliable sources. This is ok, as long as you use ATT.'' You cannot simply attribute everything and make it okay. This is the essence of the synergy between ], ], ] and ]. Reference to an unreliable/self-published source should only be done to establish the perspective of that person, when it is determined by other means that this person's opinion is somehow relevant to the prose at hand. If other means establishing a reasonable editorial need to include this person's perspective as explicated by their own self-published unreliable sources cannot be determined, we simply do not use the source at all. ] (]) 21:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

:::That's right, but the intrinsic reliability of the source may not be an issue, relative to what the mainstream believes or scientific consensus. One can use a book or article if the source is acknowledged to speak for the field. Even if it isn't mainstream or scientific. In other words, reliable sources are relative to the subject being discussed. We should specifically incorporate this obvious principle, as people often argue that because the source is not reliable in one sense it is not reliable in others. However, if a self published source is acknowledged to speak for a field, it can be so used. ——''']'''</span> ] Ψ ]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 21:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
:::::There is no way a self-published source can speak for a "field". It can speak for the self-publisher (who, in some cases, may encompass the entire group of people who are active in a fringe field). ] (]) 22:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
::::::Not true. If 'Mega Corporation' has its own press, publishing under the 'Mega Corporation Press' imprint, then anything that business publishes at MCP is self-published. Such a publication should also be a highly reliable source for the business' perspective. It is not possible for a self-published source to simultaneously (a) encompass 100% of the members of a set and (b) not speak for all the members of the set (especially when n=1, as it does in my example). When "all the publishers" = "all the people in the field", then a self-published book does speak for "all the people in the field." ] (]) 18:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

----

"'''The framing of the minority opinion will always be in the lens of the majority: that's the whole key to the WEIGHT proviso'''"

This is absolutely correct for articles on mainstream subjects. Some editors here also think it is correct for articles on fringe subjects. We should put something in WEIGHT to specifically address it, so that it will not be an issue in the future. Please comment. ——''']'''</span> ] Ψ ]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 22:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

:Misplaced Pages does not adopt the sympathetic-point-of-view which is a feature of . Inasmuch as the encyclopedia is going to be neutral, it must position itself in such a way so that the best sources are appealed to ''across the board''. Martinphi's proposal would have the effect of declaring reliable sources unreliable in articles devoted to fringe topics if they are judged by editors not to be supportive enough of the fringe topics. ] (]) 22:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

::No. I never said any such thing. And it wasn't my proposal that Weight is relative to the subject of an article: I think it was MastCell's here, and others. ——''']'''</span> ] Ψ ]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 22:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

:::SA - again, that's a complete strawman argument. reliable sources are (of course) reliable universally, but reliable sources should be presented according to their particular weight in a topic, and '''within a minority viewpoint article''' mainstream reliable sources are relatively minor voices compared to a discussion of the minority viewpoint. a reader who reads a article on an off-beat subject ought to come away from it with '''FIRST''' a clear understanding of the perspective of that off-beat subject, and '''SECOND''' a recognition of why mainstream sources disregard that subject. if either is missing, or if the mainstream sourcing prevents a clear understanding of the off-beat topic, then the article is biased. --] 23:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

::::There is no consensus at all on Misplaced Pages that ''within a minority viewpoint article''' mainstream reliable sources are relatively minor voices compared to a discussion of the minority viewpoint. In fact, quite the opposite. ] (]) 23:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

:::::again, if you would quit arguing and actually discuss the matter, we would come to an understanding very quickly. I'm not unsympathetic to your position; I'm just trying to introduce some common sense into it. ''Obviously'', if you have some off-the-wall concept, the best person to describe the off-the-wall concept is someone who advocates for it. Mainstream sources do not have a lot of insight into off-the-wall concepts, because (again, obviously) mainstream sources think the concept is off-the-wall. Mainstream sources are ''necessary'' to place the off-the-wall concept into proper worldly perspective, but they are not particularly useful for saying what the concept ''is''. now, you may be of the opinion that off-the-wall concepts don't belong in wikipedia at all (which strikes me as opposed to ] and ], but may be worth discussion), but if they are included, they should be described accurately and critiqued fairly. correct? --] 01:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

::::::What makes you think I'm "arguing"? In any case, the best person to describe the off-the-wall concept is not necessarily someone who advocates it. I think mainstream sources have a lot of insight into off-the-wall concepts and I find a lot of them give excellent descriptions for what off-the-wall concepts are. I summarily disagree with your assessment that off-the-wall concepts should have their descriptions sourced to their proponents. I don't think that there is a consensus for this idea at Misplaced Pages, either. This is not me being argumentative, this is me being honest about what I think. ] (]) 02:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

:::::::ok, I'll take this as non-argumentative and respond in kind. my concern here would be that a mainstream source (except in those cases where they are being particularly careful and sensitive) will present a fringe view exclusively through the lens of mainstream views. thus, when you get to some of the more demented ideas in the world, mainstream sources will tend to present them simply as demented, and miss the very elements that made that demented idea ''make sense'' to its followers. Advocates don't have that problem: they will present the demented idea as though it were the most perfectly logical thing in the world, and the reader will be able to see how someone ''might'' have believed that demented thing. then the mainstream views can come in to show why it ''is'' demented, and the reader will have learned much more than would have been possible simply by reading the mainstream views, while still avoiding the possibility that they might get sucked into the demented worldview. now if you get a careful and sensitive mainstream source that adequately does the job of presenting the demented view ''and'' refuting it, then that source is truly excellent. but if not, then I think the best way to reach something akin to NPOV is to carefully balance advocates who understand the logic of the demented view and mainstream sources who can keep things firmly rooted on the planet earth. does that make sense? --] 02:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

It's the consensus view that requires ]. When we write about, for example, ], we MUST use primary, self-published sources, and not pretend that it is anything more than one person's view, and must be so attributed in order to satisfy ]. If you can't write a neutral summary of a minority viewpoint from primary sources without implying it is anything more, you shouldn't be editing. --] (]) 06:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

:::I think SA is getting distracted by the issue of sourcing. WEIGHT is about how many sentences are presented to each point. In an article on a minority view, ], or ], or whatever, we should spend more time talking about ''what the beliefs are'' than we do about ''why those beliefs are wrong/rare/rejected.'' Agreed? ] (]) 18:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

::::well, from things SA (and some of his friends) have said before, I actually think they are hung up on a kind of ontological universalism: i.e. "a minority viewpoint is always and everywhere a minority viewpoint, and should always and everywhere be treated as such". that strikes me as incorrect, since it's clear to me that the significance of any viewpoint has to be relative to the topic being discussed, but... of course, I could be misinterpreting what they are saying. --] 21:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

== balance ==

I revereted this edit - ''"and give precedence to those sources that are most reliable and verifiable."'' to the balance section, because I think it confuses the issue. really I object to the 'give precedence' phrase, which makes it sound as though other perspectives should be discounted. is there a better way to phrase this? --] 19:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
:You also undid edits to UNDUE, which is being discussed above.
:As far as the changes to balance go, i'm not happy with the wording either. I'm more concerned that it should tie-in WP:OR though. --] (]) 20:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
::The entire section is suspect. I've always contended that NPOV != balance. The fact that we have WEIGHT is an indicator of this. Should we maybe get rid of the entire section? Does it add anything? ] (]) 20:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
:::hmmm... it seems to me that what the section was originally ''trying'' to say was an extension of what it says at the top in ]. the extension being that some preference should be given to sources that are attempting to be neutral (as opposed to sources that have a clear bias or agenda). interesting thought, though I'm not sure how well that could be assessed in a discussion. is that kind of thing a useful addition? --] 01:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
::::As is often the case, we have no real way of determining which sources are "attempting to be neutral" and which aren't. Unless we have some standards that can help us determine this, I say that this is probably a vestige of an earlier understanding of NPOV. I don't see many people arguing about the neutrality of a source anymore. The issue of ] and ] tend to trump those considerations, especially considering our ] ideal. ] (]) 02:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
:::::oh, I don't know about that. at least, it's fairly clear when a source is ''not'' trying to be neutral. --] 21:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

== Question on NPOV / UNDUE weight, for a minority view ==

Should we include minority views even when we KNOW that such a view is provably totally wrong, especially when also offensive? When a view is wrong, does it not then automatically become a tiny minority view even when 1% of people would hold it? Surely, a few vocal and notable proponents of such a ludicrous view do not make such a view notable enough to seriously include it into a main article on such a subject; especially when there already exists an article to the idiot view! Wouldn't we make ourselves a laughing stock to include crackpot theories into otherwise well written, coherent articles?

Thanks,<BR>&nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp;<small>] ♫☺♥♪ ]</small> 20:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

::] answers your concerns about inclusion of minority views, methinks. ] (]) 20:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
:::I also contend if you have enough ] to ] inclusion, then it moves beyond a minority view. ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 20:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

You mean, should we describe the viewpoint that Hell is eternal even though it is utterly offensive and wrong? Read ] also. However, I like the principle: if it's wrong, it's minority, and doesn't get mentioned. I could use that a lot =D But really, I think you are getting mixed up between fringe views in articles on mainstream views, and fringe views in their own articles (people do that a lot). No, a 1% view would not get mentioned in a mainstream article, or would be given no more than a sentence- if that, and only when the proponents managed to get into a lot of the sources. ——''']'''</span> ] Ψ ]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 20:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
:I thought Hell was other people? Like in ] where the same four or five people are stuck on the same talk page, having the same discussions and the same conflicts over and over again for eternity? Oops, did I say "talk page"? :) ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 22:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

:::'']'', two literary figures on the verge of existential autonomy, but finding themselves forced to live out their roles in '']'' eternally. --''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 01:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

::Heh, heh, you funny. Since we seem to agree on the general principle (above sections), and it would be possible to make things clear enough to clean up this whole mess, why not help out? ——''']'''</span> ] Ψ ]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 23:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
::::Two words: ]. ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 05:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
:::lol - it's like I always say - society is a wonderful thing that's ruined because we have to share it with others. {{=)}} we can't omit a view because it's offensive. we can omit a view because it's not a particularly significant point of view within a particular topic, although (so '''I''' think) if the point of view is notable enough to have its ''own'' article, then it ought to get a fair reading within that article, if nowhere else. that last point, however, seems to be contested... --] 01:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
:::::You're right. The last point you made is contested because NPOV != fair. ] (]) 02:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
::::::SA, if you want to open that can of worms again, let's make a new thread. you ''know'' that I think that's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard, right? {{=)}} --] 21:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, this helps. Martin-phi, about "getting mixed up": I am not asking about articles devoted to fringe topics but I intend to get clear about mentioning fringe views in the main articles of the same topic. // ScienceApologist, thanks for the ] link. It says: ''"Other well-known, reliable, and verifiable sources which discuss the theory first are required so that Misplaced Pages is not the primary source for such claims."'' The problem is when among these 1% crackpots there are some high-profile politicians, (other) actors, and scientists (e.g. with Scientol***), it is then clear that Misplaced Pages is not going to be the primary source for such nonsense. But must we reverse this principle: when these fringe views have been amply reported upon, and even criticised for being wrong, would then such views merit mentioning in any main article even when they are wrong and offensive? // OrangeMarlin, would such a view, when they managed to have it published in several reliable newspapers etc., be necessary for us to mention in wikipedia's main articles or can we safely leave it out since we can PROVE it is wrong? // Ludwigs2, I agree that such a view should get a fair treatment in its "private" article. But what in "main" articles?<BR>And a further question: what if we leave out this crackpot view, can we also leave out the facts which it claims support it? These facts would be agreed upon, as well as reported by RS, but they serve no other purpose than to advance the agenda of the minority view and make it LOOK credible. When we KNOW the minority view to be wrong, such facts are useless in the main article and we should not include them, in order not to annoy or confuse our readers. Right?
&nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp;<small>] ♫☺♥♪ ]</small> 05:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

:::One would think so, but it is all about whether they get the press in the reliable sources. Sorry, but WP works on a level over common sense sometimes, because humans don't. In this case, who determines it's wrong? As WP editors, we're not supposed to be in that business. ——''']'''</span> ] Ψ ]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 05:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
::::Martin, how can we agree on the amount of weight which is due? Agreeing with you that we should not be the judge of what view is correct and what is not; it would seem rediculous nonetheless to give a minority view -which is in error- the weight of e.g. changing every "is" into a "might be" or "is generally assumed". So, how much support must a minority view have in order that we should treat it as one of the possible perspectives in which we describe an article's subject? Would it be appropriate to name prominent adherents of the minority view by name? Would it be appropriate to include information which is very important in the eyes of such adherents, but at the same time unimportant when the subject is viewed from the mainstream perspective? I do not see an easy way to reach consensus, especially when such minority views are held by quite a lot of wiki-editors. &nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp;<small>] ♫☺♥♪ ]</small> 16:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::It matters whether the article is about the general subject or specifically about the minority view. If it's about the general subject, the amount of the article dedicated to the minority view depends directly on the importance of minority view. You determine this directly by considering the amount of attention given the minority group in your reliable sources on the general subject (that is, not reliable sources that are specifically about the minority view). As a quick rule of thumb, if you've got five good reliable sources on the general subject, and on average about 10% of their attention is on the minority view, then about 10% of Misplaced Pages's general-subject article should be on the minority view. This is really not that hard.
:::::If, however, you are writing an article specifically dedicated to the minority view, then you look at your reliable sources that are specifically about the minority view, and follow them. Your approach is the same as their approach. If they generally present the co-dominance of the ] and the ] as a normal, reasonable perspective, then you do, too, even though this is the majority view. If they generally present the minority view of the FSM's supremacy over the IPU as a plausible take on matters, then you do, too. You just follow your sources. ] (]) 18:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

::::::Almost. Rather, we should present the material from the most reliable sources on the subject, but not "present it as" anything. Rather, present it as them presenting it as. And have whatever reference we can find in the sources to its reception in the wider community as well. It is our duty to give context as well as just present the subject. However, such context is not where we take a position, and should not take over the presentation of the subject in terms of WEIGHT. In the past, we have had all of these problems. Being clear about this subject would eliminate the basis for a lot of problems. ——''']'''</span> ] Ψ ]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 20:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

:::::::Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪, again, that is the magic of having WEIGHT be relative to the subject of the article. When it is acknowledged as being relative to the article subject, then you just say things without qualifiers, then give the dissenting view (you note dissent in the lead). You don't have to have the minority view contaminate the majority view. The reader, upon reading a dissenting view, is not going to go back and think you should have put qualifiers. You present the majority view relative to the subject of the article, and present the dissenting view relative to its weight in sources on the subject. In both cases, you don't qualify: rather you state the viewpoint, then present the view. I agree with WhatamIdoing on what one would do to determine the relative weight given to each view in an article. If there is stuff which adherents of a minority view think is important, they can have it in the article on their view, if it's basically notable and sourced. Sometimes, you get into difficulty, when the minority view is a detailed technical argument, while the majority view is easy to explain. However, merely stating the minority's conclusion might be enough for the article. The article subject will indicate to you what view you present as primary. In the article on the minority view, that view is primary, and has most weight. In neither article does WP present a view as right. ——''']'''</span> ] Ψ ]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 20:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
:(undent) you know, my own belief is that the sole purpose of an encyclopedia is to ''inform'', and when you look at it that way, this whole issue becomes much less tangled. Any article must ''inform'' the reader of those things which are needed to contextually understand a given topic thoroughly. Fringe ideas are generally ''not'' necessary to understand a mainstream view, except where the fringe theory has received enough attention and enough response from mainstream sources that a discussion of it is integral to understanding the topic (e.g., it would be difficult to discuss the theory of evolution without some mention of the Christian responses to evolution theory). bias is simply a dearth or excess of pertinent information. WEIGHT discussions should always center around whether a particular thought ''informs'' the reader about the topic, and to what extent that information is necessary to understanding the topic. --] 21:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

:Yes, but it's misunderstood a lot. For example, consider this quotation, from an admin: "In Intelligent design , SPOV should be dominant, but NPOV says we also have to explain what intelligent design proponents claim for NPOV." Such views are based on thinking of WEIGHT as relative to larger entities, in this case the field evolutionary science. Of course, we ''generally'' have weight relative to the subject. Otherwise articles would be gibberish (think Atheism). But that principle is so deeply ingrained that people don't notice they are doing it. Thus, they don't know what to say when words like "mainstream" are interpreted in different ways, or when the instructions about "minority" versus "majority" views which are meant to apply to articles on mainstream subjects, are then applied to articles on fringe subjects. In that case, no one knows what to say to the argument that in an article on a fringe subject, the main majority view which has the most weight (coverage) is the view from outside the field- often the critical view. ——''']'''</span> ] Ψ ]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 22:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

== After much discussion of ]... ==

...We don't seem to have "solved the problem". Perhaps I can offer an outside view. Please consider the following hypothetical timeline of events:-
# An editor sees something they think needs changing in an article, so they boldly change it.
# A different editor reverts the change, citing policy WP:XYZ.
# Several editors discuss the matter on the article Talk page.
# A consensus emerges that, as currently written, WP:XYZ does indeed support the reversion of the original change.
# Other editors join the discussion, and, amid cries of "zOMG, WP:XYZ says what??!!1" and "Dude, that is ''so'' not how we do things, what''ever'' WP:XYZ says," consensus is reached that the text of the policy must be updated to again be ''a widely accepted standard that all editors should follow''.
# WP:XYZ is changed.

Not bad, eh? Now, imagine the above sequence ''without step #5''. It doesn't look so good, does it? Arguably a classic example of ]. I do hope that that isn't the case here. <font color="006622">]</font><sup><small><b>]</b></small></sup> 01:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and the *point* I'm trying to make is that the way we do things, in every article, is to make WEIGHT be relative to the subject. How much weight we give it is dependent on the subject and the sources. That's what we do, except in certain rare circumstances when editors don't like how the subject would be treated. Then we give some other view (fringe or mainstream) more weight. If we but explained and incorporated the common, commonsense practiced and practical notion that WEIGHT is not an absolute, we would solve a lot of problems. For example, the article on Atheism is not mainly about mainstream views- it's about Atheism. Atheism is a fringe view, but nicely treated. Why? Because WEIGHT is relative to the subject of the article. ——''']'''</span> ] Ψ ]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 05:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

:Atheism is a fringe view? I would characterise it as a religious position or belief. Anyway, that's neither here nor there. The question is, where are all the editors who've agreed that NPOV is wrong and needs to be updated? If you're not happy with my little timeline, perhaps a quote from the policy template: ''When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus''. <font color="006622">]</font><sup><small><b>]</b></small></sup> 11:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

::It's a fringe belief. No one here has even said NPOV is wrong. What are you talking about? ——''']'''</span> ] Ψ ]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 22:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

:::Martin, calling Atheism a 'fringe belief' is bound to tick some people off (since Atheists are bound to think that their beliefs are ''realistic'' and that religious people are mildly deluded... - it's hard for people to get perspective on these issues). --] 23:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
::::I doubt that any atheist is unaware that the belief is not widely shared. Why would an atheist be ticked off to be reminded that the rest of the world is apparently full of misguided, nostalgic, or delusional people? ''Every'' fringe-ist believes that he knows the Truth™. The fact of general opposition is neither a surprise nor a deterrent to them. ] (]) 00:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

:::::By the interpretation of WEIGHT held by some here, we should write it from the standpoint of the majority, and that means from the standpoint that God exists, and Athiests are deluded. Those people have to realize that WEIGHT is a two way street, and that interpreting it relative to the subject of the article is the only way to protect all articles- whatever their subject material. ——''']'''</span> ] Ψ ]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 00:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

::::::in an article about 'religions of the world' Atheism should get at most a passing reference. in an article about 'belief in God' Atheism becomes an important minority position. in an article about 'Atheism' Atheism is the main show. I think you and I (and most sensible people) recognize that. I was just pointing out that calling it 'fringe' was bound to tick some people off. honestly, I dislike this whole 'fringe/pseudoscience/tiny-minority' attitude that gets pushed unmercifully here. these labels are not defined to be informative, but merely to be dismissive, and as a general rule the people who push them aren't interested in informing the reader of anything, but rather in framing the debate so that the reader is predisposed to their point of view. very sad... --] 01:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

:::::::It's so hard to get participation around here that sometimes I resort to stepping on people's POVs just to get them to say ouch =D
:::::::I agree with what you say. I sent you an email once and got no response, but would like to be in contact that way sometimes, if you are willing. Did I say this before? If you don't want to, tell me I won't be insulted. Otherwise, just contact me. ——''']'''</span> ] Ψ ]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——
</span> 04:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::Martin - I mostly use that account for playing chess, so I might have missed you email. let me check. :-) --] 21:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::::I think it must have been 2 or 3 months ago... ——''']'''</span> ] Ψ ]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 01:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

::::::::I think the differences between presenting a ''scientific'' dispute and a ''religious'' dispute are self-evident to anyone with any common sense, and do not need to be spelled out in policy (if they do, then ] help us). It's therefore hard to regard an argument conflating the two as anything but a strawman. There is definitely an issue with excess "debunking", but do you guys recognize that there is a ''major'' problem with the promotion of fringe ideas on Misplaced Pages? We need to find a balance. I would submit that excess promotion of fringe ideas is the greater evil - it not only strikes at Misplaced Pages's fundamental goal to become a serious and respectable reference work, but the promotion of fringe misinformation has the potential to cause real-life harm (I've seen this, on a handful of occasions, in my field, and it was one of my motivations to get involved here). I don't think you're going to get anywhere beating the drum about "dismissiveness" of minoritarian ideas unless there's some coincident acknowledgement of the elephant in the room - namely, that quite a few people come to Misplaced Pages to promote fringe or downright nutty claims and beliefs, and that this is a major problem. ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 16:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
::(undent) MastCell - I recognize that the promotion of fringe theories is (and always will be) a problem on wikipedia, but I don't see it as an evil of any sort. I see it as a problem of weeding the garden, and I don't quite get the 'mortal combat' vision that you and several other editors sometimes invoke. it is both possible and useful to express what some 'nutty claim' ''is'' and ''says'' without being an advocate for or against it (or allowing readers to get drawn into it), and that is an entirely desirable state of affairs. and frankly, there's a certain extent to which opposition breeds opponents: pushing hard to limit or control fringe viewpoints will simply encourage a more aggressive breed of fringe proponents, where trying to find a balance that satisfies all sides will tend to cool things off over time.

::and as for the real world... I've heard of people who've tried to kill themselves with an overdose of aspirin, or accidentally killed themselves by using Viagra in strange and unfortunate ways. Yes, we need to be responsible about what wikipedia says; No, we do not need to be (and couldn't possibly be anyway) mommy and daddy to the world. people will believe what they choose to believe regardless of what we say, so all that we can do is speak as plainly as possible so as not to be an undue influence in any direction. --] 21:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

'''Yes, there is a big problem with the promotion of fringe ideas (not ]) on Misplaced Pages.''' That is taken for granted in what I say. If I ever got there first, ahead of the crack troops of the debunker forces, I'd fight it too (: It's extremely unfortunate for what I have to say, of course, because it obscures the legitimacy of my points.

I don't think fringe POV pushing is the biggest problem, however, because we have so many people here willing to fight it. Also, much of the fringe POV pushing would be satisfied with an NPOV article, so what you have is a bit of an exaggeration of the problem. However, it is a problem. You might note, also, that an article biased heavily against a fringe idea actually promotes that idea. '''If I really wanted to promote fringe views in an unreasoned manner, I would function as a debunker on WP.''' (Sorry for shouting that.) I would be very successful, as I know the sources better than the current debunkers do.

<small>(I don't want to insult anyone and insist that some do believe that even in religious articles we should "point out" wherever they diverge from science.)</small>

I started this without reading all the above, but I see I made the same point as Ludwigs. Great minds. "pushing hard to limit or control fringe viewpoints will simply encourage a more aggressive breed of fringe proponents." However, I ''do'' think that fringe POV pushing is a major problem. ——''']'''</span> ] Ψ ]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 01:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:Oh, I agree with the quoted phrase - I think trying too hard to "debunk" things is counterproductive. Any marginally sophisticated reader can quickly intuit it, and will likely respond negatively to an overly condescending or patronizing article that constantly reminds them that psychics are actually "purported" psychics. I also agree that too often a polarized dynamic develops on controversial articles where they see-saw back and forth between overly credulous and overly skeptical versions with no middle ground. I even agree that an article which makes an obvious and ham-handed attempt to "debunk" a fringe claim actually ends up unwittingly promoting the idea. I think we're on the same page there.<p>Ludwigs, people die of aspirin or Tylenol overdoses all the time. Bad things happen. But if someone reads on Misplaced Pages that taking 20 aspirin a day cures cancer, then I think we have an ethical responsibility that goes somewhat beyond a legal one or a disclaimer. I'm not talking about being "mommy and daddy to the world", but I ''am'' talking about a Misplaced Pages which does not actively encourage people with HIV/AIDS to stop taking antiretrovirals and replace them with Vitamin C, and which does not ''actively promote'' harmful claims. ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 05:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

:::MastCell, I'm agreeing with your agreement (-: ——''']'''</span> ] Ψ ]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 04:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

::This is starting to feel very much like a chat board. Is there an actual proposal for improving the NPOV policy, or shall we move this to someone's user talk page, or perhaps the village pump? ] (]) 05:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::Yup, guilty. Fair enough. ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 05:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::::Is it not possible to present fringe opinions and fringe information, without promoting it? I do not see how any reader is served by being denied information. The mainstream view is not necessarily correct; every generation new paradigms arise. Why this need to weed out the minority pov's altogether? &nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp;<small>] ♫☺♥♪ ]</small> 14:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::To the first question, of course it is (possible). Many indeed do a fine job of trying, despite others' attempts at promotion. And if denying information avoids WP:UNDUE, then the reader is served, quite nicely actually (think of the amount of total information in the universe -- ignoring the vast majority of it is the only way people can hope to ''understand'' anything, so the concept is on firm intellectual footing). Your second question is a straw man; no reasonable editor would or has suggested such a need, except in the ''extreme'' cases per UNDUE. Your paradigm discussion would be served by heeding WhatamIdoing's advice. ] (]) 15:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

:::actually, I do think this discussion is relevant, since this is a frequent WEIGHT argument in article space. it's not like we're talking about our dating lives, you know...
{{User:Ludwigs2/:sandbox}}
:::MastCell, let's be very clear on this. if there is some legitimate, well-sourced guy out there advocating that taking 20 aspirin a day will cure you of cancer, who are you or I (or any other wikipedia editor) to cast aspersions on him. I'm no doctor, and while I'd be greatly suspicious of a claim like that, for all I know it's absolutely correct. we shouldn't be using article space to try to convince people that a particular approach is healthy or unhealthy; we should only be reporting what it is, and what reliable experts are saying about it. and frankly this argument only applies to some small proportion of fringe articles that make medical claims... just as a matter of interest, do you think we could stop all this article infighting if we created a template like the one at right and tagged it into articles where this question arises? if you and Martin think it might work, I'll try to see if I can make it fly over on a contentious page (like ]).

::::Please sign your talk page comments. And please go read ] again.
::::This conversation may be relevant to many things. However, this is not the right place for this conversation. Remember the standard text on {{tl|talkheader}}? "'''This is the talk page for discussing improvements to Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view'''" -- not "This is a good place to chat about issues that relate to information on the associated page, but have no apparent connection to improving the associated page."
::::I invite you to continue your discussion if you find value in it -- but to continue your discussion elsewhere, such as at the ], not here. In case you're not familiar with it, the Village Pump is an excellent place to ask questions or to discuss any issue you feel like, without it being related to actually improving any specific page. (Furthermore, it gets a lot more notice than this page, so you'll get much wider responses.) ] (]) 06:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

:::::thanks for your advice. --] 06:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

== hunh? ==

I had a look over this cooked-palaeolithic diet page, and it certainly seems to have changed, since a year or two ago. Instead of a description plus details, favouring neither side with a small pro- and con-paragraph or two, it seems that there is now a very large, undue weight given to anti-Palaeolithic diet arguments - it just looks unbalanced, IMO, by wikipedia's usual standards. I'll see eventually about suggesting various ways to put forward the pro-cooked palaeolithic diet POV and provide counterpoints to some of the pro-vegan arguments.
I noticed that reference number 6 leads to an error-page, should be deleted, IMO.] (]) 12:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, linked to wrong page!!!] (]) 16:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

== Neutrality in religion articles ==

I suggest adding a rule saying that ''people who feel hostility against a certain religion shouldn't edit articles about that religion''.

For example, I've seen some scandalous articles about ]. Like the one called ]. This is an Arabic phrase that Muhammad used in letters to kings asking them to convert to Islam. The letters said:

''Become a Muslim and thou shalt be safe (from Hell or God's punishment), and God will double thy reward (as your people will follow along and be saved because of you). Otherwise, thou shalt bear their sins.''

The article interpreted the letter in a way saying that Muhammad was threatening them to convert by force, and then it goes on to relate the letter to September 11 attacks etc. Of course, this is OK from a Christian or Jewish point of view, but it is certainly not acceptable from a Muslim point of view.

The main point is that the phrase ''Aslim Taslam'' in the title of the article is really nothing to mention at all. It is barely known in the Islamic culture. It is not found in Islamic teachings. Most Muslims don't know it, and those who do don't understand it in the way the article is explaining. Yet they excavated it and categorized the article under "Arabic words and phrases," wanting to offend Arabs and Muslims by saying that ''"become a Muslim and you'll be saved"'' is an Arabic/Islamic phrase. This is like saying that ''"kill every man, woman and child in Canaan"'' is a Jewish phrase. Maybe I should make this article soon.

I tried to remove the article but of course I couldn't, as the gang who created it in the first place are the ones who are voting on whether it should be deleted or not. I mean, users that are outspoken fanatics such as ] shouldn't have anything to do with articles about Islam, not to say they shouldn't supervise them.

By the way I'm not Muslim. ] (]) 17:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
: I know very little about those specific issues, but I would prefer a weakened version of your suggestion such as ''people who feel hostility toward a certain religion should exercise great restraint and care when editing articles relevant to about that religion, so as to maintain neutral point of view'', or something similar. Perhaps a suggestion that the preferred method would be to propose on a talkpage and get consensus before adding anything, not unlike the advice on ]. I am uncomfortable with a blanket "shouldn't edit", although certainly recognize the general concern . ]&nbsp;(]) 18:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::it's probably better to avoid taking sides at all. if you want something like this, it should probably be more like ''"Editors and readers alike may have strong beliefs and opinions about matters of faith and religion. whether these beliefs are favorable or unfavorable, editors should exercise great restraint and care when editing, so as to maintain neutral point of view. --] 22:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::I see two problems with this proposal: ] and ]. If you want to restrict ''anti''-religion-X editors from writing about religion-X, what's to stop ''pro''-religion-X editors from turning the article into a whitewash? Having written policy to address specific religions, what about political positions, or nationalist beliefs, or social issues, or a particular sports team? People can be pretty fanatic about all of those, both pro and anti.
:::The more we write instructions, the more complex policies become, the more we risk introducing loopholes and opportunities for wikilawyering. I think the best place for specific case-by-case information is in the NPOV FAQ. <font color="006622">]</font><sup><small><b>]</b></small></sup> 22:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I think ading some note to NPOV FAQ would be good. I like the idea though that editing religion related articles should go through the talk pages first. ] (]) 02:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

:Why should religion be special here? Why not politics? Why not alternative medicine? Do you expect a dedicated volunteer for ] to automatically be more neutral on ] than a Mormon is when editing ]? Do you expect a ] to automatically be more neutral on ] than a ] is when editing ]? That a ] will be more more neutral in ] than a ] will on ]?
:While I understand your frustration, the proposal as written is seriously inadequate. Religion is not the only issue that animates people. ] (]) 06:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

== Fringe and minority views ==

goes too much into mixing minority views and fringe views. I have reverted back to the previous formulation. ] <small>]</small> 23:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Basically Fringe views <big>≠</big> minority views. Not all minority views are fringe, and not all fringe views are minority views. ] <small>]</small> 23:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The edit itself doesn't make an equivalence between fringe views and minority views. It, in fact, uses fringe view as a notability guideline which is exactly how it is treated in Misplaced Pages. It is undeniable that fringe views are minority views by definition. I cannot think of a single example of a fringe view that is not a minority view. If it is not a minority view it must be a majority view (this is simple mathematics). If a fringe view is a majority view, I cannot see how it is fringe! Of course, not all minority views are fringe views, but since that claim isn't being made anywhere in the edit, I think maybe you are having a hard time understanding some of the wording. Can you please revert back? I feel that you didn't give me enough ] in discussion. Moreover, you did not consider carefully the other aspects of the edit. ] (]) 23:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

: Is the ] a minority view, or a majority view? Is the belief in ] a majority view or a minority one? ] <small>]</small> 23:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

::Belief in the bodily resurrection of Jesus is certainly a minority view (the vast majority of sources/people do not accept it as literal fact). Belief in the existence of karma is also a minority view as the vast majority of sources/people do not accept it as literal fact. NPOV demands that we do not give undue weight to these subjects on pages about ] or ]. Undue weight says we should both include discussion of these minority opinions in the broader articles and have devoted articles on these topics, though, since they are notable and independent sources acknowledge them as important concepts in the intellectual understanding of the related subjects. How does any of what I added/subtracted affect this situation at all? Why are you changing the subject? ] (]) 23:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

:::In the US, the majority of people do believe in the resurrection of Jesus. In India, the majority of people do believe in karma. I don't know how you can think differently, with polls showing that at least 70% (down from 90% a decade ago) are Christian in the US. I have not yet met a Christian who does not believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus, and with a Christian background, I know a lot of Christians. ] | (] - ]) 00:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::Misplaced Pages is not US-centric. ] (]) 15:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
:::: I am not changing the subject, only highlighting the narrow interpretation you are forwarding in regard of majority vs minority vs fringe. ] <small>]</small> 01:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

:::::not-minority ≠ majority (see ]). but really, I think we're getting tangled up in numerical issues here. me, I think it breaks down like this:
:::::*main (majoritarian or pluralitarian) view - the view held by the largest concerned group. this may or may not be correct (for instance, the fact that 40% of Americans are evangelical christians does not mean that evangelical Christianity is correct), and in some cases may or may not be meaningful or useful (the majoritarian religious sect in Afghanistan or Iran is a political issue which will simply explode on any page where the matter is pushed)
:::::*competitive minority view - a view held by another large concerned group. as above, it may or may not be correct, useful or meaningful (Quakers and Athiests would be competitive minority views in the US)
:::::*main reliable view - the view sourced by experts as the current valid understanding of a topic. this may be different than the main view. not every topic will have a main reliable view (e.g. there is no main reliable view for which version of Christianity is correct), but most 'closed-ended' topics will (e.g. there is surely a main reliable view for the proper practice of Catholicism).
:::::*competitive reliable view - a view sourced by experts as an alternative to the main reliable view. usually a respectable minority view.
:::::*broad fringe views - views held by reasonably large numbers of people that never seriously compete with main or reliable views. often little more than popular beliefs. (UFOs, Bigfoot, low-grade conspiracy theories...)
:::::*narrow fringe views - views held by small, often insular groups that don't reach the level of competitive, but often cast themselves as competitive reliable views (e.g., cults that claim to have 'special insights' or theories that claim to rewrite or revise reliable views). narrow fringe views are sometimes fanatical reinterpretations of broad fringe views, but the two are really distinct.
:::::I think this is a better typology, though I'm not sure how to put it to use. --] 01:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::There are two kinds of plurality, Ludwigs, minority and majority. That's why there are things called "minority governments" and "majority governments". However, I agree with your rough breakdown in any case. ] (]) 15:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

== Some bold edits ==


Rationale:

#Reliable sources linked to verifiability. I think that was simply a piping error.
#We should make it clear that not every minority opinion deserves its own article. ] is jutting against this issue.
#The suggestion that undue weight "might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute" seems to me to be unnecessarily weasely. It simply misleads the reader.
#This clause: "since ]" misses the point. The only reason that minority views should have their own articles is when they are well-sourced. ] also says Misplaced Pages is not a collection of random trivia.
#"The article must neither attempt to rewrite majority-view positions strictly from the perspective of the minority view, nor to rewrite minority view positions from the perspective of the majority." This sentence appears to me to be a throwaway. Nothing should ever be "rewritten" from ''ANY'' perspective. This is not the point of this particular part of NPOV. The real issue is that minority views need to be described adequately so the reader can understand what they say, they should be properly framed, and they should include independent sources.
#I included the sentence: "If there are no independent sources that reference the view, it is likely that the view is too ] for inclusion in Misplaced Pages." I think that this captures the essence of how WP:WEIGHT abuts against our fringe guideline.

] (]) 23:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

:: If there are no independent sources that reference the view, it is likely that the view is not notable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages." No need to mention "fringe" at all. ] <small>]</small> 23:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::Is it a problem to mention fringe? It seems to me that it is a natural extension to the issue outlined regarding the problems with subjects that have no independent sources. ] (]) 00:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

:: ''We should make it clear that not every minority opinion deserves its own article. WP:N is jutting against this issue.'' We have ] for that, as well as ]. ] <small>]</small> 23:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::Yeah, but ] is a broader issue. The particular discussion in that paragraph is whether we should have an article devoted to a minority view at all. ] applies to much more than just that. ] (]) 00:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

:I pretty much support SA's edit. ] | (] - ]) 00:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

::retweaking
::#tried to get away from the 'tiny minority' language. it isn't really about numbers, and tiny minority sounds odd (remember, a tiny minority of people in the world actually understand the theory of relativity).
::#combined repetitious references to tiny minorities being omitted
::#expanded the Earth example
::#rewrote the last paragraph of the undue section
::--] 01:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
::: That works well. Thanks. ] <small>]</small> 01:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The trouble with the above definition, presumably to limit fringe views, is that many so-called "fringe" movements have never been satisfactorily debunked by the mainstream in a scientific way. Therefore, it should be acceptable to, at least, mention some of the beliefs of particular fringe groups, along with pro=- and anti-claims. Mind you, even wholly-discredited notions such as the "Flat Earth" theory deserve a mention even if virtually no one believes in them any longer, as there's a hsitorical context.] (]) 16:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

== Too fast for comfort ==

Folks, it is great to see the intent to fine-tune policy pages, but this is a core policy and we need to go slow. If editors want to attepmt a full re-write, please consider a sandbox page (maybe ]) rather than editing directly. ] <small>]</small> 03:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

:I restored one of mine, which was not a real change, but just made terms clear, copy edits and such, and a small move of a paragraph within a section. Here is the diff between where you reverted to and where I'm putting it . As you see, the only real change was " in proportion to its prominence in the sources," which is just repeating what was said in the previous paragraph, for consistency. ——''']'''</span> ] Ψ ]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 04:03, 5 September 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)
: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)
Jossi, here's what I changed. What don't you like about it?:


: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)
Previously (and currently after the revert):
::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)
<blockquote>The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting ] perspectives on a topic as evidenced by ]. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly.</blockquote>
:::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:
Modified version:
:1- verifying that the person said it, and that Misplaced Pages is quoting them accurately. This is covered in WP:V and WP:RS.
<blockquote>The neutral point of view policy requires that when there are conflicting ] perspectives on a topic as evidenced by ] within a topic, each must be presented fairly. </blockquote>
: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)
I made one other change: I removed the redundant heading '''The neutral point of view''' that appears immediately below the section heading '''Explanation of the neutral point of view'''; and added a section heading for the ] shortcut to the following paragraph: '''Different than "no point of view"'''.


: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)
Neither of those changes seem to modify the meaning, and they both seem (to me) to improve readability, making the meaning more clear.


== Due and undue weight and articles on religion: potential guidelines for ordering for neutrality ==
I realize there are ongoing concerns about the implications of every point of this policy. These edits were not in regard to any of those discussions and were intended simply to improve clarity. --] (]) 04:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
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:
:I think jossi's right to the extent that really re-doing the thing in more than one section at a time will cause it all to get reverted. It would be better to re-do one section at a time. I don't think jossi said anything about having trouble with the changes. But, if you want them to stick, we should focus on just one section at a time. Let's get the WEIGHT thing done, then after a day or two, go on to other sections, one at a time. ——''']'''</span> ] Ψ ]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 05:01, 5 September 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.
::OK, no worries, I don't want to distract from the more important discussion; and I didn't realize when I was doing those edits that other sections were being updated at the same time. We can come back to this minor point later. --] (]) 05:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


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. ].
:::This policy is so important that people will revert merely because things are getting confusing, without regard to the content. ——''']'''</span> ] Ψ ]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 05:09, 5 September 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.
::::Yes, that's clear. It was totally accidental that our edits overlapped. I apologize for distracting. Let's close out this section and return to the substantive discussion. --] (]) 05:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
::::: Your edit is good, Jack. Only that the rapid-fire editing on a core policy page, may not be the best way to do it. One step at a time. Thanks for your consideration. ] <small>]</small> 05:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


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.
== prominence problem ==


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.
Martin, the issue with this phrase in the UNDUE section: ''"References to the majority viewpoints should be made in proportion to prominence in the sources"'' is that I've heard too many people use the following reasoning on fringe articles:
#References to the majority viewpoints should be made in proportion to prominence in the sources.
#''only'' majority viewpoints are reliable sourced, so majority viewpoints are far more prominent.
#therefore, ''only'' majority viewpoints should be presented in fringe articles.
with the result that an article that's supposed to be ''about'' some fringe topic turns into an abattoir of criticism, with almost no reasoned explanation of the minority viewpoint at all. it's a wonderful example of how an excess of logic can morph into pure idiocy. Either 'prominence' has to be qualified somehow so that it's clear that prominence is relative to the discussion context (i.e., if there were some notable fringe theory that claimed to refute the concept of gravity, the massed voices of sane physicists everywhere would only be a minority voice '''with respect to''' the discussion of the fringe theory), or the language has to change to preclude that kind of reasoning. --] 05:21, 6 September 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.
== Massive changes ==


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?
I cannot believe such changes to this core policy went about without discussion. And I don't mean two individuals who agree with each other. The complete removal of the undue weight descriptions were particular bad. This should have been discussed. ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 03:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
:Jossi, FeloniousMonk and OrangeMarlin are correct. Please take the discussion further and arrive at a clear consensus on any proposed changes before implementing. The undue weight section, and the language of NPOV generally, took a long time w/ discussion among numerous WP participants to arrive at these expressions of core content policy. Thanks. ... ] (]) 03:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
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.
::It is well and good to merely object, but that's not really the way it works. You don't just revert and ask for consensus without stating an objection. Fastness or slowness is not a reason for reverting. Consensus stands with the latest reasoned discussion, and consensus is indicated by silence. So we had consensus. If you would like to register some objections, edit warring is not the way to do it. ——''']'''</span> ] Ψ ]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 03:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
: I concur with Kenosis, Jossi, FeloniousMonk and OrangeMarlin. And that's a first. ] (]) 03:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


:(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)
::As I said: saying "I don't like it" is not an argument. No offense, but I've never seen this done before: a bunch of people come in after days of edits, revert, and are not willing to say why. ——''']'''</span> ] Ψ ]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 03:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


== the -est, "one of the first", in xxx superlatives in articles ==
:::Orange, Kenosis, Felonious - I count at least five editors who have been working on this page over the last bit, trying to clarify some points. there are parts I agree with and parts I disagree with, and I ''don't'' disagree with your comments about slow change, but I am offended that you think you can simply revert it away without discussion. are you a ]? I request (and expect) a discussion about specific problems you see with these edits (so that some kind of change can happen), otherwise I'm going to put your reverts down to groundless personal dislike and edit in the changes again. is that acceptable? --] 03:50, 7 September 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 ==
::::And the changes were very slow, careful, incremental. They did not even change anything, but rather (if you were to examine them), they made what was there clearer and better written. Again, change is not a reason for reverting. ——''']'''</span> ] Ψ ]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 03:53, 7 September 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)
:: I'm perfectly willing to say why: I've been traveling, have been completely swamped trying to keep up and catch up because of my travel, and have just seen the unacceptable incremental changes to a core policy that most certainly don't enjoy broad consensus. And please think twice before adding me to this tag team allegation; that isn't gonna wash. ] (]) 03:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


:@] I see you reverted without explanation, would you like to discuss? ] (]) 15:11, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
::Ludwigs, why not wait a while. If they don't bother to explain themselves, we can ask for mediation, which should bring truly wide community exposure, which is what these changes need: they are, after all, good changes, and NPOV editors from anywhere will see that. ——''']'''</span> ] Ψ ]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 03:56, 7 September 2008 (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. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 19:11, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
:There has been no where near wide enough participation among editors in general to make such serious changes in core policies. The changes in the undue weight section for example need much wider discussion. ] (]) 03:57, 7 September 2008 (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 ? ==
::Agreed. But it is the duty of editors to participate, and to have reasons for reverting. Silence equals consensus. ——''']'''</span> ] Ψ ]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 03:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
::::The notion that "silence equals consensus" is a bit disturbing. I don't think it's a good principle to employ on a core policy. ] (]) 04:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


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)
::::::Then go take it out of ] ——''']'''</span> ] Ψ ]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 04:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


:Generally, we should ]. That said, follow the ] policy. —] (]) 06:24, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
Agreeing with the others: it reverses the burden of obligation to make substantial and unilateral changes to longstanding policy, then demand that the majority rejustify the existence of the policy. A variety of people who don't normally agree with each other are objecting. I could provide justifications for the undue weight clause, but hesitate to do so because I don't want to validate the approach (which I trust was unintentional here, but is highly exploitable in the larger picture). If you wish to change consensus, Martin, please present your reasons and persuade the community. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 04:06, 7 September 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:
Archiving icon
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: