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 11:17, 25 May 2006 editDuncharris (talk | contribs)30,510 edits →Pseudoscience v. WP:NPOV: oh I know why← Previous edit Latest revision as of 16:35, 14 December 2024 edit undoRemsense (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Template editors59,330 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:
{{shortcut|]}} {{Talk header|WT:NPOV}}
{{Policy-talk}}

{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{Talk Spoken Misplaced Pages|Neutral_point_of_view_Part_1.ogg}}
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter = 68
|minthreadsleft = 5
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(40d)
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Neutral point of view/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{Notice|header=Are you in the right place? |For questions or discussions about the application of this policy to any specific article(s), please post your message at either the ] (any neutrality-related issue) or the ] (undue weight given to a minority view).}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|
{{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
: ] Discussions begun Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr 2005 : ] Discussions begun Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr 2005
: ] July to November 4, 2005 : ] July to November 4, 2005
: ] to November 13, 2005 : ] to November 13, 2005
Line 23: Line 76:
: ] to April 09, 2006 : ] to April 09, 2006
---- ----
;Note : Edit history of archives 001-017 is contained in Archive 017; from archive 18 each archive contains it own edit history. '''Note:''' Edit history of 001–017 is in 017.
---- ----
: ] : ]: Apr 2006
: ] : ]: Apr 2006 – May 2006
: ]: May 2006 – Jun 2006
: ]: Jun 2006
: ]: Jun–Jul 2006 (moving FAQ)
: ]: Jul–Aug 4 2006
: ]: Aug 4 – Sept 21 2006
: ]: Sept 22 – Oct 2006
: ]: Nov – Dec 2006
: ]: Jan – Feb 2007
: ]: Mar – May 2007
: ]: May – Sep 2007
: ]: Oct 2007 – Feb 2008
: ]: Feb – May 2008
: ]: May – July 2008
: ]: July 2008
: ]: July – Sep 2008
: ]: Sep 2008 – May 2009
: ]: April – Aug 2009
: ]: Aug – Nov 2009
: ]: Nov 2009 – Feb 2010
: ]: Mar - Apr 2010
: ]: Apr 2010
: ]: May 2010
: ]: May - Jun 2010
: ]: Jun - Oct 2010
: ]: Oct 2010 - Apr 2011
: ]: Apr - Nov 2011
: ]: Dec 2011 - Jun 2013
: ]: Jun 2013 - Oct 2014
: ]: Sep 2014 - May 2015
: ]: May 2015
: ]: May - Jun 2015
: ]: Jul - Nov 2015
: ]: Nov 2015 – Nov 2016
: ]: Oct 2016 – Sep 2017
: ]: Aug 2017
: ]: Sep 2017 – Feb 2019
: ]: Mar 2019 – Jun 2020
: ]: Jun 2020 – Jul 2021
: ]: Jun 2021 – Mar 2022
: ]: Mar 2022 – Jul 2022
: ]: Jul 2022 – Oct 2022
: ]: Sep 2022 – Jun 2023
: ]: Jun 2023 – Aug 2023
: ]: Aug 2023
: ]: Aug 2023 – May 2024
: ]: Oct 2023 – Nov 2023
: ]: Nov 2023 – Aug 2024
: ]: Aug 2024 – present
}} }}


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


== Clarification for known issues or criticism sections ==


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)
== Shortcuts to sections ==
: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)
... don't work, so personally I'd propose to omit ] entirely from the policy page. Maybe it should better be proposed for ] or so, per ], reason 2, that is: "confusing" (it creates the confusing, and incorrect, idea that the shortcut actually links to the UW section, someone not knowing that was the ''intention'' can only be more confused when reading the "NPOVUW" acronym, and when clicking arriving at the top of the NPOV page, where the "UW" is nowhere explained). And overall, i think NPOVUW to be a horrendous acronym, in the ] meaning. --] 21:32, 11 April 2006 (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. ] (]) 13:17, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
:If they don't work, then delete them. I seem to remember them working in the past, but that was sometime ago. ] 21:38, 11 April 2006 (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. ] (]) 13:41, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
:::OK, thanks. All the issues that @] is trying to hide are notable (accoding to Misplaced Pages notability definition). ] (]) 15:55, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
::::... No they are not. Please substantiate your arguments rather than simply continue to make claims like this. What "definition" are you referring to, and how so? I also don't appreciate your continual ] that I am making Misplaced Pages non-neutral, {{tqq|trying to hide}} information, or {{tqq|seem like a Google employee}}. ] (]) 16:04, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::I assume that 90.167 means ] instead of ]. ''Notability'' is Misplaced Pages's jargon for whether a subject deserves at ], and I don't think they mean to say that each of these consumer complaints deserves a completely separate article. ] (]) 16:48, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::Good point… DUE vs UNDUE (which is determined by coverage in sources) is the criteria here, not Notability. ] (]) 16:58, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::The page Misplaced Pages:Notability ], but "notable" is often used generically as a synonym of "noteworthy", i.e. worthy of inclusion on a Misplaced Pages article. It's important for the IP user to recognize that ], so just because they can find a source for something doesn't mean it is not trivial and interests a general audience. This is discussed at ]. ] (]) 17:40, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::These issues are supported by multiple sources. So, they are considered ]. I think Misplaced Pages needs to clarify if these are allowed or not as there are many similar articles. ] (]) 20:00, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::The first issue was added like this:
:::::::::* Some owners are reporting a camera tilt issue. Google has not made any comments yet.
:::::::::The source added for this issue was:
:::::::::*
:::::::::That's one (1) issue with one (1) source. One source ≠ multiple sources. ''Each'' complaint needs coverage in multiple sources. How else are we to know whether that's a widespread problem, or just something that a couple of people complained about? ] (]) 21:54, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Sure, I will add more sources. ] (]) 07:00, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
{{od}}Either the IP user is ] or ], as they have once again restored the list of known issues despite being told multiple times that it violates ] and ]. They have also ignored repeated requests not to edit-war and wait for consensus to fully develop before altering the status quo, so I can no longer assume good faith.{{pb}}The "sources" that ] are not reliable (]). Virtually all of them are newsblogs, and at most two can be considered marginally reliable. The absence of significant coverage from reputable sources is an indicator that these software bugs are not noteworthy for inclusion, and the IP user should ] at this point. ] (]) 07:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
:All of the sources in the page are either from other weblogs or the primary source. Sould we remove the whole article altogether for lack of reliable sources? ] (]) 07:37, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
::That's not true. The article cites the Associated Press, ''The Verge'', ''Wired'', ''The New York Times'', Bloomberg News, and more. If you're not sure what constitutes a reliable source, please consult ] and see ] for a list of common sources. Your tone here is combative, and you seem to avoid addressing the issues at hand, namely, ], ], and ]. Editors have explained to you that an indiscriminate list of software bugs is unencyclopedic and does not belong on Misplaced Pages, and only if a particular issue has contextual significance and has received significant coverage from reliable sources can it be integrated into other sections in the article. If you are unable to understand this, or simply refuse to work with Misplaced Pages's policies or guidelines, then let's close this discussion and ], because ] on Misplaced Pages, and you must be willing to adhere to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines and work with other editors. ] (]) 16:03, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
:::@], I think this is what the ] processes are for. I doubt the IP has enough experience to know how it works, but they do seem to be trying to comply with all the rules. Would you be willing to show the IP how it's done, by starting a discussion on the talk page, and marching through the list, from ] all the way to RFC if necessary, addressing each individual item at a time? ] (]) 16:33, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
::::Although I have tried to assume good faith, it no longer seems to me that the IP user is trying to follow our PAGs. They have been asked several times, "Please don't edit-war, please don't restore your edit until consensus is reached", yet they continue to do so. They have also been told (by at least four editors), "A standalone list section dedicated to software bugs is unencyclopedic, please don't add it", yet they continue to do so. This discussion has been a ''de facto'' 3O request, so I am not optimistic additional discussion will be any more productive. I'm also not sure what an RfC would look like — a question along the lines of "should a list of software bugs be included" would likely yield the response I summarized above: "no, but if a particular issue is noteworthy they can be discussed in other sections" ... ]! I also recognize there may be a language barrier (the IPs geolocate to Spain), but ] and this is not an excuse for disruptive behavior. ] (]) 17:17, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::We could stop the edit warring at ], but I think the open question (i.e., the point upon which you and the IP differ) is whether the sources provided indicate that the material is DUE. An RFC question could look like "Shall we include <this sentence>, using <these sources>?" ] (]) 17:26, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::I would say it seems pretty clear that newsblogs are generally unreliable, especially if they lack meaningful editorial oversight, have a poor track record, tend to publish anything for clicks, and are rarely cited by other reputable sources. I think to justify an exemption to ], there would need to be stronger sources like the ones listed at ] — at the very least, it should be reputable enough to have its own Misplaced Pages article. But what are your thoughts? As I said, this discussion is essentially an informal 3O/RfC/DRN. ] (]) 17:45, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I don't know enough about the subject area to know what the usual sourcing standards are. For all I know, these could be highly reputable websites. Alternatively, they could all be AI-generated fakes. I don't have the background information to be able to tell them apart. I find it much easier to evaluate academic sources than news-ish websites. ] (]) 20:57, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::@] These news outlets are being used for references in many Misplaced Pages articles if you want to challenge them then you should challenge them Misplaced Pages wide. ] (]) 09:24, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
I'm starting up a new observation, I have an interest in a particular article, see my log. I'm seeking an analogy to the exception about hearsay evidence - that you can in fact establish that somebody said something - a speech act - while refusing to say that in any sense the truth of what they say is established. So, rather than focusing on the truth of a claim, whether that claim has been stated by a reputable source, that it could be established that a given claim is "out there", which to my way of seeking would involve a lower threshold to establish that - as compared to the truth of what is being claimed. If the current set of wikipedia ideas do not allow for this, I suggest that be a modification. If that is not possible, well, *groan* ] (]) 20:42, 15 October 2024 (UTC)


:So, there are two policy issues related to this:
::Well, at ] now, see ] --] 22:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
:1- verifying that the person said it, and that Misplaced Pages is quoting them accurately. This is covered in WP:V and WP:RS.
:2- establishing that Misplaced Pages should mention the quote in the first place. This is covered at WP:NPOV, and specifically by WP:UNDUE.
:Essentially, we want to cite the original (primary) source for Verifiability purposes, but want to cite Secondary sources for DUE Weight purposes. Thus, best practice is to cite both. ] (]) 21:41, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
::The challenge is that saying "So-and-so said ____" implies that ____ is not only true but also relevant/important.
::In some areas, we can move to a higher class of sources (e.g., replace social media posts about politician's hairstyles with scholarly sources that look at the same politician's policy stances). In other areas, that's not possible.
::Editors will always have to use their judgment to determine whether a given point actually belongs in an encyclopedia article. ] (]) 00:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
:::OK, thanks for that. I'll see how I go applying this in the next few days.] (]) 00:32, 17 October 2024 (UTC)


Well sourced, journalist written, mainstream corporate media based critical contents is nowhere near as problematic as Awards & Accolades section citing the award granting group, other .org, trade groups. ] (]) 19:52, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
:::It would be nice if the software would support redirects to sections. Not for NPOVUW, but to create e.g. ]. ]&nbsp;&divide;&nbsp;] 12:32, 12 April 2006 (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. ] (]) 22:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
:::Agree with AvB exactly. ] <sup><font size="-2">] ] ]</font></sup> 20:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


== Due and undue weight and articles on religion: potential guidelines for ordering for neutrality ==
==Sanity check==
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?
Would it be ok if I were to tag chinese ctities under ] as the goverment of Taiwan (]) claims to rule mainland china? --<small>]<sup>]|]</sup></small> 09:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
:#Seems like a question you could easily answer for yourself... if not, maybe after reading ], and other guidance linked from there.
:#If still not being able to answer that question for yourself after reading all that, maybe ask your question at ], or start an ] (but I think you may assume that the outcome of such RfC would be pretty much predictable - only encouraging you to try to find a ''sensible'' answer to your question yourself - if you'd try to find it yourself, I'm convinced the eventual answer will stick better)
:--] 09:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
::You are right the outcome is easy to guess. The result would be that what I am suggesting is nonsense right? I for one would oppose tagging of Beijing under a taiwanieese category. I'll copy this chain to all those pages you mentioned. --<small>]<sup>]|]</sup></small> 08:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


The guidelines that come to mind are:
::This discussion belongs on ], not here. ] 15:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
:::No this is a discussion of NPOV policy and how it applies to categories. Its place is aproporate. --<small>]<sup>]|]</sup></small> 08:49, 15 April 2006 (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.
::::No this is a discussion of naming one specific category, ]. ] 01:42, 19 April 2006 (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. ].
==Jimbo Wales comments on NPOV Undue weight==
Per prior requests from the community, this discussion was moved to: ] ] 20:03, 14 April 2006 (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.
:I've had no such requests, and you have no right to remove discussion from talk pages (now restored above). You also have no right to remove the original verifiable statements from Jimbo Wales. If you remove my discussion from the Talk pages again, I will report you. If you remove verifiable quotes from the article, I will also report you. --] 20:18, 14 April 2006 (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.
Read the archives. Literally dozens of Misplaced Pages's most credible editors have asked for this discussion to be either dropped or taken to user talk space over the last four months. Read ]. There is no support for what you've proposed. Read ], where is issue of similar such changes by your contingent has been discussed at length and rejected. ] 21:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


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.
::This is a strange discussion. What are "verifiable" quotes? This policy page is not an article on what Jimbo said in a specific context. It is about a policy, and it makes sense to paraphrase Jimbo as appropriate. The paraphrase is entirely verifiable, all we need to do is ask Jimbo if it is fair to ascribe these views to him. In fact, the page has been in this state for quite a long time. We should all feel fairly confident that if Jimbo felt his words were being misused, he would have made the change himself. I repeat: this is not an article on Jimbo and the standard for verbatim quotes does not apply. It is a policy page and what is important is wording that helps explain the policy. Verbatim quotes would be unnecessary and inappropriate. ] | ] 00:14, 15 April 2006 (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.
==Page protection==
I've protected the page because of the reverting, because policy pages in particular need to be stable. Let me know when you're ready to start editing again. Cheers, ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 20:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
:Unprotected. Revert war seems to be over, I hope. ] 23:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


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?
==interwiki==
Would you please include the interwiki for Turkish page? Since here it is protected, I can not do so myself. Thanks. (]) -- ] 14:48, 16 April 2006 (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.


:(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)
:Done. --] (]) 22:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


== the -est, "one of the first", in xxx superlatives in articles ==
==Incorrect text attribution==
How do we feel about the liberal use of such sensationalistic superlatives in a lot of articles? I am seeing them everywhere.
The text attributed "From Jimbo Wales, September 2003, on the mailing list:" is inaccurate as he did not appear to write ''these'' words. At the very least, we need to make it clear that the attribution is not a quote, and provide a citation to his actual words (see ). --] 15:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
"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 ==
:In academic writing (or any other writing that has a tradition of citation), paraphrasing is the ''default'' and it is assumed that any attributed words that are ''not'' in quotation marks are not the original words. The special efforts that you are suggesting are only required by academic honesty when we are stating that someone said something exactly. So, the text is already "marked" to indicate that it is not a direct quote by not including quotation marks. &mdash; ] ] 19:39, 18 April 2006 (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)
::While quote marks certainly indicate quoting, I am not aware of any style guide that assumes that the lack of quote marks infers paraphrasing. The wording certainly ''suggests'' a quote, and any competent editor would be able to rewrite this to make it unambiguous.


:@] I see you reverted without explanation, would you like to discuss? ] (]) 15:11, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
::Additionally, the Misplaced Pages style guide on suggests that we do cite sources. But we don't. Any reason why we can't provide a ] (something that should be familiar to those familiar with academic writing)? --] 20:47, 18 April 2006 (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)
:::] 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 ? ==
I always thought 'this is a paraphrase' and "this is a qoute". ] 22:57, 24 April 2006 (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)
:::Citation policy does not apply to policy pages, once again. Apart from that issue, no style guide mentions this because it's not necessary. If you're attributing a statement to someone and ''don't'' quote, what else is it? It would only be dishonest and inaccurate if there ''were'' quotation marks. As it is, there are not. &mdash; ] ] 20:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


:Generally, we should ]. That said, follow the ] policy. —] (]) 06:24, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
::::So despite a trivial excerise in removing the ambiguity, we don't (far more important to argue the point). And likewise we don't provide a citation because technically we don't have to (heck, why make it easy for the reader). And Wiki's policies apply to all areas of Wiki, except the policies themselves. And you wonder why there are months of discussion over ambiguous policy. --] 21:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

::::I also note that the ] includes in the first paragraphy, a quotation from the The Chicago Manual of Style, yet it lacks quotes. Is this an exact quotation, or a paraphrase? Let me guess, Misplaced Pages style guides don't apply to policy pages either. --] 21:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

:::::I don't think "we" is the right word, above. '''I''' at least, '''have''' added the citation to the mailing list post you mentioned, as well as adding the (arguably redundant, but afaics, harmless) word "paraphrased" into the section. You were saying what, again? ] 23:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

:::::It's not necessary to put ]s in quotation marks. &mdash; ] ] 06:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
::::::Right. Who did? ] 18:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
:::::::Ian suggested Misplaced Pages has been delinquent by not doing so. Poor Misplaced Pages just doesn't get any credit for working well these days... &mdash; ] ] 21:17, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Fantastic. Simple, unambiguous and verifiable. --] 23:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

:Oh, if that's all you wanted, why didn't you say? I was arguing against your reasons that were based on a faulty interpretation of policy—I was about to ask you for a proposed wording to try and skirt around that mess. &mdash; ] ] 06:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I also guess that Page protection has been removed, above. --] 23:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

:Jesse is an admin. &mdash; ] ] 06:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
::Janitor, please. See my sig. ;-) ] 18:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

== External link in ''Giving "equal validity"'' section ==

There appears some discussion going on regarding this sentence<blockquote>See this of the "equal validity" issue.</blockquote>in the ] section.

That is: discussion the wrong way (removing/adding the sentence in consecutive edits)

#First, I'd suggest to ''keep it'' there unless this discussion results in doing it otherwise (it has been there for ages)
#Second, maybe rather give your opinion here instead of revert-warring.

*My opinion: keep it. It helped me understand NPOV when I started contributing to Misplaced Pages. In other words, I clicked the link the first or second time I visited the page, and it learned me something. --] 22:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

::Moved to the "External links" section where it may belong. I does not belong smack in the middle of a policy page. ] <small>] &bull; ]</small> 22:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

:It makes more sense for the link to be near the specific part of the policy it illustrates. ] 22:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

::I don't think embedding a link about partisan US politics in our founding policy document is a Good Idea. &mdash; ] ] 22:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

:Keep where it is, because it makes an important point about NPOV. I think discerning readers should be able to understand the non-partisan argument made by the cartoon despite the mention of a specific US political figure. --] 01:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

::But ''discerning'' readers are not the ones who are my concern. It's the ones who do read it as an endorsement of all sorts of partisan US issues that are the problem, and it's not an unlikely reading of the link's presence either. &mdash; ] ] 23:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

@Jossi: Equal for moving around, please find consensus first --] 22:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

*I strongly feel that this link belongs neither in the "equal validity" nor the "external links" section. This page is one of the three foundational policies of Misplaced Pages; advertising a partisan, tangentially-related web comic here is inappropriate and demonstrates well one of Misplaced Pages's systemic biases (to explain: how many republican and conservative webcomics are linked to from one of Misplaced Pages's core policy pages? :)), which is a Bad Thing. If the text does not satisfactorily provide all the examples users will need on its own, then it needs to be ''expanded'' and/or ''clarified'', not supplemented with liberal rhetoric.
*(And I'm a liberal, a web comic addict, ''and'' an ''I Drew This'' fan (the last since mid-2004), yet even ''I'' can tell including a pro-] 2004 campaign comic isn't appropriate here. :)) -] 13:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

::Well, Kerry's not running for President, any more. Besides, I see the cartoon as a slap at a certain style of journalism rather than anything to do with the merits of Kerry or his campaign. -- '''<font color="navy">]</font><sup><font color="green">(])</font></font></sup>''' 16:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

**It ''can'' be applied to a broader type of journalistic idiocy, but in the context it was created in it's specifically a response to the issue of reporting on ] in an uncritical manner. Moreover, should Misplaced Pages's core policy pages really be going out of their way to criticize just about ''anyone'', including the media? Isn't that rather contrary to the entire spirit and purpose of "NPOV"? Additionally, any users who become curious about this webcomic that Misplaced Pages suddenly and randomly linked them to on arguably the most important policy page on the entire site, will very quickly realize that it's an extremely partisan and polemic comic: the after the one we're linking to, for example, is even more explicit in its critique of George W. Bush and his recent political campaign and policies (and the one before is similarly critical of the Republican party, accusing it of hypocrisy)&mdash;and even if you feel that Kerry is no longer a key political figure, ''Bush'' certainly is, and Misplaced Pages should not betray an obvious bias for or against him. I'm not saying it's a ''flagrant'' violation of NPOV to link to a strongly liberal webcomic campaigning for a specific recent politician to illustrate a certain point, but it's certainly a violation, and it's certainly not ''necessary'' in the actual context of the policies being discussed, which are layed out much clearer in the text than they are in the comic in question (in fact, some users may be confused by the comic's insertion and not understand that WP:NPOV is saying that this is what ''not'' to do, rather than that it's saying "do this" by providing such an example). And even if we could slip this comic into the page through some loophole or other in NPOV policy, surely we don't want ] ''itself'' to "toe the line" of NPOV?! The benefits provided by this off-site link (which are trivial at best) do not outweigh the costs to Misplaced Pages's credibility and neutrality. -] 17:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
**Furthermore, since Misplaced Pages is many, many, many times more popular and widely-visited than ''I Drew This'' (it barely even meets the requirements for an article, and is currently a ]), a link like this can very easily be construed as an advertisement and/or site endorsement. It's not like if Misplaced Pages provided a link to a ''Peanuts'' strip or something: not only is this link pushing the line of neutrality (as most politically-loaded comics would), but it's ''also'' clearly seeking to popularize a relatively minor webcomic just because certain Misplaced Pages editors like it. It's realllly not worth it, guys. :/ -] 17:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

:I agree with everything Silence already said. I do think that though the link to the comic ''could'' be interpreted as merely demonstrating a point about balance, it also ''could'' be interpreted to mean we endorse the Democrats or any number of other things. If the fact that it ''could'' be interpreted fairly is an argument to keep it, the fact that it ''could'' be misinterpreted is an equally compelling argument to remove it, so they cancel out. It just does not reflect well on Misplaced Pages's neutrality and this failure would be doubly ironic in the very policy that demands neutrality. Besides, the subject of the cartoon is still an open wound for a lot of people in the US (and abroad even!), so it's just a Bad Idea to associate that with Misplaced Pages. &mdash; ] ] 23:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

::Well, if noone disagrees with the above, can we just remove the durned thing already? :/ -] 21:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

:::I disagree, I didn't see anything in it that could me make review my earlier position. On the contrary, I got the distinct idea, that some of you don't really get the NPOV idea. I doesn't mean we can't talk about what's-his-name politician. It doesn't mean we can't talk about his opponent George Bush (don't forget we have to maintain a wikipedia article about GW Bush, and that that article ''also'' needs to be NPOV). The graphical joke should unload some tension, regarding people thinking they can't use examples in guidelines, or can't write about things irrespective whether they like them or not. You're all so tense. Whatever name is mentioned all of your emotions go soaring high. Endless discussions about whether someone might experience repulsive feelings or not. God, religion, atheism. Science, astrology. Bush, Monica Lewinski, Bill Gates. See, no problem, I can mention any name, and as far as I'm concerned any of these names can be used in the NPOV policy, if they serve an illustrative example. If you think it can't, I suppose you didn't really get yet what the NPOV policy is all about.
:::In sum, keep the link exactly as it is as far as I'm concerned. And try to learn something from the example, instead of trying to remove it. --] 21:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

::::The NPOV policy isn't subject to NPOV, so my arguments (at least) are not based on NPOV. My arguments are premised on what I think is and isn't appropriately professional on the part of Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages should not even hint at the appearance of taking sides in the heated politics of one nation. Defend its innocence we might, but it does us no favours to ''have to'' defend it when it's such a small thing. Any benefit from "unloading tension" for one person is going to be undone by angering an other. Again, if the first is an argument for including it, the second is an equal argument for removing it. &mdash; ] ] 01:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

== Top-of-Page Notice ==
On April 22, SlimVirgin the 2nd sentence of the top-of-page notice from this :
:] to edit the page as needed, but please make sure that changes you make to this policy really do reflect ] before you make them.
to this:
:Please make sure that any changes you make to this policy really do reflect ] before you make them.

Since I preferred to old version, I reverted it back. I'm posting this notice here (and on WP:NOR and WP:V), because it seems like a better place to discuss it than the template page. ] 04:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

== Minor removal ==

I removed "the neutral point of view is a point of view. It is a point of view that is neutral" which I've read a couple of times and had a little giggle over. I'm assuming the average reader is not a five-year-old. ] 09:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
:Don't think the removal is "minor", nor that the "is a point of view" formulation is ''redundant''. In fact, from my experience, I rather see this as one of the harder-to-grasp points of the NPOV policy. It is the simple formulation of what is explained in a more scholar-philosophical way in ]. IMHO both should be kept, the "simple" formulation, that is easiest to grasp for anyone, and the longer elaboration, to satisfy the (semi-)professional user (but which I can imagine to be skipped by many). All (whatever your prior education level) are welcome to Misplaced Pages.
:So, reverting, unless another consensus establishes here on this talk page. --] 10:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
::Rhetorical tautologies, by definition, explain nothing. If there is an important point that needs stating here, I'd suggest expanding the sentence. ] 11:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
:::I'm not reading it as tautological. It has a name, and it's explaining the implication of the name. &mdash; ] ] 11:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
::::To be more precise: the predicate(s) explains nothing not inherent in the subject(s). If these clauses aren't an example of that, I've never seen one. "The neutral point of view ''is'' a point of view. It (the neutral point of view) is a point of view that is neutral." Things are ''repeated,'' not ''explained''—the first pattern makes tautologies deceiving, the second makes them meaningless.
::::That said, I don't want to just make a prickish syntactic point and I understand there is an idea to be emphasized. We might say something like: "neutrality is itself a point of view, ''not'' the absence or abrogation of viewpoints. By adopting the NPOV, Misplaced Pages articles do state a position but are neither sympathetic to nor in opposition to their subject." ] 22:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

:::::Ah! I see what you mean now. The proposed wording makes it much more explicit, yes. Though, I'd make it read "...do state a position, but it is a position that is neither..." just because I stumble when I try to parse that part of the sentence. Instead of "...the NPOV..." I would also write "...a ''neutral'' point of view..." because it scans well and elegantly restates the point without getting in the way, and being able to say it in multiple non-conflicting ways improves the chance that one of them will click with the reader. &mdash; ] ] 23:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

::::::OK then. If Francis agrees (or at least no one else disagrees) we can change the sentence. ] 12:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

:::::::If I remember correctly, this sentence was added in the first place without consensus. It used to say the exact opposite: The NPOV is not a point of view. ] 00:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Ben, your solo operation (8 edits) on January 19 earlier this year wasn't exactly copy-pasting something from the talk page that had been agreed upon before, as far as I can see. The prior version had more nuance (allthough I didn't think it very well written). Reducing<blockquote>The prevailing Misplaced Pages understanding is that the neutral point of view is not a ''point of view'' at all; according to our understanding, when one writes neutrally, one is very careful not to state (or imply or insinuate or subtly massage the reader into believing) that ''any particular view at all'' is correct.</blockquote>(the prior version) , to<blockquote>The neutral point of view is not a ''point of view'' at all.</blockquote>like you did, only made a questionable statement into a totally unacceptable one. Consequently it was changed the next day (that is the diff you linked to above), and that is still (apart from a comma that was added) the version we have today.

Most of the rest of your January 19 changes were left unchanged, I don't want to create the impression I don't think you did a good job on the whole, getting rid of much of the uneccessary complication. But I don't think you should implicate that your nuance-less "The neutral point of view is not a ''point of view'' at all" statement that didn't live to the next day was in any way a consensus version.

I read the above talk between Marskell and Saxifrage a few times, but don't see exactly yet what they propose to change to what at the end of their exchange of ideas. Could anyone write the whole sentence down maybe, then it'll be easier to see what others think about it. --] 22:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

:"As the name of this policy suggests, neutrality is itself a point of view, ''not'' the absence or abrogation of viewpoints. By adopting the neutral point of view, Misplaced Pages articles do state a position, but it is a position that is neither sympathetic to nor in opposition to its subject."
:Circular sentences removed, point made explicit. ] 18:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
::I would change "the neutral point of view" to "a ''neutral'' point of view" (using the indefinite article and emphasising the neutrality under discussion) and remove the duplicate "to" so that it reads "neither sympathetic nor in opposition to". But aside from those very minor differences, that's about the shape of it. &mdash; ] ] 21:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
::Don't use "abrogation", legalese. Don't forget this is supposed to be the "simple" formulation, while the treatment for the more experienced reader is in ].
::As a side remark, from a logical point of view, the phraseology of the first sentence of your proposal is as "circular" or "tautological" as the previous one, you just used some more difficult to understand pseudo-synonyms.
::So, no this doesn't do better yet IMHO than what is there. The two minor remedies proposed by Saxifrage below, don't make this wording substantially more acceptable IMHO. --] 09:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
:::I'm really not getting this objection in the slightest. Tautologies repeat their subject. This does not. Note it's "neutrality is itself a point of view" NOT "the neutral point of view is itself a point of view." That is, neutrality is defined with a perfectly fine, non-circular, declarative sentence. I honestly don't understand the problem. ] 16:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
:::Or: what is possibly better about the sentences as they stand? They certainly don't impart as much infomation and nuance. ] 16:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
::::<s>Was that supposed to be in response to my suggestion of grammar and orthography changes? If it was I'm not understanding the connection.</s> &mdash; ] ] 20:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
:::::No, no. Francis commented in between our points and I responded at the end. Sorry. I think we're (you and I) at a rough agreement the change is OK. ] 22:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
::::::Ah, I've fixed the indenting and ordering. &mdash; ] ] 00:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

== Undue weight of facts? ==

I'm having trouble finding what aspect of this policy disallows bias from being introduced by covering a topic more than it deserves based on its importance relative to the rest of the article. For instance, if a city has had problems with water quality and it's both verifiable and relevant, what's to stop somebody from filling 2/3 of the article with cited information about how terrible the water quality was, and aggressively defending that information's importance? (It's not a fringe viewpoint; it's simply an accepted fact being vastly over-emphasized.) It clearly introduces a bias to over-emphasize a negative point like that, so it seems like something the NPOV policy should cover, but when people make the mistake of doing this, I'm not sure what part of this (or any) policy to point them to. &ndash;]<sup>]</sup><sub> 08:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)</sub>

:Sure, the policy should guide us better than it currently does to address this important problem. Some editors oppose to the idea to improve the policy on this respect with the argument that it is impossible to code in rules the solution to the problem. The flaw in this argument is that it might be possible to improve the policy without necessarily fixing every thing in rules. The fact that a policy will always be subject to interpretation in view of specific situations, does not mean that it cannot be improved for better clarity, clearer general principles, a few key examples, etc. The reality is that there is no account anywhere that we have tried to improve the policy to address this problem in a civil manner without having editors that attempted to suppress the discussion. The fact is that people like me that are only asking for an open discussion in the policy talk pages about this matter see their opinion being suppressed, attacked under Rfc, etc. Their argument to suppress my opinion is that I have only edited a few articles before my interest switched to the policy. Similar arguments are used for other editors that are even more agressive than me, but strangely they only picked me for an Rfc. It is easier to attack one editor at a time. However, the big picture is easy to see here: Mainly those editors who have an interest on specific topics which are jammed because of strong disputes and possibly suffer from undue weight, etc. feel the need for a policy that help us better than it currently does. These editors don't need years of experience to see the problem. A few months in few articles where the problem lies is enough. At that point, these editors either quit Misplaced Pages or are banned of Misplaced Pages for misconduct if they try too much to address the problem. Note that these editors do not try to take control over the policy. They just want to be able to discuss the problem together with other editors. The editors who suppress opinions usually have no problem with the policy. They are either satisfied with the current jammed situation in the disputed articles or they might not be interested in these articles. They are editors that have cumulated years of experience and many of them are admins. ] 11:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
::You're misrepresenting the situation, there was a lot more going on than that. - ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 12:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

::: I don't think so. I represented the situation fairly. However, it maybe that Tifego will succeed just by pointing out the general principle of No undue weight. We will see. The problem is that it is often insufficient. When it is sufficient, it is often because those that calls the principle of no undue weight are a majority supported by a few admins. In this case, there is not even a need for a policy. The problem is when a large proportion of the local editors, perhaps with the support of an admin, are the proponents of the criticism. In this other case, we need a more elaborated policy. ] 14:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
::::Well the RfC clearly established that you are mischaracterizing it and that your efforts grind useful discussion to a halt and prevent improvements rather than facilitating them. Your above comments did nothing to answer the question that was posed and didn't even try. You just took it as your cue to further your own agenda. That can't keep happening. I predict that you will be completely unable to refrain from responding and you will carry this further from useful discussion. If I'm right there may have to be actual restrictions placed on your editing, which would be unfortunate. - ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 15:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
:], you've got the right section. Providing too much detail on small points (positive or negative) is not NPOV. That's supported by the 'Undue weight' section as you've already found, and by the core of the NPOV policy that you can't emphasize small facets of a topic over more important ones&mdash;that's bias. - ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 12:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

::And, as ] said at ], removing the text into a separate article specifically about that topic and giving a link and a few words of explanation in the main article is a legitimate way of dealing with this without removing arguably well-sources and notable information. &mdash; ] ] 21:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

:::Hi Tifego. I think the Undue weight section is vague because it feels safer for those who have a "firm grasp of the policy already" to keep it that way. Why else would these users be pre-opposed to any changes which try to clarify it, regardless of whether they succeed? ] 23:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

::::I direct you to my comment below that contradicts your implied slight, Ben, and gently remind you that passive-aggressive personal attacks are still ]. &mdash; ] ] 10:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

::My problem with the 'Undue weight' section is that it talks very specifically about '''viewpoints''', which doesn't seem to generalize to '''aspects'''. It seems like it should, but right now it focuses entirely on over-/under-emphasization of views held my a minority/majority of people, which doesn't apply to other types of bias. As for the ''"the core of the NPOV policy that you can't emphasize small facets of a topic over more important ones"'', does the policy actually express that anywhere? &ndash;]<sup>]</sup><sub> 23:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)</sub>

:::It seems there are criteria other than popularity (majority/minority) to consider. Relevance and expertise come to mind. Does this address your question? ] 00:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

::::No, because it didn't relate it to the policy. There are other things to consider, but where does say that? seems to imply that there aren't. &ndash;]<sup>]</sup><sub> 00:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)</sub>

:::It does seem like it should generalise. If that is indeed the spirit of the policy and it's just not reflected in the text explicitly, then it should be revised. To everyone else: What is the existing consensus about giving undue weight to facts/aspects of a subject? &mdash; ] ] 01:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

::::It seems to me that questions of proper weight to 'aspects' of an article depend on your point of view about the relative importance of the aspects. So, that puts it back to maintaining a neutral point of view. I hope that clears things up for everybody. :) -- '''<font color="navy">]</font><sup><font color="green">(])</font></font></sup>''' 01:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

:::::That's my feeling as well, but there's nothing explicit in the policy page that makes this clear. In fact, by omission and principles of discourse, it can easily be read that there is no special rules about undue weight ''except'' in the case of editorial representation of external points of view. (Which, I add, is exactly what Tifego cites as the problem, writing, "it talks very specifically about '''viewpoints'''".) Obviously undue weight should cover more ground than that, but the text itself does not. &mdash; ] ] 01:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Placement is also another important issue along with "aspects". To use Tifego's example, even if one only says "they have terrible water" and doesn't drove one for 2/3 of the article, but places it in the very first paragraph of the article, that can be just as bad ("] is the most populous city in the state of Nevada, United States, and a major vacation, shopping, and gambling destination. It has terrible water."). I see three ways undue weight can be given: inclusion of ultra-minority POVs, wrong emphasis of facts, and improper placement of facts. ] 10:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

===Proposal to add text to Undue weight section===

''(This section header was added to highlight the proposals for change. Taxman's comment that immediately follows was in reply to MonkeeSage's comment at 10:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC) immediately above the section header. &mdash; ] ] 03:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC))''

:Yes, it seems two things should be clarified in the policy. That ''selective presentation of facts (even if worded factually so there is no POV in the statements themselves) is just as much a problem as POV statements; the balance of coverage must reflect the importance and relevance of the material.'', and I agree placement can be a problem too. Any ideas on a concise addition or clarification that can put this into the policy? I think anyone that knows and uses the NPOV policy is comfortable with this already, but clarifying can't hurt. Above I wasn't saying we couldn't use clarity improvements, just that tangential conversation and editors that block improvement aren't the way to go. Specific wording of a proposed addition is much more helpful so my suggestion is exactly how I worded it in italics above. - ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 13:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

::As for where, I think a short paragraph added at the end of the undue weight section would do. I don't think we need to mention anything about "selective presentation" since that's already covered, I think, by the current contents of the section. I would propose:
:::This is not to say that only viewpoints should not be given undue weight in an article. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. <ins>Note that undue weight can be given in several ways. A non-exhaustive list of such ways includes depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.</ins>
::&mdash; ] ] 22:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC) <small>edited to insert underlined text &mdash; ] ] 23:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)</small>

:::That sounds good to me<s>, although it doesn't seem to cover MonkeeSage's point about placement</s>.<s> (I don't know if it should or if it's already implicitly covered.)</s> &ndash;]<sup>]</sup><sub> 23:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)</sub>
::::You're right, I forgot about that. I've amended my suggestion. &mdash; ] ] 23:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

:::::Okay. Does anybody object to that going into the policy? It certainly seems to be in the spirit in which the policy was intended. &ndash;]<sup>]</sup><sub> 01:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)</sub>

::::::Though I think this does reflect the spirit of the policy and present practice (which is the important test, I believe), I also think that we need a lot more people confirming this before such a large change of explicit text will be accepted as having consensus-support. There's no real rush, so we can let this simmer for a while and collect opinions and other suggestions for wordings or amendments to the two wordings already suggested. I have added a "Proposed change" heading above to make it a bit more prominent. &mdash; ] ] 03:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
:::::::I also think that is quite good and covers more bases more clearly than mine. It could use a bit of improvement for flow, but it has the basics down very well. While I also agree there's no hurry because that's pretty much how people interpret it now, it would be good to get it in to clarify it. I believe it represents what consensus already is for the policy. I also approve of splitting my comment off to this section. :) - ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 03:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
:::::::'''Support''': Good job Saxifrage. I agree withyou and Taxman that this is how the policy is generally understood, even though it doesn't explicitly address these concerns (the "spirit of the law" rather than the "letter"). A good example of policy growing out of common usage and ideals. ] 05:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
:::::::This looks good to me. This kind of selective presentation of facts is often a serious problem, especially with articles on contemporary politics, and I think it's worthwhile to explicitly lay out the issue in the NPOV policy. ] 05:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
:::::::: What John K said. You may also want to put a note on the village pump policy section that this change is being disucssed. ] 05:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::I left a note in the section where this question was also raised, but I didn't create a new section. I honestly believe the lack of controversy over this represents a lack of a problem, but lets hold for a couple days maybe. - ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 14:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
:::::::I'll support this. -- '''<font color="navy">]</font><sup><font color="green">(])</font></font></sup>''' 12:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
::::::::I agree, it adds clarity. --] | ] 15:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
::::::::I agree as well. ] <small>] &bull; ]</small> 18:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
::::::::I also '''support''' this, of course. &ndash;]<sup>]</sup><sub> 19:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)</sub>

Don't think it a good idea (sorry),
:This is not to say that only viewpoints should not be given undue weight in an article.
...confuse, double negation, what exactly does this sentence say?
:Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements.
...also confuse phraseology (one has to remember to take the "not" in the second half of the sentence for it to make sense). Regarding the ''content'', where does this do better than the ], or for that matter, what we're trying to do in ] currently?
:An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject.
..."should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject", etc... again that convoluted phraseology. And definitely not better than the way this point is formulated in the ]:<blockquote>Different views don't all deserve equal space. Articles need to be interesting to attract and keep the attention of readers. For an entry in an encyclopedia, ideas also need to be important. The amount of space they deserve depends on their importance and how many interesting things can be said about them.</blockquote>...in comparison, surprisingly simple and effective, no?
:Note that undue weight can be given in several ways. A non-exhaustive list of such ways includes depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.
Vague, and in essence, when this could be formulated clearer rather something for the NPOV tutorial, than something with which to burden the NPOV policy page, as far as I'm concerned.
Also, it makes something that is unavoidable when writing about opposing views ("juxtaposition of statements") look as if this would in itself be something ''bad''.
And then, weren't "Biased or selective representation of sources" and "Editing as if one given opinion is ''right'' and therefore other opinions have little substance" forgotten from the list? Surprise, they're already, elaborated with examples, in the NPOV tutorial.

So here's my suggestion, maybe look a bit further to what already exist (like the NPOV tutorial, or the ''criticism'' proposal), before trying to cram the content of the ''implementation'' guidelines all on the main NPOV policy page, that might only become totally unreadable again. --] 22:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

:Then perhaps all we need to is, at the bottom of the Undue Weight section, add a link to the NPOV tutorial. Still, though, I think that the laser-fine focus of the Undue Weight section on ''viewpoints'' is misleading, and it should be somehow changed to make it clear that ''undue weight'' is the problem, not undue weight of ''viewpoints''. &mdash; ] ] 22:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

On the ] page, '']'' is the first link encountered under the two templates. Note also that there's also another section, already for a long time on the NPOV page, ], that also treats the same idea. I think the "Undue weight" section has gotten an out of proportion amount of attention since a few months, and would rather leave it at that. Maybe remove the "shortcut" box from that section (that ''is'' giving "Undue weight" to the ''Undue weight'' section). --] 23:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

:That doesn't really address what I was saying. Note that both the ] and ] talk about ''viewpoints''. A sensible, but mistaken, reading of this would be that there are rules for how viewpoints are presented but not for other things. Since NPOV is policy and the NPOV tutorial is not, I don't see that this being covered in the NPOV tutorial does anyone any good: after all, citing the NPOV tutorial in a dispute will only be met with laughter (so to speak).
:I realise this section has been under a lot of scrutiny recently. However, that's not a good reason by itself for inaction. That's essentially arguing that the time during which good work has been ground to a halt by controversy should be stretched out even longer after the controversy is no longer in the way. &mdash; ] ] 09:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

::"... talk about ''viewpoints''" - The policy is named ]. Maybe better not stretch the policy beyond talking about ''viewpoints''.
::"... there are rules for how viewpoints are presented but not for other things" - the "other things" are treated in other policies and guidelines (already!), but the ''neutral point of view'' policy is about ''viewpoints''. I tend to see some logic in that distribution of content over the several policies and guidelines.
::"... citing the NPOV tutorial in a dispute will only be met with laughter (so to speak)" - for points specifically described in guidelines, I tend to cite these guidelines when there's a NPOV (or other) issue that needs resolving. In that sense, statistically, I think I've cited the NPOV tutorial more often than the NPOV policy page (which I cite when none of the specific problem-solving pages seems to apply). Never had problems with that. If the problem gets solved, that's that. While the NPOV policy page is rather about the general (and somewhat abstract) principle, it often needs more clarification of how that principle applies to a specific problem (so needs more attention when citing). Citing practical guidelines is often less cumbersome in that sense.
::Appears also that I misunderstood your original intention with the proposed insertion (which I thought to be in the first place about ''Article structures which can imply a view'', as for example in ]). Your new comment rather indicates it is supposed to be about what is covered by the guidelines/policies in ] (see also ], which also refers to ], maybe more important than ] when talking about balancing out ''other things than viewpoints'').
::So, anyway, I still think the wording you proposed to raise an issue on the NPOV policy page is ''confusing''. Could you maybe reformulate a bit clearer (and then, indeed, I'd rather stick to the ''Article structures which can imply '''a view''''' idea, than expressing something about ''other things that are not viewpoints''). --] 10:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
:::I think you are completely missing the point that people are bringing up. Too many perfectly verifiable facts about problems on a topic and no coverage of positives is POV. It's promoting a viepoint by selective presentation of facts. It's been very long held that the NPOV policy prohibits that type of thing. There are no other policies that should, and in fact it is the NPOV policy's job to cover that. But I see your point about the wording, that could be improved to eliminate the double negative. How about "Viewpoints are not the only thing that should not be given undue weight in an article." Still two "not"s, but I think it's clearer. Anyone with idea's on how to remove the double not would be good. - ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 16:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

::::I agree, but (additionally) I don't see what the problem is with the "double negation". It's a perfectly valid and understandable sentence (''"This is not to say that only viewpoints should not be given undue weight in an article"''). And if two "not"'s are ''really'' that confusing, it's easy to reword it to something like:

:::::"This is not to say that articles should only avoid undue weight of particular viewpoints."

::::The proposed wording is not much of a reason (IMHO) to prevent what is already de-facto community-supported interpretation of policy from being expressed in the official policy that is responsible for dealing with the issue.

::::&ndash;]<sup>]</sup><sub> 19:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)</sub>

Sorry, still no consensus on the verbosity of the phrasing. Note that I also raised some other points (e.g. context of ] and/or ]; avoiding that the NPOV policy page centers too much on the "undue weight" section, which is only a ''corollary'' of the main principle of the page;...) which received no comments, or otherwise comments that had no relation to the points that were raised. --] 12:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
:Are you kidding me? '''No one''' has agreed with you, and a substantial number of people have agreed the wording is needed and matches what people already use the policy for. I noted that your points are all completely off, someone else agreed and you never responded. Unanimity minus one is a working consensus (this project rarely gets better), and you bear the burden of refuting that. You haven't come close, so your revert of wording that has gained consensus is irresponsible. Much better is to let the edit stand and then try to prove your point. - ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 12:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

== Agendas/ Full disclosure ==

Hi there. I am a political Scientist, and a Social Scientist, (of the self educated sort.) And also an information systems Theorist. (Of the rank amatuer hobbyist sort.) I say this as background material, so that people will understand where I am coming from (I hope) a little more clearly.

My observation is that wikipedia has become a battleground for politicos, and that NPOV policy, while set to deal with the issue, is failing in general to keep cliques of Right wingers and left wingers from forming and resulting conflicts and social entropy ensue.

I have a set of theoretical partial solutions to this problem, at the very least some ideas I think might seriously help if they were in some way codified into policy.

The first of these is simply what I will call "Full Disclosure."
It is my opinion that in order to make clearer sense of who has what biases, that participants contributing to contentious articles would all
benefit from the lucidity that would follow if a "Full Disclosure" clause was added to the NPOV policy. The idea here is that the lead author of an article would begin the process on their user page, or a user subpage, by disclosing their biases, affiliations, loyalties, allegiances, and personal agenda. They could then ask "Disclosure questions" which other participants would be obliged to answer on their own user page, or user sub page, before contributing to the article.

*Comment inserted by ]: some of your premises conflict with principles fundamental to Misplaced Pages. That's not to say that some other formulation wouldn't work, but this one has the fatal flaw of conflicting with the ] policy, which states that no editor may exercise control over an article (i.e., no one editor may "own" an article).

*I think the problem is that you will get everyone claiming to be a moderate working for the good of mankind, motherhood and apple pie. As Jimbo Wales recognized, the basic and current view of Wikipedians leans progressive or leftist but most Wikipedians don't see their edits this way. The current scenario seems to be that we have recreated the American judicial system of "adversial confrontation will yield truth." But I don't know that Misplaced Pages "Justice" is encyclopedic. In fact it appears that most political or news events contain juxtaposing talking points from the extremes. I am not sure this qualifies as NPOV but it seems to be the best we can do for now.--] 05:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

] 03:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Thats a minor detail, it only works that way as a for instance.
I'll change it?
I don't want to conflict with anything, i was just giving the very
general idea of how it might work. Of course it would have to be fit
into the way things currently go.
For instance, never mind the "lead author" clause, just imagine
it as a function of agreeing to work on articles with serious
pov issues. The only reason why to use a lead author is to define
the most relevant pov issues. It could be done round robin, or, the consensus process could be used to generate basic criteria.
I'd change it immediately, but i don't want to misrepresent the evolution of the idea.
Thanks so much for your explanation.
] 03:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

For instance, a full disclosure by me regarding ] would look like this;

===Example Full Disclosure===
====My Disclosure====
I am a third party leaning democrat who believes sincerely that
The president should be impeached. I voted for Dennis Kucinich in the election, but could not bring myself to vote for the lesser of two Evils
represented by John Kerry. I consider myself a Radical Moderate, and an
eclectic, and like to integrate apparently opposing viewpoints into more cohesive wholes. My agendas in writing this article is firstly to provide a neutral information service to the public, and secondly to make a strong argument that in fact, there are good rationales to impeach Bush.

====Disclosure Questions====
*What are your party affiliations?
*Who did you vote for in the last two elections?
*Do you believe that there are grounds to impeach?
*Aside from party affiliations, how would you characterize your bias?
*What are your personal agendas in participation?

===Agendas===
The point of this system would be to determine what peoples Agendas
and Biases are, so that their contributions and potential conflicts could be understood in the context of where they are coming from.
This would in my opinion, seriously aid in understanding in case of
requests for comment, mediation, or arbitration, and make understanding
contributors bias as simple as looking, rather than trying to guage that bias by reading pages and pages of contributions. It would force a new
level of honesty into the system, and this would facilitate lucid problem solving regarding conflicts.

Perhaps more importantly, persons with serious agendas and biases would
thus be encouraged to self identify, and could thereby in some cases be
asked to recuse themselves from articles, based on the standard model of conflict of interest.

Lastly, trollish and manipulative behavior and dishonesty would be much
easier to identify, because such persons would be likely to undereport
their true agendas, and, agendas become apparent after a certain amount
of interaction, generally.

:I don't think stating one's bias or lack of bias or unusual outlook will do much good at all. God only knows I've stated my strong distate for Republicans and Democrats and Fascists and Socialists a million times and people heard what they wanted to hear. It's simple. Articles need to be neutral and factual. When editors are putting a slant on an article it's obvious. At least to me. The articles tend to read like ads or editorial comments. Maybe there could be a committee that is easy to find and readily responds to calls for help. When a lot of people are complaining about the same kinds of things or especially the same group of editors, tis probably true and worth investigation. When these same people suddenly get blocked or banned indefinitely its a clue that something's up. We need people to listen. I would volunteer to be on such a committee. ] 09:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I hope that this can be something useful to wikipedia, thanks for your
time and energy in consideration.
] 21:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

:I don't see that this would be helpful. Actually, if we, and especially administrators, came to rely on self-report rather than an investigation of actual behaviour, I think this would encourage misleading "disclosures". Also, this policy would do nothing to users who already actively disagree with Misplaced Pages's philosophy and systems and seek to subvert it for their own agendas. &mdash; ] ] 23:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

:I agree that NPOV is failiing, but I don't think this is the way to solve it. I note that there are instances when consensus is used to trump (aspect of) policy, despite this guidelines on noting that "Consensus should not trump NPOV (or any other official policy)".

::I've always found this statement bizarre and incomprehensible. When has anyone ever explicitly claimed that consensus ought to trump NPOV? This statement is almost always brought up in the context of people trying to unilaterally claim that their preferred position is "NPOV" and that the consensus position is not. There is no way to figure out what is POV and what is NPOV except through consensus. Except in the utterly unlikely scenario of a group of editors all explicitly agreeing that an article would be better if it is POV and coming to an explicit consensus for a version which they themselves believe to be POV, this statement is absurd, because consensus and NPOV relate to different parts of wikipedia policy - NPOV is a requirement for article content; consensus is the process we use in case of conflict about article content. ] 01:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

:::Thanks John K, I found several things said to be totally incomprehensible. I didn't say anything about consensus, and don't see how it hopped into the conversation. It seemed like a projection to me, and an absurd one, but then again, maybe its my ignorance regarding wikipedia as a newbie. I certainly didn't say anything about conensus at all, let alone trumping NPOV. All i am doing is trying to explain how a tool would work that would enhance our ability to see and deal with pov and bias more clearly and lucidly, so that the NPOV process is an easier one. Thats not trumping NPOV, its facilitating it. ] 02:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

::::Don't worry, Prometheuspan, that bit of non-sequitor was Iantresman using your post to continue a long-running argument while failing to address what you said. That is understandably confusing, and my comment below his was me chiding him for his axe-grinding, not directed at you. &mdash; ] ] 02:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

] 03:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
oh, thanks, that helps.
] 03:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

:The reason is clear, areas of policy are ambiguous, and there is no will (by the consensus) to clarify them. In other words, the consensus will not clarify policy in order to reduce subjectivity by the consensus. Conflict of interest? --] 23:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

::The constant campaigning = not cool. All y'all have to stop hijacking posts that relate to policy discussion in order to talk about your particular beef. Just one problem is that it's disrespectful and unhelpful to the original poster to ignore their issue in favour of your own. &mdash; ] ] 00:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I am very surprised to hear that others don't think that this would be helpful. I honestly hadn't anticipated that in the least. I was sure that the usefulness of the system would be self evident.
"misleading disclosures" Actually, I think you miss the point. We don't
rely on this, its another tool. "Misleading disclosures" would rapidly
become evident. It isn't hard to watch an agenda in progress. Think about it. For anybody with over 100 or so edits, you can probably guess
their agenda if you study whats done and said. The point here is to bring a focus and thus lucidity to the issue of agendas, which isn't
something wikipedia even discusses. Misleading diclosures would be a give-a-way very quickly of action not in good faith. "Do nothing"
I can't see how you can say this. It would do lots regarding that subversion including making subversion more apparent and easier to diagnose. "areas of policy ambiguous" Policy or a set of rules can only
get you so far. Sooner or later this comes down to figuring out what a persons agenda is, one way or another. If somebody has an agenda to be disruptive, then we have to figure that out the same as we do now. Straight out liars and con artists would be forced to come up with some
good answers, but would still eventually give themselves away.
"Particular beef" Are you accusing me of doing that here? Honestly, I
am trying to help Misplaced Pages solve this problem.

:Regarding my "beef" comment, that was very much not directed at you, but to Iantresman. The indent is intended to indicate whose comment is being replied to.
:My concern about enforced disclosure (from a systems point of view) is that I think it would either give a false sense of security, or be ignored completely. Right now, biases and agendas are generally easy to detect and users that are subversive generally end up on the wrong end of a ] or ]. I don't think such a system of disclosure would speed that process at all. &mdash; ] ] 02:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

] 03:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I do think it could be very helpful, it doesn't look to me as i wander
around that most people are clear what kinds of biases others have hardly at all. Nobody even says the word "Agenda."
] 03:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I hope that both of you will think about this and review the idea carefully in your mind. I am certain it has enormous merit.
"Conflict of interest". For instance, I would have to recuse myself from
writing the ] Article, because i would be too biased against him to provide useful assitance in that endeavor. It would be a conflict of interest for me to do that. For instance. ]

] 01:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Saxifrage, you actually seem to have a full disclosure area of your
user page, as if you allready get it. ????
Why did you tell us about your biases? Because its helpful to the effort
for everybody to put their biases on the table. You make the argument for it yourself on your user page. ???
If everybody was as honest and forthcoming as you are on your user page,
this would be redundant. Think about it.
] 01:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

:I do think it would be better if everyone did, but I don't think it would be better if everyone ''had'' to. Mine is also not ''full'' disclosure, since I only have there my biases that I think are relevant. (Notice it lacks any party affiliations or what I stud(ied/y) in my "post-secondary education".) I hope that my disclosure of biases on my User page is useful to other editors, but I would not ask anyone to rely on it farther than they can throw it. It's also there for my own benefit, as a reminder of what my biases are.
:I think that if disclosure was mandatory, people would evade it. It's not something that can really be enforced, and rules that are unenforceable usually cause more problems than they solve.
:Beyond this, such a mandatory policy, imagining for a moment that it were enforceable, would have all kinds of privacy implications. Just for starters, I don't have to disclose who I voted for in any election, anywhere, ever—what gives Misplaced Pages the right to demand I do so? &mdash; ] ] 02:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

] 03:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I think that is a good point, but if you were working on an aricle related to George Bush or the rigged elections problem, I think it would
become very relevant very quickly. If people didn't want to disclose they don't have to work on the article, or, even, if they didn't want
to disclose they could even still work on the article, but have to more
or less defer to those that did disclose in disputes. I think you are
doing a great job of finding potential holes, but every hole you have found so far seems either illusory in the first place or an easy patch
to me personally. "Mandatory" might be much too strong a word and way
to think about the whole idea.

As far as "full" goes, people would only be disclosing things relevant
to working on highly contested articles. Think of it as a tool used perhaps only after a pov dispute has reached critical mass.
] 03:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
:I, like I assume Saxifrage does, sincerely appreciate your efforts to point out something you think would be helpful. But I also agree with him that I don't think this would be helpful, both because enforced disclosure wouldn't work (difficult people might just lie), and because people's biases are pretty easy to spot in their edits. The way this crazy place works is that to people who are familiar with it, edits stand pretty well on their own. You can tell by the edit whether it is an improvement or not and you get a feel for what editors are being helpful and which are not. For example, based on Saxifrage's editing, I know he'll be right in his edits much more than wrong, and that though we would certainly disagree on things, we would be able to present facts and come to a mutually agreeable solution and both learn something. For other editors not willing or able to do that it is much tougher to collaborate succesfully, but I still know if their edits are good or not. Point being the edits stand on their own and I don't need to know what Saxifrage's beliefs are. - ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 04:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem disclosing my biases and agendas (check my ] if you doubt it), but this suggestion is a bit worrisome to me. The ] policy says that the following qualifies as an example of a personal attack: "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme." I fear that such a forced-disclosure could (likely would) lead to witch-hunts and ]s based on affiliations and personal convictions; implicit ownership of articles (e.g., Christians claiming that "hard" Atheists can't edit articles about Christianity because they are too biased, and vise versa); and hasty generalizations. ] 05:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

: I also strongly dislike this. If someone has a strong bias that gets in the way of their editing in a NPOV way it will be apparent in their edits, A general rule of forced disclosure is unproductive, will scare away new users, make personal attacks more likely and simply won't accomplish much. ] 05:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I disclose some things about myself on my user pages (and disclosed more in the past, still accessible in the history), but I much prefer to be judged by my edits than by anything I say about myself. Since we have no way of verifying what editors say about themselves (without engaging in what, in some circumstance, I would consider to be 'stalking'), I much prefer to judge people by their behavior in Misplaced Pages. In the same vein, if I have learned something about an editor that is not available publicly, I do not reveal it. So, I also do not like any proposal to force editors to disclose biases, viewpoints, etc. -- '''<font color="navy">]</font><sup><font color="green">(])</font></font></sup>''' 12:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

===Disclosure===
I've said before I favour the notion of knowing where an editor comes from. I have listed my biases, as I understand them, about major topics on my user page. I'd not favour requiring it from every editor! It's an optional thing (I think it makes our interactions better if you know where I am coming from and vice versa but if you don't agree, no biggie) and certainly don't see the need for it anywhere else though. My concern with the above is that it seems to be more than just that although I confess I haven't parsed out what exactly. '''<font color="green">]</font><font color="blue">]</font>''']: ]/] 14:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

] 19:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your assorted comments. Seeing as i have no support and only people who think its a bad idea responding, i suppose I'll just
drop it. I think you are all miscontruing how it would work, and underestimating how helpful it would be. The idea here wasn't for me to generate an actual policy, but to start a policy concept. I think it would be more fair and realistic if people would stop and think
about how in theory it might be implemented, before just dismissing
it out of hand. In any case, I am slowly coming to the realization
that Misplaced Pages is a mostly headless beneficient dictatorship combined
with a loose level of consensus process resulting actually in pack psychology driven anarchy, and, I will probably quit participating,
because i don't see that theres any sane way to deal with abusiveness, and the policies in place that do deal with the issues
require exorbitant amounts of time and energy, which means that only
the very worst problems are ever resolved, and editors who are clearly gaming the system and manipulating and lying can continue to
do so as long as they are clever enough not to become a really big pain to some administrator.
] 19:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

:Yes, there are those issues. I think problematic cases come with every society though, and that kind of difficulty is one I'm personally willing to accept. Besides, in practise there are very few who manage to walk the fine line between disruption and useful editing so much that they don't eventually get called up for bad behaviour. In practise, it's not so much the worst cases, but the most persistent ones (which covers most of the worst ones) that get dealt with. That's fine by me, since the ones that aren't persistently disruptive stop and become good editors. &mdash; ] ] 22:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately biases are indicated by what people write in an article, not by their background. It doesn't matter whether I'm a gay, liberal, black, communist, or whatever, it's what I write that counts.

But I do agree with you that Misplaced Pages does come across as headless, and I think that pages and pages of repetition arguments on these pages, demonstrates that, regardless of what some contributors may suggest, it is indeed driven by anarchic consensus, rather than policy. --] 01:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

:WP is more like a principled republic. Policy is binding, but at the same time it is in a state of flux, trying to keep up with the community as it grows and changes. Somewhat idealistic. But still specific enough to apply to concrete cases, ''per mutatis mutandis''. ] 03:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

== Use of ''persecution'' to describe acts of Chinese government? ==
''(Previously titled '''Is it OK to say Hitler's a monster ''because he really is''?''')''

Actually the situation is more complex. People who believe the communists are evil (etc) think they are justified in using POV words to describe communists, because they believe their words REALLY, REALLY fit the communists, so they don't think it's POV to use those words. Eg:
<blockquote>''I very much agree. "Persecution" is a '''very negative''' term, however, we '''shouldn't avoid it simply for that reason'''. What the Chinese government has done fully meets the term's definition, which has been acknowledged by many third party sources, as -someone- mentioned. I opt for "persecution" rather than "crackdown" or "suppression" becuase '''it more clearly describes the reality''' of what is being discussed. -names removed-''</blockquote>
-- <font color="#FF0000">'''Миборовский'''</font> <sup>]|]|]|]|]|]!</sup> 18:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

:No, because the use of ''monster'' in that way is metaphorical—he's not a slavering non-human beast out of mythology and nightmare, which is what he'd have to be to "really" be a monster. In this way it is different from the ''persecution'' analogy. It's POV, and should not be done. &mdash; ] ] 21:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
:The fact that most of us will characterize Hitler as a ''monster'' or worse, does not mean that it is encyclopedic to say so. Hitler's despicable acts speak for themselves. It does not need any metaphorical constructs. ] <small>] &bull; ]</small> 23:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

::That's not what he's asking. The real question is: "Is it OK to call the Chinese government's action(s) 'persecution' ''because it really is''?" As one example, that is. Hitler and monsters aren't involved at all except as an analogy referring to the example in this policy. &ndash;]<sup>]</sup><sub> 23:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC)</sub>
:::I know that he is not asking that. But the example stands. There is no need to pass value judgements on material in articles unless is attributed to a reputable source. Value judgements about right, wrong, moral, immoral, etc, are outside of the domain of editors. Attribute POVs clearly as per ] and cite your sources. Period. ] <small>] &bull; ]</small> 00:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

:::There is a power in neutral language which the use of any 'emotive' or 'subjective' terms destroys. Using neutral language allows the reader to apply their own moral judgement without feeling that they are being propagandised to or preached at. An example is Martin Gilbert's book ''The Holocaust''. It details page after page of facts, and leaves judgement to the reader. It is the most shocking book I've ever read, and that's ''because'' it tries to lay out the facts only, without judgement. Is it possible to describe the verifiable actions rather than try to decide between 'persecute' or 'suppress'? --] | ] 23:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

From the above it's not clear to me whether the interlocutors were or were not aware that Hitler is actually used as an example in ]. In other words: didn't the content of that section already settle the issue brought forward? Or, is someone implying, by bringing this topic up on this page, that something is wrong with that section? --] 00:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

:He's implying, by bringing it up on this page, that other people are incorrectly ignoring that section of the policy. &ndash;]<sup>]</sup><sub> 00:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC)</sub>
::No, I wasn't "implying" that, I was asking two questions:
::# Was there awareness that Hitler was treated as a topic in ]?
::# Does that section cover the question at hand, or is someone suggesting ''improvement'' of that section of the NPOV policy page?
::I'm indifferent about what answers you give to these questions. But my feeling is that this discussion is somewhat hollow (or: not really relating to the current WP:NPOV policy) if these questions aren't answered. The only thing I was implying is this: if this is not a discussion that relates to the actual NPOV policy page, it should not be on the talk page of that policy page, per WP:NOT discussion forum. --] 09:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

:(Serves me right for reading the header and skimming the actual question.) So, in answer to the actual question, I would still say no.
:Here's my (rather rambling) thoughts on the issue. To use the word ''persecute'' requires knowledge of motive or contains an inherent judgement that the action is undeserved (depending on what definition you look at). 's definition says, "to harass in a manner '''designed''' to injure, grieve, or afflict" (emphasis mine); my Mac OS X dictionary says, "subject (someone) to hostility and '''ill-treatment'''" (emphasis mine); 's definition says, "To oppress or harass with '''ill-treatment''', especially '''because of''' race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or beliefs" (emphasis mine). However, I am not really familiar with the subject enough to think my "no" is definitive: if it is absolutely clear and verifiable what the government's purpose for their acts are ''and'' that purpose is to subject people to maltreatment because of their religion (etc.), then it might be warranted. However, then you have to be absolutely sure you haven't crossed ] in order to get to that judgement. Even then, Misplaced Pages saying that it is persecution may be unwarranted, since it would then be presenting one POV as true. (O, what a tangled web...) &mdash; ] ] 00:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

'''No''', it is NOT OK to say Hitler was a monster as this is clearly POV. On the ultimate scale of events, Hitler's actions were actually following some sort of a world-wide order. If Hitler, did not exist, many countries would still be under foreign rule and the world community would still view war with a high level of tolerance. One must remember that Hitler (and no man) is evil in '''ABSOLUTE''' terms. --<font style="background:gold">]]</font><sup><font style="background:yellow">]</font></sup> 03:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

:But presumably it would be OK to say that many authors have described Hitler as a monster, if citations can be provided ; but equally it would then mean that we should say the some authors have described Hitler as not being a monster, again, if citations can be provided . And this highlights that Misplaced Pages's policy of ] states that: "The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth." --] 16:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
::People have called him a hateful monster. People have said he was right and that they admire him. As to who says (said) which, how about an "opinions on" section, all neatly (<nowiki><ref></ref></nowiki>) footnoted? ] 19:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
::Sure, but the point is moot: the original poster was actually asking a question unrelated to Hitler. I made the same mistake. &mdash; ] ] 20:11, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

== NPOV and controversial subjects ==
Does NPOV apply to non-controversial subjects, controversial subjects, or both? --] 18:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

: NPOV applies to all encyclopedia articles, and is "non-negotiable". (But surely you know that, it's clearly stated; so why do you ask?) ] 18:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

::I've seen several Wiki policy statement that I thought were clearly stated, but which may be re-interpreted by other statements. So I'm double checking, to make sure I haven't missed anything. --] 19:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

:Second opinions? --] 09:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
::"On every issue about which there might be even minor dispute among experts on this subject, is it very difficult or impossible for the reader to determine what the view is to which the author adheres?" Sanger said that. If you write your fringe cosmological views into an article on not-generally-accepted-cosmologies using Sanger's statement as a guide, there's a chance they may stick. If instead you crusade as a devotee of Truth, you are sure to be viewed as pushing a point of view, and the concepts you wish to communicate will tend not to stick. Try being neutral as a tactic - it might work. ] 16:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
:::Yes, that seems to be the core meaning of the ], that "The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth.", and consequently, theories/ideas should not be present as absolute truths. But if a theory is not controversial, then does NPOV still apply? --] 16:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
::::Yes. The bigbangers are bound by NPOV also. You may wish to hold them to it. ] 23:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

==POV pushing==
According to the page on ], only excluding all points of view but one, counts as "POV pushing". Does that infer that including a particular point of view (POV), in a neutral point of view style (NPOV), can not count as "POV pushing" under any circumstances? In other words, mentioning a POV is not POV pushing, otherwise any POV already mentioned in an article can be considerd POV pushing. --] 09:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

] 23:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
The apparent final application of NPOV becomes MPOV as in "multiple
Points of view." This applies where there ARE multiple points of view, and where any given point of view is both noteworthy and sane
enough to withstand the obvious scrutiny of basic reality checks.
I could write a theory on cosmology based on the divine intervention
of the flying spagetti monster. Fortunately for all of us, this would only fly in a humor article, not a cosmology article, because its not a serious REAL Cosmology.

As a newbie, this is only my current interpretation. I keep finding
new details that makes me scratch my head for 20 minutes.
] 23:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

== Objectivity nearly impossible RE: NPOV ==

'Objectivity' in my experience is impossible, individuals (myself included) will always write or comment on a subject based on how they have experienced it. Most of what I hear is usually subjective at some level. For every one 'fact' I choose to report, I'm sure I leave out many other 'facts'.

Sorry! NPOV is not realistic IMHO

What may be more realistic is for people to simply take ownership or owe up to what is their opinion or simply state how they 'feel' about the subject (no one can call them a liar or 'have gotten it wrong'). This is a really tough one for historians.

I find it difficult in society which so often encourages people not to state how they feel. (notice I said 'feel' and not 'think').

Have a good one! ] 20:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC) 02May2006

:If we don't at least attempt to write from an NPOV this encyclopedia will simply degenerate into people arguing with each other over which view to represent; or every article will become an agglomorated mish-mash of part-articles written from different points of view. Not being able to achieve a perfectly neutral point of view is no reason not to strive for as much neutraility as possible. ] 20:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Since your experiences are not objective, then your view on a subject is not acceptable. That's why articles are written from a neutral point of view based on verifiable sources. --] 20:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

] 23:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
It is true. Neutrality is just a goal. A worthy goal, which, cannot actually be achieved. However, we can get very close to that goal,
and the harder we work to achieve it the more closely we aproximate
an information resource instead of a propaganda channel.

:I think most subjects can be written in a NPOV style, it's only when we try to include subjective information that NPOV breaks down --] 17:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The policy has already addressed this issue (]):
:''Everybody with any philosophical sophistication knows that. So how can we take the "neutrality" policy seriously? Neutrality, lack of bias, isn't possible.''

:This is probably the most common objection to the neutrality policy. It also reflects the most common ''misunderstanding'' of the policy. The misunderstanding is that the policy would have said something about the possibility of ''objectivity.'' It simply does not. In particular, the policy does ''not'' say that there even ''is'' such a thing as ], a "view from nowhere" (in ]'s phrase)&mdash;such that articles written from ''that'' point of view are consequently objectively true. That isn't the policy and it is not our aim! Rather, we employ a different understanding of "neutral" and "unbiased" than many might be used to. The policy is simply that we should characterize disputes rather than engage in them.

You don't have to believe in the possibility of neutrality, nor work toward it; you don't have to believe that biases prevent fair reporting; in the worst case, the policy allows for necessarily biased reporting to be balanced by necessarily counter-biased reporting, with the end result that all views are fairly represented by those who are biased toward them. ] ] ] 23:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

When coming into wikipedia, I was soon faced with NPOV since my main interest are horses - a typical flaming topic. Particularly, since my aim was to let people know something about relatively new opinions and evidence about this flaming topic: barefoot horses, bitless riding, treeless saddles, passive leadership... Almost nothing about this was into wiki. I'm mainly working into it.wiki and commons, but sometimes I come into en.wiki (I'm a little discouraged by my far-from-good English).
I thoght a lot about NPOV, and some from my first works had been marked with NPOV template.
Then, this was my beginner's approach:
1. I looked for a wiki admin with "traditional" horse experience and I asked him to take a look to my work (thanks Ubi!), then I followed her suggestions;
2. I re-discovered by myself the principle "Work for the enemy": I translated many "traditional" horse articles from English into Italian, adding a mention to new opinions and evidences;
3. I posted into commons many horse pictures about traditional farriery too! and I add good links to some good farriery sources to articles that were lacking them.
And I tried to discuss NPOV too, when I saw that sometimes there is some mismatch between "CPOV" (Common Point of View) and NPOV. I'd like so much a "EBPOV" (Evidence Based Point of View")!
Am I perfectly neutral about horses? Not at all! Simply, I'm doing by best to be. Take a look to ], its talk page and its history just ho have a example.--] 07:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


*There is really a simple answer to the overriding question here... NPOV, much like the truths of science, is an unreachable ideal. However, as in science, one can get asymptotically closer to the objective by striving for it, although never reaching it. Although true NPOV is somewhat unreachable, striving towards it is really quite easy. It is also quite easy to tell when something is not in the spirit of neutrality.--<small>]<sup>]|]</sup></small> 07:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

== From Stratagem XXX by Schopenhauer and NPOV ==

"But to speak seriously, the universality of an opinion is no proof, nay, it is not even a probability, that the opinion is right." (The Art of Controversy, A. Schopenhauer).
This underlines how much "common point of view" is different by "neutral point of view". The ia a hard discussion about truth into medicine (a science dealing with a ]), and recently emerged the need for a ].

In brief: when debating about NPOV, it's very important, in my opinion, to look for some evidence supporting a point of view, '''particularly''' if it is largely accepted (t.i. "not needing any proof" at a first glance). It's highly probable that such an undocumented point of view is - far from being NPOV - a received idea. ] 06:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

:I believe this is addressed by NPOV's companion policy of ]. &mdash; ] ] 09:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

== Sidebar? ==

Is this recently added sidebar <tt><nowiki>{{Associations/Wikipedia Bad Things}}</nowiki></tt> appropriate in a policy page? ] <small>] &bull; ]</small> 15:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
:See ], I started a discussion there. --] 15:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
:Well (slighty off-topic) it looked really bad with just a border; I added a default background color ("#fff"), and an id attribute ("badThings") to the div, so it can be customized in monobook.css. I'm not really sure if it is appropriate here or not. ] ] ] 23:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

== Does NPOV Require An Amoral, Post-Modern, Oxymoronic Worldview? ==
I don't understand how NPOV can really work. It seems it is self-denying. If I understand the idea correctly, NPOV is to be entirely neutral and without judgment. But to be without any hint of judgement doesn't the writer have to move to an amoral position, or at least not observe and describe without using any pejorative or ameliorative comments?

I can understand trying to remain objective but to claim to be without bias seems to be delusional, and stretching for God-like characteristics, as if it were possible to maintain a completely object viewpoint. For example, if I read the page on abortion I can clearly see how all the descriptions are couched around the pro-abortion/pro-choice position while attempting to "sound" objective. It sounds good if you're pro-choice/pro-abortion, but if you are anti-choice/pro-life it feels like the whole NPOV system is hypocritical because it claims objectivity yet the authors can't see even how their position is already so very skewed.

Might it not be a better way to admit that we have biases and allow for "positions" to be held? For example I recently read of a new shared Israeli & Palestinian history book project where history is present from each point of view. The same events are described with one side of the page being explained from an Israeli perspective and the other side of the book being Palestinian. This seems more intellectually honest.

I can understand striving for neutrality but pretending to be without bias seems to color the whole project to me with a sense of dishonesty.
] 02:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
:You should try wikinfo. &middot; ]]] <sup>]</sup>/<small>]</small> 02:17, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
: And in the meantime, may want to see the above discussion with the heading "Objectivity nearly impossible RE: NPOV" ] 02:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem with being NPOV is that is might show people likes racist or the nazis or the KKK or other hate groups in a good light, instead in the bad light they are '''supposed''' to be shown in. That's why I don't like NPOV sometimes on some articles. -Alex, ] 04:30, 13 May 2006 (UTC).

:], you misunderstand the policy. The majority pov is that KKK and hate groups are bad for society. The article should strongly reflect this pov. The tiny minority pov that KKK is good should be expressed but not misrespresented as the majority view. This is true even in the KKK article. See section from NPOV policy below.

:''Please be clear on one thing: the Misplaced Pages neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views. It does state that we must not take a stand on them as encyclopedia writers; but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such; from fairly explaining the strong arguments against the pseudoscientific theory; from describing the strong moral repugnance that many people feel toward some morally repugnant views; and so forth.'' ] ] 00:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

== Suggested change ==

May we change:

"As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view. It is a point of view that is striving for neutrality - a point of view that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject."

to

"As the name suggests, neutrality in the context of the encyclopedia is itself a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. By adopting the neutral point of view, Misplaced Pages articles do state a position, one that is neither sympathetic to nor in opposition to its subject."

or some other wording that avoids that avoids the non-statement circularity. Two say yes, Frances says no. Any other comments would be appreciated. ] 08:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
: I don't care if 100 say yes, and 1 says no. Check his statements carefully, and see if you can convince him to change his mind. He seems reasonable, so try some more reason :-) ] 09:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

::I pointed out two to one to observe that we need more comments, not as a final tally. I have re-introduced the clause "not the absence or elimination of viewpoints" while leaving the rest. It makes the sentence less "no duh" and is compromise enough for me. ] 11:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

::: :-) ] 11:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

:To take it one little step by little step. May I change:
:"As the name suggests, the neutral point of view ''is'' a point of view."
:to
:"As the name suggests, the neutral point of view ''is'' a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints."
:A simple expansion of a circular point via one little clause. On the basis of "if it does not disimprove, do not remove" it strikes me as hard to justify reverting this. And this editing via revert is disheartening, which a glance through some history reinforces. Perhaps the page should simply be protected. ] 17:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
::Going twice... Any comment on why this is bad? ] 22:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
::: Let's try it and see! <small>''(scardycat) :-)''</small> :-) ] 22:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
:::: Hmmm, that line now needs refactoring though, it's twisting my mind! :-P Anyone care to try? ] 22:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

My commentary re this sentence: ''"As the name suggests, the neutral point of view '''is''' a point of view, not the absence of elimination of viewpoints."'' is that it doesn't really parse. In particular, "absence of elimination", unless we're talking constipation (:-)), doesn't really mean anything. If I understand the intention (which is far from certain), the line would be: "... NPOV '''is''' a point of view, not the absence of a viewpoint or the elimination of all viewpoints". -- ] 01:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

:Akk! It should have read "absence '''''or''''' elimination..." Yes, your def is what's meant. ] 08:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

== What constitutes sufficient consensus for policy changes? ==

On March 16th 2006, ], which received 8:3 support (not counting myself), and after a long discussion and a compromise with one of the editors who was against the change, got to 9:2. I made the change, which was reverted by one of the other two editors who was against the change. This was not a change to the actual policy, only a change in the description of the policy, or more precisely, the description of the reason for the policy.

Is 9:2 a sufficient consensus for such a change? If not, the issue is still open, as I still support my request, and I ask an admin. to please instruct me how to resolve the matter. I am willing to abide my the consensus decision with no further adiue (even if it is against me), which is why I have let the matter rest for a month (since April 2nd); but currently it appears that the consensus is for the change, not against it. I'm not trying to be stubborn or cause any problems, I just want to get the issue resolved. ] ] ] 10:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

: Well "Mu". To answer your question, rather than what you really wanted to know: the requirement could be seen as being 11:0.

:To actually answer what you probably wanted to know ;-) : Just do the change, and see who reverts you. Then you can discuss with that person until you agree on a compromise. If you like you can wash, rinse, repeat that several times, until you reach a compromise that everyone can agree on.
: ] 10:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

::Hmmm. Well, I did try that, as did the other editor with whom I reached a compromise. The third editor, who reverted the change, remained fairly adamant in his opposition to both the originally proposed change and the compromise version. That is why I'm unsure what to do at this point. Should I propose some kind of formal vote? Should I go with the previously established simple majority (81.8%) over the hold-outs (18.2%)? Or. . .? ] ] ] 10:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
:: If you try for mere majority, <strike>I shall kill you with fire!</strike>. I mean, why, I might disagree with that somewhat.
:: Oh hmm, why is that editor so adamant. Do you know? They have to realise they're outnumbered, I'm sure. If they're at all reasonable they might be able to come up with a compromise themselves. :-) ] 11:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

:::While you're neutrality regarding neutrality is appreciated Kim ;), we can't confuse consensus and unanimity. If someone is dead opposed to something and a much larger group is not, you often have to simply make the change and let the chips fall. The sentence beginning "Totalitarian governments" is awful, BTW. ] 11:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

:::: I'm going to treasure that comment! Neutrality regarding neutrality, gosh! <blush> .

::::*Unanimity= We all live in a pretty world with flowers and unicorns, and everyone always agrees perfectly with each other. It all ends with a big group hug.

::::*Consensus= We all live in that post-modern mess we call the real world, and have no time for yet even more shenanigans. After hour after gruelling hour of discussion, no-one disagrees enough with the final proposal to be bothered to put forth the strength to oppose any further... so the change goes through. People finally stagger off to bed, and come in late for work in the morning.

:::: If people drag their weight on a consensus-seeking-discussion, things slow down. That's up to the weight-draggers, but I'd just remind them that we do need *some* solution, and maybe they'd be willing to compromise just a little so we can all finally get some sleep? <innocent smile of death>
:::: ] 14:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

::::: I think I'll instruct UBACAB, my user-boxen-and-category-aware canvassbot, to round up a massive supertroupermajority once I've decided which text I want. This is the right time; Kim is asleep and ] is studying the archives of this talk page to learn more about previous attempts to remove "Totalitarian governments" (if only from this policy). ]&nbsp;&divide;&nbsp;] 16:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
:::::: Beware of sleeping kims, they might just wake up. :-) ] 20:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
:I'm a bit of two minds here. I like your proposed change (and argued for it). I also think that 80% is a sufficient margin for such changes. On the other hand, I do not think that 11 votes in total should be a quorum for policy changes that affect all of Misplaced Pages with its millions (?) of editors. If something like that only gets 11 votes, it implies that either something is broken in the community process, or that this is so irrelevant that the whole paragraph (either version) should be striken as irrelevant.--] 09:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

:: Stephan, that conclusion is erroneous: if millions of people don't care if A is replaced by B or not, it doesn't mean that they would agree to instead delete A. ;-) Apart of that, likely most Wikipedians aren't involved in Misplaced Pages politics. ] 10:03, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

:::Actually, I don't care if they support it. I'm happy to make the change if they don't oppose it. Brevity (especially of policy) is a value by itself. As to your second point: That's exacly why we should have as little policy as possible. By what justification do we make policies for the mass of Wikipedians, many of which don't even know that these exist? So I would strongly argue to keep it down to the necessary....--] 10:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

:::: OK as long as you don't make a significant change without consensus. But IMHO we kind of reached consensus to make an improvement as discussed. ] 16:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

::::Keep it down indeed. A second look at the sentence and it strikes me as more ridiculous. Is it Wiki policy to give Totalitarian gov'ts "reason to be opposed to Misplaced Pages"? I say remove it if you're so inclined Stephan. The debate in the archive has consensus (again, not unaminity, which is hard to hope for). ] 11:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

::::: Apparently you didn't really read the discussion on this subject (your look was erroneous). ] 16:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

For goodness sake, just make the freaking change already. :-P And don't mention the '%' symbol in my presence again! >:-> (grrrr) ] 14:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC) <performs quick change to innocent look, who me, growling?>

===Mission statement?===
The paragraph currently under discussion:<blockquote>There is another reason to commit ourselves to this policy. Namely, when it is clear to readers that we do not expect them to adopt any particular opinion, this leaves them free to make up their minds for themselves, thus encouraging ''intellectual independence''. Totalitarian governments and dogmatic institutions everywhere might find reason to be opposed to Misplaced Pages, if we succeed in adhering to our non-bias policy: the presentation of many competing theories on a wide variety of subjects suggests that we, the ] of Misplaced Pages, trust readers' competence to form their own opinions. Texts that present multiple viewpoints fairly, without demanding that the reader accept any one of them, are liberating. Neutrality subverts dogmatism, and nearly everyone working on Misplaced Pages can agree this is a good thing.</blockquote>is maybe the clearest instance of a Misplaced Pages '']'' included in a policy page.

That is, the unavoidable "mission statement" by Jimbo (]) is not a policy page.

So maybe this is a question to be answered first: can/should Misplaced Pages policy pages include ''mission statement''-like expressions?

My (personal) answer to this question would be: I tend to see the discussed "reasoning behind NPOV" paragraph as an explicitation and adoption into the community of Jimbo's first principle ("Misplaced Pages's success to date is 100% a function of our open community"). The paragraph currently under discussion makes explicit that this might conflict with the interests of ''less open communities'', and that we shouldn't dodge awareness of such issue. So I oppose to a formulation that makes that point less transparant. Note that I don't think this should ''prevent'' a clearer formulation of the implied principle (see next subsection).

Note also that according to Jimbo's principle #6 a further discussion of this issue can and should probably best be taken to the mailing list. Would that be a good idea? --] 11:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)




===Namely===
Couldn't we get rid of the "namely" beginning the second sentence of the discussed "reasoning behind NPOV" paragraph? I've been told that the word ''namely'' makes reading of an English text less fluent. So I'd try to get rid of that word in order to get a clearer formulation. --] 11:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

== NPOV should be.... ==

NPOV correctly implemented would read dispassionately, in a dry analytic fashion such as: <blockquote>"The Chicago Police today reported that three suspects were apprehended driving a vehicle which had been reported stolen by the grand-niece of ]."</blockquote>, instead of <blockquote>"Three hoodlums were caught red-handed violating the family tranquility of the beloved Daley family. When apprehended, they were committing a felony by being in possession of stolen car and are likely guilty of many other things as well".</blockquote> It's really that simple. ] 05:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

: Not so: it's not obliged to always use dry language - "neutral" doesn't have to be boring. ;-) ] 09:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
::Perhaps not dry, but I certainly would agree that it should be dispassionate. I think that ''passionate'' and ''POV'' are very nearly synonymous in this context. :-) &mdash; ] ] 22:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

:::Don't you think that Jimbo is ''passionate'' about NPOV? ''Characterizing'' passionate points of view in a "fair and balanced" manner would be doing a disservice to the topic if the passions involved were ''not'' communicated. ]<sup>]</sup> 22:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
::::Perhaps all these talks of NPOV still have to go a long way to understand the real spirit of NPOV. I am not sure though. --] 15:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
::::Misplaced Pages should not have any passion about a subject, though. That's what the Real World that Misplaced Pages documents is for. &mdash; ] ] 04:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
:::::Precisely; we are, after all, ]. We should be ''disinterested'', even as our articles needn't to be ''uninteresting''. ] 04:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

== Proposal to restrict who can edit policies ==

Following banned user ]'s attempt to rewrite ] using two sockpuppet accounts, there is a proposal to limit the editing of policy pages either to admins, or to editors with six months editing experience and 1,000 edits to articles. Please vote and comment at ]. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 19:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

== Sources and POV ==
''A source's POV is not something that should necessarily be removed. Quite the opposite, it often is the purpose of Misplaced Pages to report what the source's POV is. For example, Bytwerk has recommended including a source, Michael Burleigh, who has the opinion (the POV) that "Hitler dissembled his personal views behind preachy invocations of the Almighty". So, in Burleigh's opinion, Hitler was sort of a liar. That's his POV, and it is our job to report it. It's not a fact that Hitler lied about personal views, but it is a fact that Burleigh said that Hitler lied. So, yes we are interested in only giving the facts, but do you see how we report a source's POV here in a factual way? Reporting what a source said, is stating a fact, the source really did say it, regardless of whether what he said was true or false, fact or opinion.''

This was what I read from another Wikipedian, but I am unsure about that being correct. The information here does not clearly state about a sources' POV. I do not agree with the above statements. POV'ing ought to be completely left out: just leave the facts, but upon coming here, I didn't see anything about it. ] 13:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

:It is a fact that Burleigh has a POV about Hitler. Problem solved. By mentioning a POV, we don't necessarily endorse it. ] | ] 13:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

* Consider this then. It could be that we mention a POV by another person (regardless of who they are, historial, political figure, etc.) that can still disregard: "treating others as people" as is in the POV article. Take this look into other sides (e.g. political racists figures, etc). I agree that historians, books, articles, the Pope, etc. do not have any more say so in their opinion as any editor in Misplaced Pages. ] 13:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

::Huh? Could you rephrase that please? I've read it three times and can't make head or tail of it. ] | ] 16:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

* Why do historians/books/other sources get opinions, but not editors? The policy in POV states:

''"A good rule of thumb in avoiding POV is to never refer to someone in a way you would not want to see used to refer to yourself or a loved one. When writing something such as "the park has had a lot of problems with the homeless," consider that these "homeless" are people and would not want to be described this way. An improvement might be something such as "after the park was renovated, park officials began taking steps to show that individuals who were homeless were not welcome there."''

So, it's ok to insert the opinions of sources (historians/books/articles), but Wikipedians (editors) can't? "Just as long as you state the source?"
* I'm saying that none of these policies say anything about the opinions, POV, or bias of the sources, but extensively about the editors. ] 18:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

::You don't get it. The idea is that ''we'', Misplaced Pages, have to be completely neutral in how we refer to our subjects. However, our sources do not have to be neutral. If they were, it would be difficult to write an article on anything polemical. The important thing is that we ourselves must be neutral; therefore, for instance, it is not neutral to cite sources for only one side of the issue and ignore the other side(s). ] | ] 12:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


*Yes I got it, I'm questioning it. There's a Wikiwar going on about the Adolf Hitler page and his religion about it. (Some historians speculate he was Christian when he left home, and others don't, etc.)
*It's ok to state a source calling Blacks whores, but Wikipedians can't? And yet, Wikipedians are calle to keep NPOV, so instead, Wikipedians use a source to say it for them and support their opinions instead.
*To take that into consideration, there could be endless amounts of sources with differing opinions on Blacks, and it's far too easy for Wikiwars to slip up because of it.
*The fair way around it is to just post anything (source or not) with NPOV. Just give the facts--the important ones for that matter, and details can follow.
*I can go into the African-American page right now, find good, heavy sources (lots of them), and litter it with sources pointing fingers at African-American people screwing up the United States, and you can't do anything about it because I'm not breaking any policy (I cite my reliable sources).
*I'm not going to do that because by doing that, I'm not upholding NPOV.
Wikipedians are the ones who insert the quotes and the sources. They insert opinons by citing those sources which have such, and it may not even uphold their own opinons either (I really don't think African-Americans are screwing America). ] 16:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

::The idea is to avoid undue weight (read ]). As I said, it would not be neutral if we cherrypick our sources. You can find many sources saying Blacks are screwing the US of A, but there would be an equal amount of sources arguing otherwise. Therefore, it is illogical to exclude one or the other if we want to remain neutral. The key phrase here is avoiding ''undue weight''. ] | ] 06:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

*Another note, I am not finding it anywhere in any policy stating it is ok to allow POV from sources. ] 16:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
**It's implied. Otherwise it would be impossible to write a neutral article about anything. ] | ] 06:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

:::Regarding the idea that a single person's viewpoint has no place in the encyclopedia, I would say it depends on factors like the notability of the cited person or the media propagating the view (in terms of the number of people reached); or the number of people that hold the POV in question (in other words, the number of people represented by the cited person). See ], ], ], etc. ]&nbsp;&divide;&nbsp;] 09:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
::::...and another one that might provide some practical help regarding this issue: ] --] 09:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

''The idea is to avoid undue weight (read ]). As I said, it would not be neutral if we cherrypick our sources. You can find many sources saying Blacks are screwing the US of A, but there would be an equal amount of sources arguing otherwise. Therefore, it is illogical to exclude one or the other if we want to remain neutral. The key phrase here is avoiding ''undue weight''.''
:* You're joking. I can't believe you actually just stated that--just like that. As per reading the lower end of this talk page, I repeal my POV vs NPOV with "MO" or "UVO".
:* Even so, articles can go endless by allowing your statement (in italics) to run. Would it not make sense to ''only'' '''''state the facts'''''? With that, you eliminate a load of problems, quarrels, Wikiwars, etc. Whether or not you "balance" any POV (or MO) neutral with differing POV with the above example, this is an encylopedia, a place of information. I am yet to read any other encylopedia, on the Internet or not, that does not put a professional foot down and give only facts.
:* Implied? I'm sorry, I refuse to go off something "implied". Lawyers love the word all too much for the very reasons I hate it. It's especially dangerous to the brainless and the smart allick. It ''could mean'' it ''could'' go ''either way''. One can argue, "It's not there." The other, "Oh, its implied." Take it to court, and it becomes messy. Either it's policy or not.
Beside the point anyway. Would it not make sense to ''only'' '''''state the facts'''''?
] 20:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

== Pseudoscience and NPOV ==
The article on ] states: ''The term "pseudoscience" generally has negative connotations because it asserts that things so labeled are inaccurately or deceptively described as science.'' If a term 'generally has negative connotations', can using it for categorization purposes be NPOV? Is there a suitable term that would be politically correct in terms of WP NPOV policy? ] 12:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
:An interesting point. Do you have an example of pseudoscience that should not be characterized somewhat negatively?

:FWIW, I have thought the same at times. But the problem always boiled down to a difference of opinion whether or not a theory/device/whatever had some scientific merit. All involved editors agreed that it ''looked'' scientific. Since it does not assert that something is designed with the ''intention'' to deceive (although it often is), and as such only looks at the cold facts, I fully support the existence and use of Misplaced Pages's Category:Pseudoscience. Simply following Misplaced Pages's policies in a dispute about the scientific value of an item should be sufficient to ensure a correct outcome, correct in the sense of fully satisfying NPOV requirements. And if the outcome is that it's pseudoscience, we apply the label. It's a pity that it's a negative characterization but then, we can't help it if a correct description is interpreted as negative by readers making up their own minds.

:However, strange as it may seem, and I guess this is going to lean towards supporting your point, a considerable number of people take "pseudoscience" as a cue that something worthwhile is being suppressed by conspiring Big Pharma, Corrupt Scientists, Egotistical MDs, Rotten Governments etc. etc. In short, it has become a "loaded word," which may be a reason to avoid it in an encyclopedia. The label may have the opposite effect. Much like littering an article on a pseudoscientific medical treatment with words like "quackery" and other opinions/conclusions may well chase away readers that arrive to be informed but seem to find a blatantly biased article instead. Especially when warned about said conspiracy by calculating snake oil peddlers. ]&nbsp;&divide;&nbsp;] 08:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

::Good points. ''Looking only at the cold facts'', however, is in itself a certain bias because there is much more to life than cold facts; therefore, it is POV.

::I think the main argument is that the word ''pseudoscience'' represents a scientific point of view. I am not saying that everything what is generally categorized under pseudoscience is valid from a scientific point of view, far from it. However, fair representation demands that our categories should also be NPOV. If I create a category of humans say based on skin colour, I can have a ''black'' category but not a ''negro'' one. If I create a category of commercial drinks, I can have a ''soft drinks'' category but not an ''unhealthy coloured waters loaded with sugar'' one. If I create a category of ''people on social assistance'', I cannot rename this to ''lazy bums''. Political affinities can have a ''republican'' box but not a ''greedy, cold-hearted bastards'' one, etc.

::It follows that one cannot have a ''science'' vs. ''pseudoscience'' categorization. If the people representing any of the 'pseudosciences' are offended by this label (and I think this is a given), the label must be changed to accommodate both them and the scientific community that championed the original label. It is hard to find a proper term, but perhaps ''alternative body of knowledge'' comes close. ] 14:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

:::Not bad... but I see massive problems lurking 'round the corner I'm afraid. The ] may officially be a fossil, in reality it's alive and kicking and always ready to pronounce verdicts without providing the proof the reader needs to decide and is entitled to per ]. It's really understandable; its proponents are so often "right" that it may become a habit to demand respect. The problem is when they're not (or only partly) right. The "pseudoscience" label (the word itself) is an instrument they will not easily relinquish. I think it has been tried before, and failed. See the category's ]... ]&nbsp;&divide;&nbsp;] 16:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

::::A very interesting discussion here! Unfortunately for precisely this word - "pseudoscience" - it lies in the cards that those whose belief is labeled a pseudoscience will often vehemently oppose the label and claim that their viewpoint is very much scientific. They won't be happy with a politically correct euphemism. No, they actually make claims to the word "science" itself. It can't be any other way, since they don't understand the difference between science and pseudoscience well enough to have avoided getting involved with pseudoscientific thinking in the first place. The Talk page at ] is ample proof of what I've just described. There you will find defenders of pseudoscience claiming that their particular POV is scientific. The only solution is to purge Misplaced Pages of the word itself, which is just what they would love to see happen. But Misplaced Pages must not be made a party to political correctness, revisionism, or censorship. A tough nut to crack. -- ] 21:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

:::::AvB, I fully appreciate the challenges of trying to change the mind of the scientific community.:) However, it would be a shame if that was to discourage us from trying to represent what NPOV is all about. ] 14:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

== The term "NPOV" needs alternate. It is Counterproductive ==
After rounding the bend in my WP learning curve, I have come to realize that the terminology "Neutral Point of View" is actually doing more harm than good. Every discussion and argument tends to bring this up, one accusing another of not being in conformity with WP:NPOV. That should make a red flag go up that there is something wrong. Rules should be clear enough for the majority to understand what it means. The very wording lends itself to being misunderstood. The idea of ''"point of view"'' immediately brings to mind something "personal". This causes a lot of battles. It really is something more objective than that. I witness people who have had much experience here falling into the trap of treating NPOV contrary to the intention of the policy. The policy states that NPOV cannot be interpreted inseparably from verifiability. This is crucial. People don't seem to get what that really entails. It means that NPOV really only comes into play because you have found that two or more reliable sources of verification are opposed to each other. Once that happens NPOV is a solution to it. NPOV is really just a reasonable Reconciliation of Reliable Sources. (RRS, or AWR=Average Weight of Reliability). That means the sources themselves must be weighed as to reliability, and an average taken so that the final wording of the article conforms to that reconciliation. You could have a ''New York Times'' article saying the opposite of the ''Washington Post''. The final RRS would probably be 50/50 reliability and perfectly neutral (though one could probably argue section and authorship since newspapers more hastily print depending on those factors). Then again, why choose reconciling opposites when you know that reality cannot have opposites in truth? Why not try to find which one is correct? If you have a source from the ''Scientific American'' and ''Readers Digest'' opposed on a fact, it would depend upon the subject matter (science or not?) and their own referenced sources. If it was more of a scientific fact, the weight would be in favor of the SA article and the final RRS (formerly NPOV) would be wording in accord with the average weight of reliability. Bottom line, personal opinion is minimized. But a major factor in minimizing it is by changing NPOV to something more accurate as I suggested. What needs to be done also is to have a separate page of WOR (Weight of Reliability). Let's face it, we all know that different magazines and newspapers have varying degrees of reliability. Newspapers are notorious for haste and waste when it comes to errors. Just because something is published in a magazine doesn't necessarily give is a high degree of reliability either (Mad Magazine?). As WP says, it is based on verifiability, and the term NPOV is constantly at odds because it gives people the wrong impression of what it is all about. The better the rules, the less argument, hard drive and administrator time spent. Moderation and arbitrations, etc. would be lessened. RFC's would be easier. Admins would have more time just handling truly abusive people rather than the abuses fostered by ill-chosen policy terminology. So far I have already found another contradiction in the policy, which I have recently expressed on the Talk page for Verifiability, which involes the guideline on reliable sources reducing policy to a mere guideline itself. (] 11:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC))

:I agree. People seem to confuse:
:*Neutral point of view, "NPOV" as the opposite of "POV", rather than a style of POV.
:*] as the mention of a POV, rather than the removal of all but one POV.
:Perhaps better terms would be something like "neutral style", "personal point of view", "verifiable viewpoints", and "viewpoint selection bias".
:--] 12:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's a strategy for handling that issue I once proposed ( - dates back to October 2004):
----
===But POV is bad, isn't it?===
No it isn't: the expression '''POV''' is used by many ]s, but in fact it is a confusing term, often leading to a re-introduction of the ]. This can be exemplified by following quote (taken from a real Misplaced Pages discussion):

: inherent POV Have moved content to the ''objective'' <!--Example taken from CfD page "Category:Political Prisoners" discussion. In order not to be pointing with fingers, and for broader understandability, also for people that are not very much acquainted with the "category" concept, I put instead of - User:Francis Schonken-->

The confusion comes from the fact that POV can also be read as the abbreviation of "Point Of View" (which is inherently ''good'' for Misplaced Pages, or, ''at least'', the basic stuff Misplaced Pages is made of), while many wikipedians use POV in the meaning of ''opposite of NPOV''. Even when attempting to use the expression POV exclusively in this latter meaning, the ''objectivity'' concept appears to be lurking around the corner.

If you want to use an abbreviation that means ''opposite of NPOV'', try any of these:
* ] - ''Mere Opinion''
* ] - ''Un] Opinion''
* ] - ''Un] Opinion'' (resemblance to more common ]'s probably not all that bad)
* ] - ''Un-verifiable/falsifiable Opinion''
----
... I recall it survived a few weeks or so.

The longer Misplaced Pages exists, the deeper-rooted the dual meaning of POV ("]" - "]") appears to become.

But on the whole (taking the bad and the good), I don't think the use of the NPOV concept in Misplaced Pages is counterproductive, nor do I see any approach that demonstrably would be more successful. --] 12:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

== Break out "Objections to NPOV" as separate article? ==

A large part of this article is an essay-like discussion of hypothetical common arguments and responses.

Can we put these in an article ''']''' or ''']''' and summarize in a dozen lines here? Essay-style material to this extent isn't really needed in a major policy. Better we summarize here and point to detail. ] (]) 11:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

:If you want to start (or "split off") a new policy, guideline or essay page I'd recommend ]. I mean, it's not as if ] applies to what you're proposing (in that case, you would clearly be proposing a ''POV fork'').
:I also recommend to try to get acquainted with wikipedia's ''namespace'' concept, e.g. at ]. I mean, neither <nowiki>]</nowiki> nor <nowiki>]</nowiki> would be feasible as a page name to which to split a part of ]. --] 12:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

::The basic point holds, however: this page is an essay as much as a didactic explanation of policy. Perhaps simply WP:NPOV and ]. ] 13:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
:::...as does my basic point: I recommend not to do this without the guidance provided at ] --] 13:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

No. ] is exemplary of how all wikipedia namespace pages should look. A reasoned NPOV discussion <sup>(1)</sup> of the how and why of each aspect of a particular guideline. Policy pages may describe our internal processes, but that does not mean that they should not be held to the same standards as our encyclopedia pages. Rather, over time it should be our objective to edit all our other policy/guideline/essay pages into a similar form. ] 13:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC) <small> ''(1)yes, I'm aware of the recursion''</small>

:Exemplary? I think it would be rather awful if all the namespaces looked like this. Think of ]. The main points are easy to remember and easy to cite; the explanations are unpacked but not over-long. There is a lot of fat on the NPOV bone, by contrast. ] 13:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

:: It depends on how you think about the wikipedia guidelines. If you're a legalist, keeping things short and imperative is good. Misplaced Pages hasn't been built on legalist grounds, however. An objective (NPOV) representation of existing consensus is probably the better approach, as it will more closely match actual practice that way. Think of wikipedia namespace pages as an encyclopedia specialised in wikipedia best practices. ] 14:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

:::Appreciating "short and imperative" doesn't require legalism (I think I'm rather opposed to legalism, actually). I would say: simple but not simplistic. This page is not that. It's meandering. ] 22:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

== Pseudoscience subsection contradicts rest of policy ==

The introduction states that ''all articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly and without bias.'' This is further clarified as ''all significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one,'' that ''readers are left to form their own opinions,'' that ''the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints, in proportion to the prominence of each,'' and that ''we should present competing views with a consistently positive, sympathetic tone.''

This is in direct conflict with what follows under the ''Pseudoscience'' heading:

''If we're going to represent the sum total of human knowledge, then '''we must concede''' that we will be describing '''views repugnant to us''' without asserting that they are false... The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the '''majority (scientific) view''' as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view.''

There are two problems here:

1. The entire subsection is written from a scientific point of view, which is by definition cannot be NPOV.

2. The article supposes that the scientific point of view represents the majority, which cleary may not generally be true.

I would suggest a serious NPOV reword, including the title, which in itself is POV. ] 14:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


:Agreed. Most scientific articles appear to be written (a) from a scientific point of view (b) Not only dismiss all tiny/extreme minority views, but won't even describe ''significant'' minority views. --] 14:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

:I should also mention, this is not referring to just Pseudoscientific articles, but articles on peer-reviewed science, describing peer-reviewed minority views. --] 14:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The bottom line regarding pseudoscience & the NPOV policy appears to be (at least it appears thus to me) that wikipedia recommends to describe ''pseudoscience'' as ... ehm... err... ]. Do you have a problem with that? --] 15:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

:Francis, I have quoted from the policy to support my argument. I would like to see that you do the same so we can have an intelligent discussion and not just voicing opinions. ] 15:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The bottom line is also that "significant minority" views are often claimed to be "extremely small / tiny /extreme" views, and excluded completely. --] 15:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict, @Aquirata:) Well, about your second point, I think in fact you are right, example:
*] describes ]'s ] as pseudoscience.
*Despite the criticism, I suppose the validity of psychoanalysis is still a "majority view" (at least, the ] article does not make one suspect that to be otherwise).
So maybe the paragraph could be changed to<blockquote>If we're going to represent the sum total of human knowledge, then we must concede that we will be describing views repugnant to us without asserting that they are false. Things are not, however, as bad as that sounds. The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to '''represent the majority view as the majority view and the minority view as the minority view'''; both (or "all" if there are more than two) views can be qualified according to their ''scientific''/''pseudoscientific'' validity, that is, balanced according to the respective weight of such qualifications given in ]. This is all in the purview of the task of ''describing a dispute fairly.''</blockquote>But I don't completely agree with your first point. You're kind of making an assumption (in all clarity: *also* a '''POV''' assumption) that the NPOV policy should by definition be NPOV itself. It shouldn't, in the same way that Popper's ''demarcation criterion'' (i.e. ] - ), is itself not "scientific" according to its own criterion. The criterion is philosophical (duh! - Popper was a philosopher). In the same way Misplaced Pages's NPOV policy describes, among other wikipedia policies and guidelines, how (and/or "what selection of") human knowledge Misplaced Pages attempts to contain (see also ]) - that is never ''Point Of View''-free, see also ], second paragraph: " the neutral point of view ''is'' a point of view ". --] 16:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

:The current language gives editors writing from the SPOV the right to declare anything they don't believe/like/etc. to be pseudoscience and therefore a minority view even if it is well documented and eminently sourcable (I concede in advance that it may well be well-documented and eminently sourcable pseudoscience). Regardless, NPOV would allow editors to juxtapose both views and give both space in proportion to the impact these views have. If the SPOV has sufficient quotes to demolish the opposition's assertions, it's OK. But if it doesn't, and other editors are still expected to accept the "pseudoscience" verdict where all they have is the personal opinion of editors that happen to be academics/doctors/chemists/etc., the NPOV is being ignored and that is a bad thing. ]&nbsp;&divide;&nbsp;] 23:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

:::Do any of you whose POV's are, well, anti-"SPOV", have any idea how ridiculous this is? First, being upset that an article on say, ], would be written from a "scientific" POV (actually it's written from a scientific perspective as physics is, after all '''science''') is absurd in the extreme and a willful misuse and misreading of the NPOV policy. Additionally, the purpose of an encyclopedia is, I believe, to provide knowledge (''scientia'' in Latin) and in the case of science articles, one would assume that they would be written from a scientific persperctive in order to fulfill that requirement.
:::Second, pseudoscience does in fact have a defintion and the only time there can be a true dispute is between pseudo- and protoscience, and that diuspute resolves itsaelf relatively quickly.
:::Third, AvB, Aquirata, et al, are significantly (and one assumes consciuosly) oversimplifying and misrepresenting the processes of how a topic is determined to be pseudoscience.
:::Fourth, this petition, for want of a better word, to needlesly rewrite the NPOV policy wouldn't have anything to do with some of the sciences that appear to contradict a religious, supernatural or paranormal POV would it?
:::Finally, before anyone points out any Wiki policies to me, save your time -- This is one of those instances where failing to put all of one's cards on the table will ultimately be detrimental to Misplaced Pages. ] 08:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

::Yeah, but I don't know whether you see my proposed rewrite of the second paragraph of ] as a solution to that problem?
::Currently that section reads:
----
''How are we to write articles about , about which majority scientific opinion is that the ] opinion is not credible and doesn't even really deserve serious mention?''

If we're going to represent the sum total of human knowledge, then we must concede that we will be describing views repugnant to us without asserting that they are false. Things are not, however, as bad as that sounds. The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to '''represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view'''; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of ''describing a dispute fairly.''

Pseudoscience can be seen as a social phenomenon and therefore significant. However, pseudoscience should not obfuscate the description of the main views, and any mention should be proportional to the rest of the article.

There is a minority of Wikipedians who feel so strongly about this problem that they believe Misplaced Pages should adopt a "]" rather than a "neutral point of view." However, it has not been established that there is really a need for such a policy, given that the scientists' view of pseudoscience can be clearly, fully, and fairly explained to believers of pseudoscience.
----
::Inserting the paragraph rewrite I proposed above, the new version would be:
----
''How are we to write articles about ], about which majority scientific opinion is that the ] opinion is not credible and doesn't even really deserve serious mention?''

If we're going to represent the sum total of human knowledge, then we must concede that we will be describing views repugnant to us without asserting that they are false. Things are not, however, as bad as that sounds. The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to '''represent the majority view as the majority view and the minority view as the minority view'''; both (or "all" if there are more than two) views can be qualified according to their ''scientific''/''pseudoscientific'' validity, that is, balanced according to the respective weight of such qualifications given in ]. This is all in the purview of the task of ''describing a dispute fairly.''

Pseudoscience can be seen as a social phenomenon and therefore significant. However, pseudoscience should not obfuscate the description of the main views, and any mention should be proportional to the rest of the article.

There is a minority of Wikipedians who feel so strongly about this problem that they believe Misplaced Pages should adopt a "]" rather than a "neutral point of view." However, it has not been established that there is really a need for such a policy, given that the scientists' view of pseudoscience can be clearly, fully, and fairly explained to believers of pseudoscience. Further, the "demarcation" of what is science and what isn't can be very different, depending on ''view'': for example the ] ''views'' of the ] on what defines "science" are fairly different from, and basicly incompatible with, ]'s unique demarcation criterion, ]. Note that Misplaced Pages is not equipped to ''test'' the scientific validity of a theory (see ]), but can only record and summarize what ] have contended regarding the topic at hand.
----
::(applying some other tweaks too) - Is this better, or isn't it? --] 07:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll second ] on that - there is a line between NPOV and being so inclusive of minority points of view that you repeat their own framing of an issue, which is an inherently biased point of view again - in other words, some points of view are opposed to the official Misplaced Pages point of view of using a neutral point of view. Minority points of view often go farther than advocating that their position is equally valid or equally scientific, but declare Opposite Day and characterize the mainstream or consensus point of view or scientific paradigm to be fringe and pseudoscientific - for example, as in his ''NYTimes'' op-ed characterizing "intelligent design" as the only scientifically valid theory for the origin of species and organic evolution as pseudoscience, or ] to believe that the Apollo missions actually landed on the Moon. At some point, choosing objective facts over ] is taking a point of view. Otherwise, we're reduced to the sort of that allows all arbitrary opinions to share equal billing with observable reality. There is no way to please the ubiquitous segment of the population that thinks reality has a ], nor should we try. Rather, if we make discerning selections from reputably referenced sources to accurately characterize mainstream and minority points of view as such, we'll be in good shape. - ] <small><font color="green">(]/])</font></small> 23:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

:I've read but not truly digested this proposal as yet. First impression: it is an improvement. First question: in an article on a specific subject deemed pseudoscientific, does this version also allow editors to draw on other, "non-scientific" sources to describe the "pseudoscience"? Given a well-researched subject that is not at all controversial in the opinion of experts in the field, where the media have widely reported an opposing view deemed pseudoscientific because "it's obviously pseudoscience, no better than patent nonsense" or due to the lack of publications in peer-reviewed magazines, especially in the area of double-blind etc. research, successful replication of results, etc... The old version allows editors to present as the majority view (in my book >51%) the SPOV based on peer-reviewed publications. My main point is that ] for a mainstream SPOV are peer-reviewed publications, while ] for other POVs/social phenomena are e.g. media like newspapers, radio, tv, books. The language should make it clear whether or not the latter are acceptable when describing (pseudo)science not sufficiently described in peer-reviewed publications. I think they are.

:Many expert editors seem to have a strong tendency, when dealing with (pseudo)science, to only allow peer-reviewed sources, apparently based on this very policy section. Even when describing a POV or subject practically ignored by mainstream science. A number of them are unwilling to allow the inclusion of descriptions of such alternative views and some actively work towards their removal from the encyclopedia (judging from their user pages). I believe that this is not a good thing. It leaves blind spots and assumes blind trust of the reader in the SPOV instead of the wish to avail oneself of sufficient information to be able to decide. As any GP will be able to confirm, blind trust in science is disappearing fast in the real world.

:Anyway - even if this version would allow non-scientific sources, it still seems to declares the SPOV the majority view, even in cases where many lay people happen to believe differently, if it disallows the use of lay sources. I'm not against preferential treatment for the SPOV in cases where it is not the only POV, but shouldn't the size of the default majority be limited, instead of assigning a majority theoretically approaching 100%? I would prefer to declare the SPOV, say, a 60% majority by default and allow the remaining space to be based on notability as normally assessed by Wikipedians (impact/notability in general, not limited to mainstream scientists: number of propopents/adherents, media attention, books sold, political clout, etc.). This, in fact, describes a fair number of existing articles, but in other cases would make it easier to describe what's happening in the world without being kept from doing so by a consensus based on this part of the policy. Sometimes taken as evidence for the very conspiracy theories used to help define pseudoscience... ]&nbsp;&divide;&nbsp;] 11:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

::Tx for your comments. Taking a quick glance at them, I'd say (and that is also the ''thrust'' I tried to put in my update proposal) that these things have to be sorted out at ] (or, before changing that guideline, best at ])
::Now, that page is a ''guideline'' and not a ''policy''. IMHO that is ''logical'', while when one starts to define what makes a source "reliable" there shure are a lot of practical principles, but they don't apply in such ''absolute'' terms as the NPOV policy ("non-negotiable"). Weighing reliability of sources is a tricky business, with a lot of ''casuistics'', and indeed: exceptions.
::To give an example of that: There's this resource, "self-published" by a guy named Niclas Fogwall, http://www.af.lu.se/~fogwall/satie.html where, for instance, some original research by Satie scholars, not published elsewhere, is contained (e.g. this "updated" list of Satie compositions contains original research results by ], one of such scholars: http://www.af.lu.se/~fogwall/list.html )... Taking ] ''to the letter'' would mean this website can not be used as a "source" on Satie-related topics. Nonetheless, that is precisely what I did in several Satie-related articles (usually, along with ''printed'' material), without a second thought, because every major living Satie-scholar one way or another contributed to or otherwise approved of that website (... however without a formal "peer review" procedure being described on the site).
::That's why a ''guideline'' is so much more convenient for sorting out reliability of sources, than a ''policy'' page.

::Further, I don't think NPOV can make too strict distinctions between "SPOV/scientific" type of topics and "POVs/social phenomena" like you seem to propose, again while "demarcation" of what is "scientific" is as yet an unresolved issue, with many differing ''points of view''... Is "history" scientific? To some it is, others merely see it as an extension of something to do with ''literature''... Without needing to make that discussion, NPOV can be applied to all these topics, and also what qualifies a source as "reliable" has no fundamental distinction (although there may be some ''practical'' ones) for all these fields of ''human knowledge''. To me, that has alway been the *genius* of wikipedia, while the NPOV/Verifiability/NOR system allows to achieve quality in all fields of knowledge, without fundamental difference in the approach for how to achieve that.
::So, no, I'm not too fond of SPOV factionalists. But, quite naturally, on most topics the "scientifically qualified" sources are considered the most reliable. Whether the "scientist" producing/describing the data is a historian, or whatever. No harm to underline that in the NPOV policy. No use to cause false expectations to the "scientifically extatic" (or whatever) in the NPOV policy. Marginal POV's will be thrown out in the future, as they were in the past, by the available procedures & guidance (e.g. XfD, or ], etc) --] 13:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

::::Thanks for once again sharing your WP knowledge/insights. Very helpful for editors who are, like me, on the road from Misplaced Pages newbie to veteran.

::::Just to clarify one point (which I agree should be discussed at ]) - I am not in favor of any special treatment for the SPOV. I feel the current policy is, as argued by ] at the top of this section. The 60% was just an idea aiming to lower the ceiling from almost 100% since outright removal will not reach consensus for a long time to come, if ever. IMO, science does not need this special position and application of NPOV without it will not change the fact that the SPOV is a pretty good POV to include in an article on a (pseudo)scientific subject. But it is not the only POV. Readers will be better informed by also describing POV(s) of notable groups/people/etc. - peer-reviewed sources are great, but we do not have to exclude (or give minimal coverage to) non-SPOV sources. <stepping off soapbox now> ]&nbsp;&divide;&nbsp;] 15:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

:::Francis, I generally like the direction you are heading to. I would propose further tweaks as follows:
----
''How are we to write articles about ]?''

If we're going to represent the sum total of human knowledge, then we will be describing alternative views without asserting whether they are true or false. The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, alternative views were on a par with science; rather, the task is to '''represent the majority view as the majority view and the minority view as the minority view'''; both (or "all" if there are more than two) views can be qualified according to their ''scientific''/''alternative'' validity, that is, balanced according to the respective weight of such qualifications given in ]. This is all in the purview of the task of ''describing a dispute fairly.''

The existence of alternative bodies of knowledge can be seen as a social phenomenon and therefore significant. However, alternative views should not obfuscate the description of the main views, and any mention should be proportional to the rest of the article.

There is a minority of Wikipedians who feel so strongly about this problem that they believe Misplaced Pages should adopt a "]" rather than a "neutral point of view." However, it has not been established that there is really a need for such a policy, given that the scientists' view of alternative bodies of knowledge ('pseudoscience') can be clearly, fully, and fairly explained to believers of those alternative views. Further, the "demarcation" of what is science and what isn't can be very different, depending on ''view'': for example the ] ''views'' of the ] on what defines "science" are fairly different from, and basicly incompatible with, ]'s unique demarcation criterion, ]. Note that Misplaced Pages is not equipped to ''test'' the scientific validity of a theory (see ]), but can only record and summarize what ] have contended regarding the topic at hand.
----
:::Proposed changes:
:::1. Title: changed to NPOV wording, deleted second part (which unecessarily narrows the subject)
:::2.First paragraph: neutralized first sentence, deleted second, replaced 'pseudoscience' with 'alternative' in third
:::3. Second paragraph: replaced 'pseudoscience' with 'alternative bodies of knowledge' and 'alternative views', prefaced it with 'The existence of'
:::4. Third paragraph: replaced 'pseudoscience' with 'alternative bodies of knowledge' and 'alternative views' in second sentence
:::In general, I feel that this version preserves the original intent of this policy but uses language that is neutral and not offending to people representing alternative bodies of knowledge ('pseudoscience'). After all, Misplaced Pages is not written for scientists only. :) ] 14:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
:::::As far as I'm concerned: no way - not withstanding embellishing (not "NPOV") phrases, this reads like a pseudo-science POV-pusher's pamphlet. I think that above I've made clear what I'd think an improvement. If this is how that is understood, I'd prefer to keep the version that is currently on the project page. Even with its possible internal contradiction (depening on which philosophy of science one is adhering to), at least it makes more or less clear where it draws the line w.r.t. to pseudo-science (''and'' with regard to SPOV). --] 16:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

::::::The current wording advocates SPOV. Misplaced Pages is NPOV. The contradiction is clear. Why would making the description neutral offend anyone if we are advocating NPOV? ] 17:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
:::::::Oh, you didn't even read what I wrote?<blockquote>You're kind of making an assumption (in all clarity: *also* a '''POV''' assumption) that the NPOV policy should by definition be NPOV itself.</blockquote>Clear? --] 17:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

;Fraud
Some of the relevant content is being pushed to support fraud. This will increase as WP looks like a credible reference, and if it is unchecked (for instance by prefacing such articles "This is a fraud") WP's credibility as a reference will decline again as it slumps into a mass of spam. Conversely, in respect of some of these frauds, quackeries etc, such as Rife "science", multiplication of websites and therefore Google hits is a part of the multi-level marketing or other apparatus of the fraud. To take it that if there are some number of Google hits this indicates a level of belief that requires aWP appear credulous is not a good idea. The suggestion above that a scientific attitude to (scientific) topics excludes all but the mainstream view is not born out by experience, however, if someone persists in claiming that vibrations of th right frequency can explode bacteria and cure disease, for instance, this is not material which should be placed in a WP article, unless it is clearly labelled, and moreover labelled where it will show in the minimal snippet that Google shows for hits, that it is untrue/bad data/a health fraud/scam etc. Explain what '''is''' without weight, but not what '''is not'''] 18:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

:Yes, ] is a good example. I believe it should be treated like any other subjects per NPOV. Pseudoscience is to be disproved, not to be ridiculed. Both true believers and those about to become true believers respond characteristically to ridicule. They walk away where at least the latter might have been convinced. You are left preaching to the converted. Science-pseudoscience 0-1. ]&nbsp;&divide;&nbsp;] 20:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

:PS I think you make a good point regarding the Google snippets. But it doesn't always work like that. shows that Rife fraudsters have found ways to drive the first Misplaced Pages hit down. An important phenomenon in need of good coverage. ]&nbsp;&divide;&nbsp;] 20:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

::OK then, let's go to an imaginary land called Imagia, where ''science'' is treated as follows:
:::''Pseudoreligion (sometimes called ‘science’) is a term applied to a body of alleged faith that is portrayed as religious but diverges substantially from the required standards for religious belief or is unsupported by sufficient religious authority.''
::Now, imagine you are writing a policy about ''science'' in ''Imagedia''. How would you like a wording such as this:
----
:::''How are we to write articles about pseudoreligious (also called by some ‘scientific’) topics, about which majority religious opinion is that the pseudoreligious opinion is not credible and doesn't even really deserve serious mention?''

:::If we're going to represent the sum total of human knowledge, then we must concede that we will be describing beliefs repugnant to us without asserting that they are false. Things are not, however, as bad as that sounds. The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoreligion were on a par with religion; rather, the task is to represent the majority (religious) belief as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoreligious) belief as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how religists have received pseudoreligious theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly.

:::Pseudoreligion can be seen as a social phenomenon and therefore significant. However, pseudoreligion should not obfuscate the description of the main views, and any mention should be proportional to the rest of the article.

:::There is a minority of Imagedians who feel so strongly about this problem that they believe Imagedia should adopt a "religious point of view" rather than a "neutral point of view." However, it has not been established that there is really a need for such a policy, given that the religists' view of pseudoreligion can be clearly, fully, and fairly explained to believers of pseudoreligion.
----
:: Now, this is all fun and games - I am not trying to draw parallels with religion, just using an image to make a point. Does this make my position any clearer? And yes, of course, an NPOV policy cannot be anything else than NPOV. Unless we want to advocate hypocrisy. ] 20:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

:Yes, Aquirata, all fun and games. Your analogy works if there is a ] comparable to the ] which provides a systematic and historically accurate reference point. Your under a weird impression that people only use the word "science" to disprove people who are "fringe." Well, no. People use science to describe everything from a boiling kettle to the period of Neptune's orbit. Read the wording again carefully; "SPOV" is not rejected because it is opposed to "NPOV" but because "NPOV" broadly already includes it (the majority scientific viewpoint will be allowed due weight, as it should be) but less rigidly. Put more simply, the Misplaced Pages ''is'' generally written from a "Scientific Point of View" but there's no didactic mechanism to demand it from people. This is properly flexible--not "repeat the research paper as it stands" but "accept scientific consensus as the base referent."

:Your argument here is a semantic shell-game, similar to your arguments on astrology and related, to force people to hold arguments not accepted by mainstream science equal to those that are. This policy (at least in this regard) is just fine. ] 22:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

::SPOV is not the same as NPOV (S comes a few places after N :)); anything other than NPOV is POV - I suggest you read and reread the policies and guidelines. ] 23:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

:::NPOV is also a POV, that of N. There's no such thing as an observerless observation; choosing to try a neutral POV is also a choice, one that is much rarer in actual practice than its adoption as a label for something else.

:::The definition of science incorporates the best method known to humanity for actually neutralizing the endless potential arbitrariness of points of view to which human thought tends. Stick with me here. Here is the legendary physicist ]'s take (comparing science to "]", or pseudoscience):

::::"But there is one feature I notice that is generally missing in Cargo Cult Science... It’s a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty - a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid - not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you’ve eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked - to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.

::::"Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can - if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong - to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. ...

::::"In summary, the idea is to try to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another."

:::Scientific point of view therefore dovetails nicely with neutral point of view: we present all references, including their sources, and go out of our way to present and source potentially conflicting points of view. We go out of our way to present references and evidence that potentially conflict with the minority points of view, as well as with the mainstream points of view. Who could argue with that? - ] <small><font color="green">(]/]/])</font></small> 23:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

::::A great example, no doubt. Feynman was a uniquely gifted individual, and science can be grateful that it had such a wonderful person contribute to it. Whether scientists in practice follow his guidance is another question. All too often, peer pressure and competition force everyday scientists to bend the rules here and there.
::::The main point, however, is not whether the SPOV is the ''right'' POV to use. Misplaced Pages is a factual representation of humanity at this point in time. Why are we ashamed of presenting 'pseudoscience'? Our job is not to prove that 'pseudoscience' is wrong and science is right; but it is the proportional presentation (i.e. reporting) of both in a factual manner. Let science and 'pseudoscience' speak for themselves, and let the reader make up his own mind. Otherwise, one might think that the more scientifically minded feel threatened by 'pseudoscience'. ] 00:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

:::::Fortunately theory and practice of scientific epistemology are distinguishable. As for your advice, I cannot find anything in it that is inconsistent with my own. Going out of our way to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another, does not contemplate being ashamed of presenting pseudoscience or proving it wrong; it is precisely to present all the facts and let them speak for themselves. - ] <small><font color="green">(]/]/])</font></small> 00:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

::::::Exactly. ''Let the facts speak for themselves'' is in fact one of the examples on the policy page. In that light, I have trouble with the following expressions:
::::::*''Majority scientific opinion is that the pseudoscientific opinion is not credible and doesn't even really deserve serious mention'': Presupposes what majority opinion is; assumes scientific opinion is the arbiter
::::::*''We must concede that we will be describing views repugnant to us'': Assumes description is done from the SPOV; those representing 'pseuodoscience' surely won't have to concede anything, and their own views will not be repugnant to them
::::::*''Things are not, however, as bad as that sounds'': Again, from a scientific perspective
::::::*''Majority (scientific) view'': Same
::::::*''Minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view'': Same
::::::I can see that some editors below assume that I am arguing for pseudoscience, which is far from being the case. All I'm arguing for is NPOV, which means 'describing a dispute fairly', i.e. without scientific bias. '''Let the facts speak for themselves!''' Anything else is a misrepresentation and bias. ] 10:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

== Pseudoscience v. WP:NPOV ==

I see the arguments by the pseudoscience crowd to rewrite our bedrock policy have been resurrected. In fact, it all looks very familiar. Almost as if I've read this before. ] 03:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

: It does sound familiar. Which part of non-negotiable don't they understand? &mdash; ]|] 08:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

::All 13 letters of the word. Of course, it would be nice if they would be upfront about ''why'' they find science to be ''scary'' and ''bad'', but, I suppose that's asking too much, eh? ] 08:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

] &mdash; ]|] 11:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

==Shakespeare stuff==
I removed the following two sentences from the section "Characterizing opinions of people's work":
:For instance, that Shakespeare is as one of the greatest playwrights of the English language is a bit of knowledge that one should learn from an encyclopedia. However, in the interests of neutrality, one should also learn that a number of reputable scholars argue that there is a to make that the author of much of the work still attributed to Shakespeare was his contemporary Christopher Marlowe.
The latter statement is simply false. ''No'' reputable scholars argue that there is such a case to be made; a tiny number of unreputable scholars believe it. There should be an example like this, but '''this is not it.''' NPOV does not mean, as Jimbo has stated many times, including information believed by a tiny and marginal minority, and the policy page should not make it seem like it does. ] 03:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
:I've replaced it with a new example that is closer to what is meant by that section of the policy, I think. ] 04:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Reverting, please find talk page consensus *first* (that's not something that usually happens in 24 minutes between two of your own comments on a talk page).

Here's your version:
----
;Characterizing opinions of people's work
A special case is the expression of aesthetic opinions. Misplaced Pages articles about art, artists, and other creative topics (e.g., musicians, actors, books, etc.) have tended toward the effusive. This is out of place in an encyclopedia. We might not be able to agree that so-and-so is the greatest guitar player in history, but it may be important to describe how some artist or some work has been received by the general public or by prominent experts. Providing an overview of the common interpretations of a creative work, preferably with citations or references to notable individuals holding that interpretation, is appropriate. For example, ]'s '']'' has been considered one of his most interesting plays by some readers, a relative failure by others, and by a few to have been written by someone else; a proper article includes the history of these interpretations without passing judgment on them. Note that determining how some artist or work has been received publicly or critically might require research, but once determined, a clear statement of that reception is far more useful and in keeping with the spirit of Misplaced Pages than a mere statement of opinion.
----
A remark: this version doesn't contain any external references to support its Shakespeare example by factual evidence, so the example is not nearly as good as the one you deleted. It doesn't show editors how to go about such things, but promotes ] like "has been considered" without evidence. --] 05:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 16:35, 14 December 2024

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

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

Archives

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

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

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

Clarification for known issues or criticism sections

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The guidelines that come to mind are:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comedy is subjective

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

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

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

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

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