Misplaced Pages

"Facts are physical attributes, covering the “what,” “where,” “when,” “who” and “how” of the article."

This seems to be a dangerous statement to use, especially with regards to "how," which is often a contentious discussion for a variety of topics -- to use the examples from above, "how" gravity causes things to fall is labeled as an "idea" above. BigK HeX (talk) 07:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Zaereth's suggestion above seems pretty simple to understand; however, it also seems to change (possibly even eliminate) the long-standing policies in the ASF section. If we're going to eliminate one of the purposes of WP:ASF, then I'd think it'd be worthy to have a discussion specifically on that topic first. Of course.. this is all irrelevant if there has already been an RfC on the ASF policy, and I simply missed it. BigK HeX (talk) 07:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I think this is getting very confused. There are 2 different types of distinctions here:

1. Questions
   1. questions of a factual nature
   2. questions about values
   3. questions of interpretation
   4. very likely others
2. Answers
   1. (nearly) all reliable sources agree
   2. there is serious disgreement among RSs

Peter jackson (talk) 10:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, BigK, the question is not how but why. The answer to how gravity works would be "unknown." No theory, as far as I know, offers a mechanism for gravity. Also, it's a fallacy to think that, because something has always been done a certain way, there must be nothing better.

To, Peter, all inquisitive questions can be boiled down to these seven: What, where, when, who, how, why, and does/do. We can not always answer every question, but for the ones we can, they should be answered in the order of importance, as I've listed them. The first five ask for facts. The answer to these will either be right or wrong. The last two ask for opinion. When examining any information, it is important to ask ourselves what question is being answered.

Here is an example:

A deadly collision, between a minivan and a tractor-trailer, occured at mile 47 of the Glenn Highway, at 2:30 P.M. today. The semi, driven by 25 year old Joe Blow, crashed into the minivan, driven by 36 year old Bob Cobb. Blow was traveling southbound when he lost control on the ice, crossing the center divider. The two vehicles collided head-on, killing Cobb instantly. Witnesses state that the semi-truck was traveling too fast for conditions. The police report that alcohol does not appear to have been a factor.

The first sentence answers what, where and when. The second answers who. The third and fourth sentences answer how. The fifth sentence answers why, while the last question covers do/does. These last two are opinions, and are therefore attributed to their sources. As I've said, all of this information about writing is readily available to anyone who cares to look. Zaereth (talk) 17:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Two points I'd like to make with Zaereth. First is that, yes, there are examples of explaining "how" something happens which are not contentious, however, as mentioned above, this is not always the case; above I provided a counter-example which seems pretty sufficient for making that point. When discussing "how" in relation to "how things work," the answer is going to be theoretical, though some theories are far less contentious than others.

As for any "that's how things have been" fallacy -- I've stated no such advocacy here. I stated my opinion that *if* such a substantial change in the policy is being contemplated, an RfC should be conducted. BigK HeX (talk) 23:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'd have to disagree with that. I edit mainly technical articles, where how is the primary concern. When taliking about causality, we're discussing the reason for something; the why. When discussing the manner in which something occurs, we're talking about process: the how. The example I gave above does not describe how things fall. (No process is described.) The closest we could get is, from up to down, accelerating at a rate of 9m per second squared if on Earth. That describes how things fall. Curvature in spacetime describes the reason for gravity, or why it exists. The theory does nothing to describe how it operates.

It's perfectly valid for you to do so, but creating such a distinction between "how" and "why" is largely a personal decision, since common parlance allows uses of "how" without such a clear distinction. A testament to that is the fact that I can ask the question, "How does gravity work, according to Einstein?" and expect for any general English-speaking audience to understand that I am asking for an elaboration of a theory. So, I would still be leery of possible misunderstanding that the proposal above might generate if it asserts that, "Facts are physical attributes, covering the “what,” “where,” “when,” “who” and “how” of the article." BigK HeX (talk) 00:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I apologize if I have misread you. Personally, I have no intention of making any changes to policy myself. The changes I recommended above are merely more along the lines of what reliable sources say on the matter. I'd be happy if an RFC is conducted. I'll be ecstatic if just one person looks into the sources I've provided. Zaereth (talk) 00:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you make a valid point. I wasn't very happy with the language either. I was just thowing that out there in a rather hasty manner, per QuackGuru's request. It could definitely use clarification. For instance, some of the confusion you're experiencing appears to be from looking at the wrong definition. If you'll notice, I'm using the terms as nouns. If you look for those defs in your online dictionary, perhaps that would help clear it up. Zaereth (talk) 00:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The following line is from above, by WFPM. "In science Dr. Asimov says that if you charge an electroscope, the leaves will separate, because they repel each other. I suggest that in this statement that they separate is an observable fact, but that they repel each other is an opinion. That's the trouble with scientific information. It's partly about disagreements about facts.WFPM (talk) 22:53, 18 April 2010 (UTC)"

I've been waiting for someone to touch upon this aspect of opinions, for to me it seems to be the very core of what QuackGuru is trying to point out. Not all opinions are seriously disputed. Very few people will disagree that magnetism accompanies electricity. This is almost accepted as fact, even though there is no way to prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt. The example I gave above, about the first mirrors being pools of water, (which is the first line from the mirror article), is another similar opinion. Undisputed theories are often presented using citation only, preferrably with links to articles, such as electromagnetism, that will expand on the theoretical nature underlying the subject. The article electroscope is a good example of undisputed theories backed up with undisputable observations (facts). The laser pumping article is full of these. The line from the mirror article is a good example of an undisputed theory with little to no evidence.

However, many opinions are disputed. It's not so much a disagreement about the facts, but about the interpretation, or, the meaning. In science as well as religion, the unanswerable question why is the primary goal. Everytime we answer this question, it leaves us with two more whys. (I'm sure we all remember discovering, around the age of four, that we could torture our parents with this question.) The important part, I think, is understanding that opinions require reasoning on the part of an individual, whereas facts are indeed undisputable observations. They are verifiable in reliable sources, and if accurate, by the reader who comes to experimentally test our information, say, by pumping their own laser.

The only thing we can ever verify about an opinion is that it exists. Understanding this not only helps us present information in a neutral way, but also with accuracy. Zaereth (talk) 01:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

A clear example

This proposal is for ASF. "An objective observation expresses a fact. A subjective interpretation expresses an opinion." We made this proposal based on this comment. QuackGuru (talk) 05:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on this. As I made clear above, I have a more general issue with the length of the policy. Changes tend to make it longer and longer over time. I doubt very many editors have actually read it. This is a bigger issue though, and not only relevant to this change. Stephen B Streater (talk) 06:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll admit that your suggestion does look better, QuackGuru. I still have reservations about using the terms objective and subjective, because it leaves too much room for interpretation. These are not common phrases known to general audiences. This will require defining the terms in depth, (which took one source nearly an entire book), and that leads me straight to Stephen's fears.

I'll take a little while longer to mull this over in my subconscious, and see if I can help come up with some wording that is not only short, simple, and clear to a general audience, but also covers everyone's concerns. Zaereth (talk) 02:06, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

For clarification I added wikilinks to both objective and subjective. This keeps the text short while defining the terms. QuackGuru (talk) 02:41, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I really dislike linking to articles in our policy... but I have to admit it does help. Blueboar (talk) 02:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

ASF template

It was suggested that a template for ASF is helpful. This edit suggested we need a template when a serious dispute exists among reliable sources. QuackGuru (talk) 00:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Attribution

In an article about some topic raising disputes among scholars. It can be article about climate change, historical event, philosophical position, political movement. While using some author as a source. Is it important what position author holds regarding the subject, is it important to mention that position in the article, and what rules regulate that? Thanks! --windyhead (talk) 20:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, attribution is often very important. Besides this policy, look at WP:Verifiability and WP:Identifying reliable sources, and WP:No original research... all of which touch on this idea. You should also check out WP:Attribution, which while not a policy or a guideline, sums the issue up well. Blueboar (talk) 02:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

So may we somehow process to make changes to the rule? What the addition could be? --windyhead (talk) 12:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

If your question is whether we may mention, or even highlight, the name of an author of a source in the text, the answer is yes. It is up to the editor to decide whether to use just the publication's name, the author, or both for in-text attribution. Typically we'd want to focus on the better known. See this section relating to fringe theories, but the principles are similar for all topics. Crum375 (talk) 12:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. What about author's position regarding the subject? I. e. the Vegetarianism article refers to a scholar who is known to be vegetarian. Or the opposite. Would it be better the article to mention his position as well? --windyhead (talk) 09:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I would say yes, this is often noted in our articles and it is practiced in media and scholarly works. Unomi (talk) 09:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

So how about this addition to Attributing and specifying biased statements section: If the author is known to adhere to (to hold) some position on a subject he's discussing, and there is a reliable source for that, it is good the author's position to be mentioned. Please improve. --windyhead (talk) 10:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I think this is getting into instruction creep here. Most of the time, an author's position on something will be obvious from what he says, ... on the other hand, if it is important to explicitly mention it, that can included in the attribution. We need to give editors lee-way to phrase things as they feel best. Blueboar (talk) 14:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, and what must be done if there's a dispute about if the best way to phrase is to include the position or not to? --windyhead (talk) 13:41, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

New proposal: If the author is known to adhere to (to hold) some position on a subject he's discussing, and there is a reliable source for that, but author's position is not obvious from what he says, the article is considered more neutral if the author's position is mentioned. Please improve. --windyhead (talk) 11:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

There are lots of ways to resolve disputes... see if there is a compromise position, seek third party opinions though an RfC, request formal mediation... editing policy to resolve a specific dispute is never a good option. Blueboar (talk) 15:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Should topic specific issues be discussed in a general policy

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Comments requested as to whether it is appropriate for a broad policy to discuss issues that relate to only one specific topic area. There are currently two topic-specific sections in the NPOV policy that do this: WP:PSCI (relating only to pseudoscience) and WP:RNPOV (relating only to religion). It is proposed that these sections be removed. It is further proposed that the section on pseudoscience should be merged into WP:FRINGE. - Blueboar (talk) 19:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll kick this off by saying that I suspect two of the broadest areas with the most vociferous POV pushers are pseudoscience and religion, which are both fundamentally untestable belief based systems. If these are the areas which are causing editors the most trouble, many hours of strife may be saved by determining the WP approach in a single place - namely here. In this scenario, other areas of potential contention, such as commercial motivation, could also be sorted here. I wouldn't be opposed though to wikilinks to each problem area with brief directions from here. Stephen B Streater (talk) 21:39, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Stephen that brief directions from here may be warranted. We could mention a list of general trouble areas such as religion, pseudoscience, and biased terminology like "terrorism", as examples, with links to specialized sub-pages that deal with them, like WP:FRINGE and WP:WTA. But going beyond a mere mention on this page would clutter it with details, while inviting disagreements and instability. Crum375 (talk) 21:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I also agree with Stephen. We should not attempt to strip WP:NPOV of these two very helpful examples of NPOV as should it be applied at Misplaced Pages. People often have trouble understanding NPOV and without examples the policy could be interpreted to suit the editor – someone wanting to promote Reincarnation research as a serious scientific endeavor would read NPOV to suit their purpose, while someone wanting an opposite approach would argue that NPOV supports them. Johnuniq (talk) 00:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with these two improvements on my comments. Stephen B Streater (talk) 21:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - If you have not already done so... please read the previous discussions on this... starting a few threads up (with WT:NPOV#Does consensus rule here or not?) and continuing through several subsequent threads. It will explain what lead to this RFC, and give many of the arguments in favor of (and a few against) the idea. I don't think it is necessary to repeat them all again here. Blueboar (talk) 02:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I've been wading through all this stuff. Will revert if I discover anything which changes my mind. Also, happy that this discussion is focusing on the issues. Stephen B Streater (talk) 21:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose removal of fringe theories section. That points of view held by an extremely small minority don't belong in Misplaced Pages, should be in NPOV. The section on religion can be moved out. -- Rico 23:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Um... Rico, have you read the section in question? I don't think it says what you think it says. (And the section that comes closest to saying that is WP:UNDUE, which isn't under discussion.) Blueboar (talk) 02:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support removal of the sections. First, it's not clear that they say anything. According to V, we can call views pseudoscientific if reliable sources do, and if not we can't; in addition, just because reliable sources say something doesn't mean we must repeat it, and that's something that can only be judged on a case-by-case basis, because it depends entirely on context, the quality and specificity of the sources, how many sources say it, and so on. Regarding the religion section, it could be summarized in one sentence, and that sentence would apply to all other topics.

  Secondly, the pseudoscience section comes straight from ArbCom, and while I have no problem linking to an ArbCom case, or repeating a decision in a behavioral policy, I'm not comfortable about quoting them at length in a content policy, and I doubt if the ArbCom intended to be so quoted.

  Finally, a general content policy is not the place to discuss specific content issues in depth; both the pseudoscience and religion sections would be more appropriate elsewhere, e.g. WP:FRINGE for pseudoscience. SlimVirgin 06:44, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support removal of the sections. Needlessly duplicates content of other policy pages. Unomi (talk) 20:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

partly done

OK... I have moved the pseudoscience section to WP:FRINGE as per the suggestion. Before I remove the Religion section, we need to think... is there a home for it somewhere else... can we move it or should it be simply deleted? Blueboar (talk) 22:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that, BB. As for religion, personally I think it could be deleted. I don't think it's making a point that isn't already elsewhere on the page in a more general form. SlimVirgin 05:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

And DONE

OK... given no reply indicating a desire to move the religion material to some other location, I have followed Slim Virgin's suggestion and simply cut it. I think we are done with this. Blueboar (talk) 02:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

POVed quotes On Philip Larkin

almost-instinct says on Wikipedia_talk:Quotations#Unable_To_Post: "For the biogs sections I chose quotes that had some relevence to that section of Larkin's life. The other quotes are from popular poems and can stand alone."

We already have an article listing of Philip Larkin's Poems.

His choice of quotes is representing a certain point of view, specifically his, and using thisthese quotes creates an opinion that wikipedia endorses. These quotes should be moved to wikiquote. Can we get more feedback?96.52.92.106 (talk) 03:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

the complaint is too strong. Every selection of facts involves a judgment by the author on what is useful for the reader. It is quite impossible to summarize, say, a 500 page biography in 1000 words without making lots of choices--that is what or editors do all the time. Selecting poems of use to the reader is in the same category as selecting what facts to present, in my opinion. Rjensen (talk) 03:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

These excerpts from poems are poved, tho. For example, if you are picking salient facts from a 500 page book, these facts must be verifiable from other independent sources.174.3.123.220 (talk) 04:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

If an editor boils down two different 500 page books into one 1000 word article, there is even more selectivity required--selection is what Wikipeduia is all about, it is not a POV. Rjensen (talk) 04:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

But the quotes have no explanation to their inclusion. They are jut boxed up in a corner. We are left to guess why they are there. Maybe the quotes could be introduced by prose saying, "This is a representative quote of (insert stage of Philip Larkin's life here):". But if we include that, wouldn't that be pov? If not, then original research?174.3.123.220 (talk) 05:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

To quote SlimVirgin above a general content policy is not the place to discuss specific content issues in depth Discuss this on the talk page of the article, as it seems to be primarily a content dispute. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

For questions, advice and assistance on how this policy should be applied to specific articles, ask at WP:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. Blueboar (talk) 15:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

about which there is no dispute

In the definition of a fact in WP:ASF, I don't think we mean "about which there is no dispute". Many facts are disputed (like evolution or the existence of the gas chambers); that doesn't stop us asserting them. --Kotniski (talk) 08:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The consensus version says: By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." This is correct. When there is no serious dispute and it is a fact we assert it. QuackGuru (talk) 17:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

There is no consensus version, but by coincidence I see I've restored the word "serious" as you wanted (without even noticing this comment). --Kotniski (talk) 18:15, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute."

The way the entire sentence was written before was better and was easier to understanding. Your rewrite makes no sense. QuackGuru (talk) 18:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I think you will find that 'about which there is no dispute' was in the original version that your text replaces. There is a difference between a fact that no-one disputes, and factual evidence that people put different interpretations on. The gas chambers are an example of this - as you'll see if you read the next paragraph down. Elen of the Roads (talk) 08:40, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

So you think that every time an article mentions that people were gassed at Auschwitz, we have to mention also that some people deny that fact? Perhaps these minority views should be mentioned in the main article on the subject, but that shouldn't stop us from asserting the supermajority view as fact elsewhere.--Kotniski (talk) 08:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

No. What you chopped out when you changed the article was that the thrust of this section was not distinguishing fact from opinion. It was distinguishing that which could be asserted as beyond dispute from that which needed to be sourced and managed. "Mars is a planet" is beyond dispute (even to those who still believe in the Crystal Spheres). "People were gassed at Auschwitz" is not beyond dispute, and therefore needs to be sourced and managed. The counter view is of such a minority and fringe status that it need not be mentioned every single time (that certainly would fail WP:UNDUE), but it certainly cannot be asserted as a beyond-dispute-statement-that-everyone-is-familiar-with.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, so we're totally confused now. I thought this was about fact vs. opinion; you thought it was about fact-requiring-sources vs. fact-not-requiring-sources. Actually I think if you look at it, it's supposed to be the former (because that's what the bold sentence at the beginning says; and if it were the latter it wouldn't belong on this page anyway). But if it's confusing experienced editors, then it's certainly going to confuse newcomers, so probably needs a complete rewrite.--Kotniski (talk) 11:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Not arguing with your last sentence. I think the point it was trying to make that very few 'facts' are neutral, a lot of 'facts' can be presented in a way that supports one view or another (and not just in politics!!). Therefore, only 'facts' that everyone knows and no-one disputes can be just asserted. Everything else needs references, and recognition that it may be presented in more than one way. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Forcing changes without consensus to core Misplaced Pages policy is acceptable. These massive changes changed the meaning of ASF. I restored ASF to the last consensus version. ASF is not about fact-requiring-sources vs. fact-not-requiring-sources. It is about a fact v. an opinion. It is not about WP:V. QuackGuru (talk) 16:45, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Kotniski, I specifically rejected your suggestion to rewrite entire policy. Why are you rewriting ASF without a discussion first. QuackGuru (talk) 17:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem with your revert - the way the discussion above was going wasn't particularly helping to clarify things I feel (and I really explained things badly) Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:34, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The edit did not match the edit summary. The edit summary was surely this is what it's trying to say?. Kotniski deleted a significant part of ASF policy without explanation. QuackGuru (talk) 17:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense, I deleted a lot of empty guff. The sooner these stupid long, separate, meaningless pages are condensed into one sensisble and meaningful one, the better. Meanwhile, PLEASE don't make our life even harder by knee-jerk reverting when you don't even have a sensible reason.--Kotniski (talk) 18:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

No, you deleted a major part of ASF which changed the original meaning of ASF. You are continuing to force changes without consensus. See WP:CON.

Kotniski's edit summary was surely this is what it's trying to say?. But now Kotniski is saying I deleted a lot of empty guff without explantion for the strange edit. Kotniski, I know you deleted a massive amount of ASF policy but you never explained why you did it while you continued edit warring against consensus. Both Elen of the Roads and QuackGuru rejected the massive rewrite. QuackGuru (talk) 18:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm still waiting to hear any substantial objection to my new wording. (And please stop saying I deleted "policy"; I rewrote the policy to say the same thing in fewer words. Somebody has to.)--Kotniski (talk) 18:42, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm disappointed you did not revert your massive changes and deletion of text against established consensus. I explained my concerns in my previous edit but you ignored my concerns. The non-consensus version makes no sense. Again, please revert the incoherent changes to ASF policy. QuackGuru (talk) 18:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

All right, if it's consensus, then either revert it yourself or else someone else soon will. But I still don't udnerstand your objection - what do you find incoherent?--Kotniski (talk) 18:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

• I left this debate alone for a while, because there wasn't much take up of my idea of making it shorter. But Kotniski got it. Pages of subtle wording doesn't make good rules. Simple, clear - and brief - language does. ASF is supposed to be short and simple. The pages of description can go further down. Stephen B Streater (talk) 19:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
• Avoid cites for common knowledge;
• Cite other facts;
• Give appropriate balance and cites for opinions.

If we say that, more people will bother to read it and understand it. Stephen B Streater (talk) 19:04, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

By "fact" we mean an objective statement - there is a planet called Mars, Plato was a philosopher - about which there is no serious dispute. This sentence is confusing and mixes different points into one sentence. This is completely incoherent and nonsense. This is one of many problems the non-consensus changes made.

By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." This sentence clearly explained when there is no serious dispute we assert it as fact if it meets Misplaced Pages's definition of a fact.

I think it would be good faith editing if Kotniski took responsibity for the changes that Kotniski acknowledged does not have consensus. QuackGuru (talk) 19:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

If we are into what people think, I think that people who make a proposal should not make the change. They have a conflict of interest when it comes to assessing consensus. In a true consensus, someone else would be willing to make the edit. However, in the case of mere acquiescence, there would be no change made, leaving the option open to form a true consensus. I have been burnt in the past by the difference between consensus and apathy. Stephen B Streater (talk) 19:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I'm not going to edit it any more today, so revert or leave it or whatever - or even better, cooperate by improving the text further. (But please consider what Stephen says about shorter being better.)--Kotniski (talk) 19:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

No specific response was made to my specfic objection to the actual text of non-consensus version. See WP:IDHT.

Kotniski deleted a massive amount of ASF policy but you never explained why you did it while Kotniski continued edit warring against consensus. Both Elen of the Roads and QuackGuru preferred the previous consensus version. QuackGuru (talk) 19:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Per Misplaced Pages:POLICY#Content_changes, let's please seek community consensus before making unilaterally making changes which have not been posted to test for community agreement. BigK HeX (talk) 19:45, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Could someone put the two versions side by side, so we can clearly see what the differences are? Blueboar (talk) 20:04, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Dunno if it helps, but here's a diff. The first one is the new stuff, while the second one represents the older wording that appears to have been discussed above. BigK HeX (talk) 20:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Blueboar, I think you can get a better view from this angle. The editor claimed to rewrite ASF but deleted a lot of text. QuackGuru (talk) 01:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I get the sense that this discussion is off a little bit. I see no point to a discussion of fact vs. opinion - the distinction as such is irrelevant to Misplaced Pages, there are only views. I suspect that the cause of confusion here is that the issue (with fact) is not whether it is highly disputed, somewhat disputed, or accepted. I think the important issue is "by whom?" What makes evolution a "fact" is that all major biologists accept it. That matters. That fundamentalist Christians do not accept it matters too, which is why Misplaced Pages presents the article on creationism with the same neutraility as it presents the article on evolution. My point is, there are few if any "facts" that everyone in the world agree on. But there is a big difference between something that all biologists accept and no fundamentalist Christian accepts, and something that biologists are divided on, and fundamentalists are divided on. In short, we treat something as a fact when all the views we agree need to be represented in the article accept it as such. But it is still a view, it is just a view that is shared by all stakeholders in the given article. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

That was what I was trying to explain (badly) above. It's not really talking about facts or opinions, its differentiating between matters that nobody will dispute (well OK, my dad might, but he's just like that) and matters that there is more than one view of any significance on. I actually think the current version does not benefit from calling the first 'fact' and the second 'opinion', because this extends the natural language usage of the word 'opinion'. Equally, Kotnisky's version did not effectively distinguish what is assertable. There are better definitions of that-which-does-not-need-citing in WP:V (or there was last time I looked). The nutshell version of this needs to say something different. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

It is exactly this concept that makes me extremely uncomfortable with editing Misplaced Pages. Nowhere in in the sources I've provided on non-fiction writing does anyone claim that facts are just another form of opinion. Evolution is not a fact, no matter how many people believe in it. It's a theory, and any scientist worth his salt will be very careful to lable their theories as such. It is based on facts, such as fossile evidence and such, but cannot be proved.

Now if I write that a flashtube is usually powered by a capacitor, and someone tells me that's just my opinion, then I'm bound to get a little irrate. It is this kind of irrationality that I prefer to avoid, for I do not see how it can promote quality and accuracy. Zaereth (talk) 21:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually 'evolution' - the change in species over time - is a fact. It is the reasons given for why it happens (confoundingly also called 'evolution') that is the theory. But you are right. It is not unreasonable to ask for a citation to an obscure fact (the depth of the Marianas trench say), and that's not because it's an opinion, its to make sure you didn't just make it up; but it's maddening to ask for a citation that a blender is used to make soup. At the same time, there are plenty of 'facts' out there that are really 'interpretations of the evidence', and while it can be a severe stretch of the word to refer to these as opinions, one does sometimes have to recognise that there are several interpretations to that piece of evidence. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:45, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The interpretations are opinions. The facts (evidence) themselves are not. That's my point. We can double check the evidence. Someone added to the Dogfight article that the term came from the noise made when WWI pilots would start and stop their engines during combat. While this was sourced, it was not reliably sourced. It was not hard to find sources indicating that WWI planes did not even have starters, and more sources showing the facts about the term without the needto speculate about why. Zaereth (talk) 22:03, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

So does everyone agree with my wording above? It's very concise, everyone will actually read it, and the long version can appear elsewhere. Stephen B Streater (talk) 22:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think everyone agrees with the wording above or the other wording above to eliminate the meaning of ASF. QuackGuru (talk) 01:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

No I don't agree with those versions either. My version above is this. Stephen B Streater (talk) 07:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it does by far read better. I tend to disagree that so-called common knowledge should not be cited. It's just as easy to do with blenders as it is with flashtubes. In fact, common knowledge is the easiest to cite. I'd hate to go to the blender article and find zero cites, because someone feels it is all common knowledge. I simply feel that a citation is not needed for every line, provided the information can be found in the same source. Perhaps a more specific example can show me why we should avoid using them. Zaereth (talk) 22:34, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The argument between Zaereth and Elen of the Roads (or anyone with a solid grounding in science) as to whether evolution is a fact or not demonstrates the wisdom of our NPOV policy quite nicely. Of course evolution is a fact, and Zaereth doesn't know what the difference is between a theory and an opinion. But ask Zaereth and she will say that I am the one who is full of crap. So we could go endlessly in circles, "I am write," "No, I am right" ... or we can comply with Misplaced Pages policy, specifically this one, NPOV, and say that there are just views. There is a consensus among scientists that evolution is a fact. Do you see what I have done? I have ascribed this view to the people who hold the view. And by implication it is now clear that we are talking about views, because at Misplaced Pages that is all there are, views held by different people. Scientists are of the view that evolution is a fact. Fundamentalists are of the view that it is an opinion. See my point? It doesn't matter whther we call it a fact or an opinion, because both of those are views. What does matter is identifying whose view, because depending on whose view we are talking about it is a fact, or an opinion. It is obviously both, in that diferent groups hold both views. If you cannot live with this, you do not belong at Misplaced Pages. Go find another soapbox. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:34, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I will please refer you to the reliable sources which I have provided on the subject of non-fiction writing, and I would ask you to provide sources which back up the views which you suggest. Do you wish me to list them again. Shall I provide more? Zaereth (talk) 00:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages's ASF makes a distinction that there different views. One view is a fact an another view is an opinion. QuackGuru (talk) 01:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Are any of these reliable sources used in Misplaced Pages articles. I would like to see the sources along the ISBN numbers if availabe. QuackGuru (talk) 01:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Notification:The suggestion to completely rewrite or cut in half ASF seems to change (possibly even eliminate) the long-standing policies in the ASF section. If we're going to eliminate one of the purposes of WP:ASF, then I'd think it'd be worthy to have a broader discussion (probably a RFC) specifically on that topic first. So far no logical reason has been given to drastically change core ASF policy. QuackGuru (talk) 02:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Alternative formulation of the policy: assert facts, including facts about opinions--but don't assert opinions themselves

We sometimes give an alternative formulation of the nonbias policy: assert

facts, including facts about opinions--but don't assert opinions themselves.

By "fact," on the one hand, we mean "a piece of information about which

there is no serious dispute." In this sense, that a survey produced a

certain published result is a fact. That Mars is a planet is a fact.

That 2+2=4 is a fact. That Socrates was a philosopher is a fact. No one

seriously disputes any of these things. So Wikipedians can feel free to

assert as many of them as we can. By "opinion," on the other hand, we

mean "a piece of information about which there is some serious dispute."

There's bound to be borderline cases where we're not sure if we should

take a particular dispute seriously; but there are many propositions that

very clearly express opinions. That God exists is an opinion. That the

Beatles were the greatest rock and roll group is an opinion. That

intuitionistic logic is superior to ordinary logic is an opinion. That the

United States was wrong to drop the atomic bomb over Hiroshima and Nagasaki

is an opinion.

This is the first paragraph from early years Misplaced Pages policy when Larry Sanger was editing. QuackGuru (talk) 02:33, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins, a hard-headed scientist, in his book, The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution, goes on at quite some length in his first chapter, titled "Only a theory", about treating a scientific theory as fact, quoting two senses of the word Theory from the OED:

Theory, Sense 1: A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed.

Theory, sense 2: A hypothesis proposed as an explanation; hence, a mere hypothesis, speculation, conjecture; an idea or set of ideas about something; an individual view or notion.

He goes on to name Heliocentrism and Evolution as two examples of theories where the Sense 1 definition applies.

I saw a WP talk page remark recently saying that in the statement "When a gold-leaf electroscope is charged, the leaves separate because the like charges on the two leaves cause them to repel one another.", the portion prior to the word because is fact, and the rest is scientific opinion. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Exactly. Newton's theory of gravity is an opinion. The laws of gravity are facts. Everything that answers the what, the where, the when, the who, and the how are facts. Everything else is an opinion. Thank you Wtmitchell.

To QuackGuru, I have no clue if these sources have been used on Misplaced Pages. Here they are:

• On writing well, the classical guide to writing non-fiction by William Zinnsser.
• Stein on writing;; by Sol Stein
• McGraw Hill concise guide to writing research papers by Carol Ellison
• A journalistic approach to good writing: the craft of clarity By Robert M. Knight
• Reading and writing nonfiction genres By Kathleen Buss, Lee Karnowski
• Literary journalism in the twentieth century By Norman Sims
• Philosophy of scientific method by John Stuart Mill,

I have no clue what an ISBN is, (unless this is fighter pilot talk, I don't speak in acronyms). I can provide the copyright dates and publishers. I can even provide a link to google itself, if needed. Zaereth (talk) 05:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

William Zinsser (2008). On Writing Well: The Classic Guide To Writing Nonfiction: 30th Anniversary Edition (7 ed.). HarperCollins Publishers. ISBN 0-06171-356-2.

Robert M. Knight (2003). A Journalistic Approach to Good Writing: The Craft of Clarity (2 ed.). Iowa State Press. p. 269. ISBN 0-81381-208-9.

Which Misplaced Pages article(s) these references can be used for building article content. QuackGuru (talk) 05:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

This isn't helped by dividing the material between three separate pages (NPOV, V, NOR). But whatever it is we want to say, we need to say it clearly. As far as my edit goes, as far as I can tell no-one's actually raised any objections to it - it doesn't change the substance of what was written, just makes it shorter and clearer (though doubtless it could be further improved). In fact I think we should tear up these three pages as currently written, since there is no agreement among editors even on what they mean (and hence they are quite unhelpful and misleading to the newcomers for whom they are intended), and work on writing something clear that all reasonable editors will understand and agree on. But meanwhile, I think those of you who revert changes just because they "need consensus" (and without specifying what objection you have to them) have no idea how Misplaced Pages works. That attitude is probably responsible for the pitiful state these pages have got into - incomprehensible text isn't allowed to be touched because it's sacred, so eventually such text overruns the whole page. (OK it's not all that bad, but really, this is one of the most key policies, and there shouldn't be anything unclear or meaningless on the page.)--Kotniski (talk) 05:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

No specific response was made to my specfic objection to the actual text of the incomprehensible version.

Kotniski deleted a massive amount of ASF policy but you never explained why you did it while Kotniski continued edit warring against consensus. Both Elen of the Roads and QuackGuru preferred the previous consensus version. I did have a specific objection and no response was made. The consensus version is very clear. QuackGuru (talk) 05:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I still don't understand your objection. Is it that you prefer "piece of information" over "objective statement"? (If so, that can be easily remedied without reverting the whole thing.) And please stop claiming there is a consensus version - this discussion shows that there is not even a common understanding of what this issue is, let alone a common position, and still less an agreed way of putting it into words.--Kotniski (talk) 06:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

By "fact" we mean an objective statement - there is a planet called Mars, Plato was a philosopher - about which there is no serious dispute. This sentence is confusing and mixes different points into one sentence. This is completely incoherent and nonsense. Inserting objective and in the middle adding Mars and Plato is strange and confusing.

By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." There is not a problem with this sentence and you are unable to provide a reasonable objection to this sentence. QuackGuru (talk) 06:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

All right, I don't object to that sentence (though I think using the word "objective" will make it immediately understandable to many readers; however I don't insist). Do you have any other objections to what I changed?--Kotniski (talk) 06:17, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I objected to the massive text deletion and rewrite. You have not explained your objection to any specific sentence. Can you tell us why you are against core ASF policy. you want to completely rewrite policy but never gave a specific reason. The current elaborated version is very clear. The shortened version is confusing and vague.

That would be confusing to insert the word objective. Editors are working in another thread on two separate sentences to explain the difference between an objective observation and a subjective interpretation. QuackGuru (talk) 06:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The point of the section is to inform new readers of the sort of thing they should be doing, not to try and specify every action in every case. How about a new section, perhaps called A simple formulation, which looks like this. The detailed version being discussed here could then be added below by means of explanation for those who need it. We could fix the wording common knowledge to take into account Zaereth's point, but this gist is that referencing every trivial facts clutters up articles. Stephen B Streater (talk) 07:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

You seem to want to take this in another direction. As I understand it, this isn't supposed to be about citing vs. not citing, it's about the facts we state directly vs. the opinions we state only indirectly. The fact that you and others have interpreted it as being something to do with citing (which belongs on another page, not WP:NPOV) is evidence of how unclear the present version is, and a good reason to include words like "objective" that make it clear what we're talking about. Or we should give examples of facts that aren't trivially obvious (like Mars being a planet).--Kotniski (talk) 08:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes - the whole section seems overlong and complicated. As you say, my solution is to a different problem. If we take the citing part out of my proposal, it's even shorter:

• State information which is common knowledge;
• Give appropriate balance where opinions differ.

Is this the nub of what we are trying to achieve? Stephen B Streater (talk) 09:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't put it in quite those words - most information in Misplaced Pages isn't "common knowledge".--Kotniski (talk) 09:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we can find the right words then. We could try "uncontroversial", "obviously true", "easily verifiable so no verification is required here". Perhaps "uncontroversial in the area" would be best, since an article about a subject should only need to provide cites for things that someone with a passing knowledge of the subject would like to check. An article about planets wouldn't need to say that Mars was a planet because it's well known in planet circles. Stephen B Streater (talk) 09:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

New section (for ease of use - do read the above thread if you've just arrived)

I think we're getting in a tangle because we're not thinking about why we are referring to common knowledge. It's not because its easily verifiable, it's because it is beyond dispute. The whole thrust of ASF is that unless something is beyond dispute, the article must retain an overall neutral approach to presenting the information, because there will be differing views (I'm favouring Slrubenstein on this - I don't think differentiating between 'fact' and 'opinion' is particularly helpful). Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

So perhaps something like:-

Some article content is common knowledge - water is wet, for example - and can just be stated. However, for most subjects, the likelihood is that there is more than one view on them. Editors must be careful not to represent their view as if it were the only view (the Flailing Hairnets are the best band to come out of Swindon in years). Articles must present a neutral point of view, and this means being clear about where the view presented comes from and how well established is (a poll in NME voted the Flailing Hairnets the best band to come out of Swindon in years), and including information on alternative views when these exist (in Radio 6 'Band of the Month' polls, listeners voted the Flailing Hairnets sixth in three consecutive months).

It can then go on to advice on

• how to present alternative views
• how much weight to give to views
• the importance of references

etcElen of the Roads (talk) 11:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree that for most subjects there is more than one view. At least, not for the subjects we address in an encyclopedia. Misplaced Pages is full of facts; most of them are not the subject of dispute, but most of them are not common knowledge either (if they were, we wouldn't need Misplaced Pages). There are also opinions that may not be the subject of serious dispute ("Hitler was a bad man"), but we just don't make that sort of statement in the encyclopedia, however universally held they are.--Kotniski (talk) 11:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Then you don't do much editing of political or historical articles. Take a simple examples, the name of the Irish state. -- PBS (talk) 10:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Zaereth still does not understand the difference between theory and fact. The view that the empirical observation is the fact and the interpretation of it is the opinion or theory goes back to 1950s debates in epistemology which have since been rejected by philosophers and quite a few scientists. The real issue here is that Misplaced Pages is not the place to forward or views on epistemology or metaphysics. NPOV is about a framework that enable editors who think other editors are completely wrong to be able to work together. let's keep our eyes on the ball, folks. Pragmatically, I agree that a fact is something everyone agrees on. By "everone" all that matters is everyone editing an article. If all editors agree, there is no point to go into detail sourcing the view. This of course can change at any time in a new editor becomes active and rejects the so-called fact. As soon as there is a conflict on the talk page, or an edit war, it is obviously the most sensible thing to consider that there may be two views. Then the first question is, is the second view fringe. If it is fringe, it can be discounted. If it is minority, even a small minority, the article has to be rewritten to provide both views. The second part of the clause, "including opinions about facts," would be much clearer if we wrote, "Views should be presented about views. Many of the views presented in Misplaced Pages are views about facts."

No one is trying to rewrite policy, except Zaereth who states explicitly on her talk page that her goal is to change policy. My goal is on the contrary to defend NPOV. And my intention in this discussion is simply to make this passage of the NPOV policy worded in a way that is (1) clearer and (2) more consistent with Misplaced Pages policy. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Quite. I disagree with Kotniski that for most subjects there is only one view (Kotniski is obviously wise, and never spends time on Administrator boards), but regardless of whether they are few or many, the nub is that if there is more than one view, editors must work together to represent them appropriately. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:42, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Second attempt: Some article content is common knowledge. Other content is not disputed - all the sources give the same answer. However, where there is more than one view on the content, editors must be careful not to represent their view as if it were the only one, or insist that their view should be the only one in the article. Articles must present a neutral point of view, and this means being clear about where the view you want to present comes from, how well established is, and what the alternative views are. Reliable sources should be used, as well as talkpage discussion, to ensure that overall the article has a balanced presentation of all the views.

I'd then give a list of do's and don'ts, rather than paragraphs of information. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, I think that's getting close. But "common knowledge" and "not disputed" don't need to be distinguished here, I think - that's for other policies. Misplaced Pages content should consist of facts which are (or could be if necessary) confirmed by reliable sources. Some of these facts concern people's views. We have a potential neutrality problem when (a) different sources give conflicting statements of fact; or (b) there are conflicting views that potentially could be reported. Then we have to get the balance right. In fact what you propose writing seems reasonable (though I wouldn't include "as well as talkpage discussion" - this is about what we want to achieve, not the process for achieving it).--Kotniski (talk) 12:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I have been trying my best to read the above, but may have still missed something crucial. As far as I see it, we should not distinguish, or even try to define, "fact" or "opinion". From WP's point of view, per WP:V and WP:NOR, anything which we write must be attributable to a reliable source. If anything is challenged or likely to be challenged, or quoted, we must cite an inline source. If the material is the common view by all reliable sources, i.e. "asserted", then it generally needs no attribution, though it still needs to be attributable. If the material is contentious, there should be in-text attribution, i.e. "X says Y". Other cases can have just an inline citation as appropriate. I think trying to add definitions of "facts" and "opinions" only adds unnecessary confusion. Crum375 (talk) 13:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I think we're sliding towards that. How's this

Where there is more than one view on the content of an article, editors must be careful not to represent their view as if it were the only one, or insist that their view should be the only one in the article. Articles must present a neutral point of view, and this means being clear about where the view you want to present comes from, how well established is, and what the alternative views are. Reliable sources should be used to ensure that overall the article has a balanced presentation of all the views.

Do not

• Add content which cannot be verified
• Add your own opinion to an article (I think Elvis is King)
• Present your opinion, or anyone else's opinion, as if it were a fact (Elvis IS King)
• Crowd-source content (everybody knows that Elvis is King)
• Be vague about whose view you are reporting - in Misplaced Pages, this is called weasel words (Some say he eats only hamburgers)
• Report the views held by the fringe, or by a tiny minority, as if they are mainstream (It is widely believed that Elvis isn't dead)
• Give undue weight to just one aspect of the subject (Elvis's poor diet probably contributed to his death, but this does not justify twenty paragraphs on his eating habits)
• Cherry-pick information to suit your own viewpoint
• Remove opposing views from an article, or edit war to keep your perspective in the article

Do

• Ensure that if a dispute should arise, you have a reliable source for anything that you want to add
• Show clearly when you are reporting on a particular view, and be clear about whose view it is (Rolling Stone Magazine has proclaimed Elvis "the king of Rock and Roll")
• Give appropriate weight to different views. If there are several recognised theories, they should be given equal treatment. If there is a recognised minority view, it needs to be referred to.
• Avoid fringe views in mainstream articles. An article on the Pyramids may need to represent the views of several Egyptologists, but there is no need to include the theory that they were built by spacemen.
• Accurately represent sources - if the source supports a view, but also contains some criticism, you should cover both aspects.
• Ask other editors to provide sources if you disagree with what they have added

More could be said, I'm sure Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I think this "do and don't" list is good, though it's more than just NPOV — it seems to cover all of our sourcing policies. Which brings us back to WP:ATT, which should have included all of them in the first place. Crum375 (talk) 14:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the key point here is that the distinction between fact and opinion is meaningless at Misplaced Pages, and this part of the policy should be rewritten to get rid of the distinction. We just have views. Philosopher Ian Hacking (I think that is his name) argued in his book on the social construction of facts that a fact is just somethign everyone takes for granted in order to talk about other things. That is one reason I think that all we have is views - some views everyone takes for granted, some views are accepted but not taken for granted, some views are accepted by some but not all, etc. The difference is not in the view, but in the weight different people or groups of people give that view. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree fully. Any distinction between "fact" and "opinion" is artificial and controversial, and adds nothing but confusion to our policies. We need to summarize material written by others, and cite the sources as appropriate. Whether we characterize something as "fact", "opinion", or "truth" doesn't matter, as long as it's attributed or attributable to a reliable source. Crum375 (talk) 14:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

What I've tried to do above is just focus on POV, and listed the things that people do because they have a POV and don't know how to edit Misplaced Pages, but Crum375 is right, it would help if all the policies were tied together better, as POV-warriors also rubbish other people's sources, ignore sources, and do other things that are violations of more policies than just NPOV Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

While I believe the point has merit, I think to suggest that there can be no distinction between "fact" and "opinion" is slightly overstated. Discussing things like "who," "where," "when," and the physical sequences of events that occur would involve "facts." Superlatives would be on the "opinion" side. Of course, it is the gray area in between that we are focusing on today. On that matter, I would submit that there are an infinity of commonly-accepted assertions that have no backing RS. BigK HeX (talk) 15:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think there's a pretty clear distinction between objective facts and subjective judgements, even if it's fuzzy at the edges. I think everyone can see the difference between "Nazis killed Jews" and "Nazis were evil". The sources will agree on both statements; Misplaced Pages can directly state only the first.--Kotniski (talk) 15:58, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I would agree (with BigK HeX), and I think this is one of the reasons that the NPOV page makes so much reference to citation, because the call for a source should make it clear whether we are dealing with a fact or an opinion. A lot of NPOV issues arise in areas where there are few facts and a lot of opinions, so how to convey information that is not pin-downable should be part of this page.However , going back in the historical record, one quickly finds the facts evaporating, and where and when becomes far harder to pin down than one would imagine. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:02, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Any material added to Misplaced Pages articles must be attributable, which means it must have been published by a reliable source. We don't care if the material in question is a "fact", "opinion", "idea", or anything else. If it is attributable, we may include it, otherwise we may not, assuming it is neutrally presented, does not violate WP:UNDUE or WP:SYN, and does not otherwise fail some content policy like BLP. Because the "fact" vs. "opinion" characterization has no impact on the material's includability on WP, focusing on these distinctions, whatever they may be, only adds confusion. Crum375 (talk) 16:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

@Kotniski, it is surprising how often what one thinks of as 'fact' turns out to be no such thing. Documents are missing, eyewitness testimonies are contradictory, governments are suspected of doctoring figures, maps are misleading, instructions are vague. No-one can agree with 'factual' certainty on the governmental status of Gibralter (just go look at the talk page - it got so violent it ended at ArbCom). How can that be? Because there are two absolutely rock solid reliable sources (the UN and the UK Government) that contradict each other.Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I very much agree with Crum, in that fact versus opinion makes no distinction about inclusion. However, if anyone cares to look at the sources I've provided, I'm sure you'll find that the distinction is about accuracy and neutrality.

Slrubenstein, if you think I don't know anything about science, please go to the articles on which I've worked and revert anything I've done. Start with the liquid article. Glass, glass transition, laser pumping, mangalloy, basic fighter maneuvers, dye laser, ruby laser. As I've stated many times, I have no intention of making any changes to policy myself. I'm merely pointing out a reason why Misplaced Pages cannot elevate itself to the level of reliable source. I am still blown away by some of the stuff that passes for common knowledge around here. I try to correct these with reliable sources, but if you feel the version of the flashtube article was better of before I arrived, then please go make the revert. I will not edit war, but you may be in for a surprise when you start working with actual scientists. Zaereth (talk) 16:50, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Verifiability supercedes fact and opinions

Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves.

A few editors seem to not understand what this sentence means. It has nothing at all to do with WP:V. It is about attributing to so-and-so said. It is about asserting a fact without in-text attribution and for an opinion do not assert it but instead use in-text attribution when there is a serious dispute. In-text attribution is not V. In-text attribution is so-and-so said. This is a case by case basis for each article and not set in stone. Although this policy is not specifically about V controversial text still must ber verified.

This is a proposal for Facts and opinions (ASF): "In Misplaced Pages most facts, except the most obvious ones - like “Mars is a planet” and “Plato was a philosopher” - must be verified through a reliable source regardless if it is a truthful statement." If editors want to include information about V to avoid confusion we can include this sentence. I made this proposal based on this comment. QuackGuru (talk) 16:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I absolutely disagree with this. On Misplaced Pages we do not distinguish between facts, opinions, ideas or any other material added to an article. All material must be attributable to a reliable source. Dwelling on these distinctions, whatever they might be, only adds confusion. Crum375 (talk) 16:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Crum375. We got in a complete tangle with this obvious facts malarkey - it's nothing to do with NPOV whatsoever, and is of no help on the NPOV page. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

On Misplaced Pages we most certainly do distinguish between facts and opinions. If you disagree then you want to eliminate core ASF policy. Attributable to a reliable source and in-text attribution are different points. Do you understand there is a difference or are you thoroughly confused. QuackGuru (talk) 16:42, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

QuackGuru - I am certain that I am not allowed to state my own opinion in a Misplaced Pages article, or doctor the article so it only reflects my opinion. What I am saying is that your 'ASF policy' is a mess. Indeed, it isn't a policy at all. It's wedged in on the NPOV page (NPOV is a policy) without any clear indication of why or how it relates to NPOV. What does Mars being a planet mean in terms of my POV? Many facts need interpretation - the POV lies in the interpretation, and that is what the NPOV policy has to deal with. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

What your saying is not about ASF. Please tell us what is the difference between attributable to a reliable source and in-text attribution. QuackGuru (talk) 16:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec) There is no "ASF" policy. The ASF section in NPOV is an island of confusion, which doesn't say anything intelligible. At best it repeats what's already in NPOV and other policies. All material on WP must be attributable to a reliable source. An inline citation is required if the material is challenged, or likely to challenged, or a quote. An in-text attribution is recommended if the material is contentious. There is no need to classify material into categories of "fact", "fiction", "truth", "opinion", "idea" or whatever. All such classifications do is add confusion among editors. Crum375 (talk) 16:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this as well. Misplaced Pages does not make a distinction about fiction, and that certainly does make it easier doesn't it? Zaereth (talk) 17:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

At best it repeats what's already in NPOV and other policies? I cannot find any other section or policy that is similar to ASF.

An inline citation is required if the material is challenged, or likely to challenged, or a quote. An inline citation is a reference.

An in-text attribution is recommended if the material is contentious. An in-text attribution is so-and-so said.

There is difference between attributable to a reliable source and in-text attribution. ASF is about facts (in-text attribution not required) and opinions (in-text attribution is recommended). QuackGuru (talk) 17:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Can we be clear about this. Those who are saying we don't distinguish between facts and opinions would be quite happy with stating, without any "so-and-so said", that (say) "The Nazis were evil". Is that right?--Kotniski (talk) 17:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not right. See my replies elsewhere, but for anything contentious we recommend in-text attribution, and a direct quote if very contentious. So "Nazis are evil" would be controversial and should include a direct quotation and in-text attribution. Crum375 (talk) 17:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

And what makes it contentious? Is it not the fact that it's a subjective judgement rather than an objective statement? (Because I'm sure a greater percentage of sources say it than the percentage that say that life evolved.)--Kotniski (talk) 17:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

No, because one man's "objective" is another's "subjective". What makes a piece of material contentious is that editors on the page think so, by consensus and common sense. Trying to nail it down further in a policy would be legislating common sense. Crum375 (talk) 17:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I also agree with this first sentence, Crum. please read Philosophy of scientific method. There is no objectivity. There is only "accuracy and fairness without bias." however, I very much disagree that editors should decide what is contentious in the world. Doing so is directly placing our own values into an article. Reliable source should decide what is or is not contentious. Who are we to decide? We should simply list all sides of an opinion, and accurately report the facts. Zaereth (talk) 17:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The editors can look at the sources and decide if there is any disagreement among them. That disagreement would constitute "contention". Or, if some editors think that, based on the available sources, something is black and others think it's white, that's also contention. In other words, unless we and the sources are in complete agreement, the matter is contentious. To decide how contentious it is, we still need consensus and common sense. Crum375 (talk) 17:50, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

If you take the word "we" out of that "in other words" sentence, and let the sources agree or disagree, then I will go along with that. I will not discount the value of consensus and common sense. However, we must not lose one to gain the other, as is the definition of groupthink. There seems to be a fear of reliable sources here, which puzzles me. In my view, they should be first and foremost. Zaereth (talk) 18:02, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the sources are "first and foremost". All we (the editors) are doing is summarizing them in a neutral fashion. If one source says black, and the other white, there is controversy. But to judge how much controversy there is, which source is more reliable, and how to present them fairly, properly weighted by their relative reliability and acceptance by the mainstream, we use our own editorial common sense and consensus. Crum375 (talk) 18:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Quack, you are just repeating the same words, but they don't make any sense (at least to me, and I suspect others). As I noted above, all material must be attributable. If it is challenged or likely to be challenged, it requires an inline citation. If it's controversial, we recommend an in-text attribution, and a direct quote if very controversial. There is no need for any classification into "facts", "opinions", or anything else. Unnecessary classifications and definitions just add confusion. Crum375 (talk) 17:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

You claimed "At best it repeats what's already in NPOV and other policies." What other policy or section repeats ASF.

If it's controversial, we recommend an in-text attribution. It is classified as an opinion when it is a controversial statement. When it is an opinion then we can use in-text attribution. A non-controversial statement that is not disputed is a fact. Not having a clear definition for facts and opinions will add to the confusion. If you think a controversial statement shouldn't be classified as an opinion then what do you propose we do with ASF. Delete core ASF policy? QuackGuru (talk) 17:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec) There is no "ASF core policy". There is some ASF mumbo-jumbo in the NPOV policy which adds nothing that I can see to NPOV and the other policies. The distinction into "fact", "opinion", "idea", or anything else is irrelevant for Misplaced Pages sourcing policies. I repeat, since it's not getting through: all material must be attributable. If it is challenged or likely to be challenged, it requires an inline citation. If it's controversial, we recommend an in-text attribution, and a direct quote if very controversial. The classification into "opinion", "fact", "idea" or any other category, does not play a role in our sourcing requirements and only adds confusion. Crum375 (talk) 17:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

There is clearly "ASF core policy". The distinction into "fact" versus an "opinion" is relevant for Misplaced Pages's inline-text attribution (so-and-so says). For a fact is not required to attribute (so-and-so says) to a source. No, I did not say it is not required that facts should not be attributable to a source. All material must be attributable is about V policy. If it is challenged or likely to be challenged, is a separate issue and not what ASF is about. However, a "fact" versus an "opinion" does not change the role in our sourcing requirements. There is a difference between inline citations and in-text attribution. ASF and V policies remain separate and distinct. QuackGuru (talk) 19:58, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

There is no "ASF core policy", and it seems to me you are simply confused. All material must be attributable to a reliable source. Challenged material, or material likely to be challenged, must include an inline reference. Contentious material should normally include in-text attribution. More controversial material should be quoted. All quotes require inline sources. That's it. There is no ASF needed for any for that. There is no distinction between "opinion", "fact", or "idea" or any other label. Adding these distinctions only adds confusion with no benefit. Crum375 (talk) 20:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

There is "ASF core policy", and it seems you are missing the point.

"All material must be attributable to a reliable source. Challenged material, or material likely to be challenged, must include an inline reference." An inline reference is not the point ASF policy makes and ASF is not about V. ASF policy explains when in-text attribution (so-and-so) is recommended or not required.

ASF policty does make a distinction between "opinions" and "facts", and avoids confusion with huge benefit such as on alternative medicine articles where there are disputes. QuackGuru (talk) 21:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

ASF is not a policy. It is some unintelligible words embedded inside NPOV policy which create confusion and help nothing. If the added material is controversial, it needs in-text attribution. If it's more controversial, a quote from the source may be needed. Nothing to do with "facts", "fiction", "opinions", "truth" or "consequences". Crum375 (talk) 21:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

To avoid confusion maybe we can explain how ASF and V are different. QuackGuru (talk) 21:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Quack. Do you want to say "all controversial material must be cited" or "don't add opinions as if they were Gospel"? It doesn't matter whether you call it a fact or a teapot - if someone disputes the information it requires a citation, if Gordon Brown says Labour are the greatest, I can't put "labour are the greatest" in the article. "Show clearly when you are reporting on a particular view, and be clear about whose view it is " (quoting myself) would appear to cover it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to say that in ASF. After reading what other editors are saying I think ASF should stick to facts and opinions. QuackGuru (talk) 19:58, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

So this whole thing can be summed up as "if you want to include information that is someone's opinion, you must say something like "according to Gordon Brown, Labour are the greatest." Didn't we already say this? Why are you saying that we want to do away with this, and what does Mars being a planet have to do with it? Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

This whole thing cannot be summed up with a few sentences. When editors are saying ASF is mumbo jumbo or deleting large portions of ASF policy then I assume editors are against ASF. Mars is a planet is a fact. We don't need so-and-so says phrases for obvious facts. QuackGuru (talk) 20:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

There are no "facts" or "opinions" on Misplaced Pages, only bits of information, which we call "material". If all sources agree that Mars is a planet, then unless it's challenged, it would require no attribution, but would still need to be attributable (i.e. we should have a source handy in case it's challenged). If recent sources say that Pluto is not a planet, it's likely to be challenged by someone, so we need to attribute that statement via inline citation. If some lone scientist argues that Pluto is still a planet, we'd need in-text attribution, because that's more controversial. If someone claims Pluto has life, and other sources disagree, we may need to quote his words. No ASF needed, simply a gauging of the level of controversy or challenge by editors. The presentation format should be as follows: no challenge, and no likelihood of a challenge, only attributability is needed; a challenge, a likelihood of a challenge or a quote, inline citation is needed; contentious material needs in-text attribution; and very controversial material may need a quotation from the source. No need to classify things into "fact", "fiction", "truth", "idea", "opinion" or any other category. Just judge the contentiousness or controversy level of the material to decide on the presentation format, but everything must be attributable to a reliable source. Crum375 (talk) 21:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

An inline citation is for WP:V. An in-text attribution is for WP:ASF. These are different policies. There is no need to confound two policies. QuackGuru (talk) 21:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

In-text attribution is needed to present any controversial material. Even more controversial material may need a direct quote from the source. There is no need to define "facts", "opinions", "ideas" or any other categories to explain that. There is no need for any confusing ASF section. Crum375 (talk) 21:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Editors at chiropractic think adding an unttributed controversial opinion as fact is okay as long as it is sourced according to ASF. QuackGuru (talk) 21:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing requirement is specified by WP:V and WP:NOR, not ASF. You seem to be very confused about our policies. If something is challenged, it must be attributed by an inline citation. If it's controversial, an in-text attribution is recommended. Crum375 (talk) 21:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

What do you think I am confused about. I am not confused about Misplaced Pages policies. Other editors at chiropractic think an unttributed controversial opinion as fact is okay as long as it is sourced according to ASF. I think if it is challenged, it must be attributed using an an inline citation and then if it's controversial, an in-text attribution (so-and-so says) is recommended. But V and ASF policies are different. QuackGuru (talk) 21:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Are there any specific examples you can maybe construct where this would actually alter anything from standard practice? This seems like the distinctions here may be hair splitting. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The debate at chiropractic has spilled over to NPOV policy guidelines. Editors continue to violate ASF, Weight, and Consensus. See Talk:Chiropractic#Neutral point of view. Editors think inline citation is attributable per WP:ASF. I am not splitting hairs. I am pulling my hairs! QuackGuru (talk) 21:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

You should take a step back and read the policies. There is no "ASF policy" or "ASF violation". If you want to add that the moon is made of green cheese, first find a reliable source. Then, gauge the controversy level: if it's high (as in this case), use in-text attribution. If it's very high (as in this case), use a direct quote. That's all there is to it. Since everything must be attributable, the issue is only the presentation format. Of course the above assumes you meet WP:UNDUE and all other relevant policies. Crum375 (talk) 21:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it is okay to add an unttributed controversial opinion as fact as long as it is sourced? QuackGuru (talk) 21:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand your question. If we add material which is not challenged or likely to be challenged, no source attribution is needed, but it must still be attributable, i.e. a source must be presented when challenged. If the material is controversial, a source must be provided via in-text attribution. "Fact" or "opinion" has nothing to do with our sourcing requirements. Crum375 (talk) 21:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

"Fact" or "opinion" has nothing to do with our sourcing requirements but at chiropractic unttributed controversial opinion is a fact as long as it is sourced. Editors at chiropractic think attributable to the source meets ASF. QuackGuru (talk) 21:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

This is still the presentation issue, nothing else. The Guild of Chiropractors says that chiropracty can cure...asthma, or erectile dysfunction, or something. There's been a recent court case over someone criticising them for it. If someone puts in the article "chiropracty can cure asthma" and sources to the GoC, that is a fail on so many levels that it in no way requires your alleged policy to deal with it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec) The confusion stems from "meeting ASF" which is a confusing jumble of words. You need to meet WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE, and WP:BLP if there are living persons involved. If somebody says X, and X is controversial and challenged, it should be first decided if X meets WP:V and WP:SOURCES. If so, it should then be tested for WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. If it passes these tests, but it's still controversial, it should be presented via in-text attribution, properly balanced with any notable conflicting views. The mainstream view should always be presented most prominently. Crum375 (talk) 22:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The edit summary says it's attributed. It's attributed to the chiropractic source, Chapman-Smith. Don't you know who he is? He's the next-to-the-top dog in the profession. It's his statement.

An unattributed controversial opinion is a fact as long as it is sourced? Editors at chiropractic think it is attributed in accordance with WP:ASF and deleting notable conflicting views is WP:NPOV. QuackGuru (talk) 22:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Sound of head thumping on desk. You don't need this mythical ASF to deal with a situation where editors are deleting notable conflicting views. The whole thrust of the bloody NPOV policy is that you DONT delete notable conflicting views. It doesn't matter how they want to say it, if there is a notable alternative view, the article has to reflect it. I think you are just confusing the matter. If Chapman Smith has said that chiropractors can raise the dead, and the General Medical Council has said that they can't, then WP:NPOV is clear that the article has to find some way of representing both positions.Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

As Elen says, and WP:UNDUE has to be met too. Crum375 (talk) 22:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

So what do I do now when an editor claims an unattributed controversial opinion can be asserted as fact as long as it is attributed to the source and thinks the lead does not have to present notable conflicting views. QuackGuru (talk) 22:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Facepalm GROAN! I had totally forgotten about that. Discussing with QG is very frustrating and I sometimes just flee the scene to keep my sanity, leaving others to discuss with him and clear things up, IF it's at all possible. The endlessly repetitive discussions, failures to answer questions, his repetitious use of links to his old arguments (from two minutes before on the same page!) instead of dealing with current questions,..... all of that makes it nearly impossible to deal with him. A "straight answer" isn't in his vocabulary. IF this really needs my input, I'll deal with it, but only after QG has gotten this obsession with ASF out of his head and other, more reasonable editors, participate. Dealing with him alone is pointless. Notify me if I'm really needed. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I would like a RFC started at Talk:Chiropractic#Neutral point of view. QuackGuru (talk) 23:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Wait a minute...the guy you're wrangling with is Brangifer? Believe me, he is NOT going to be letting anyone get away with asserting opinion as fact. In fact, having looked at the argument on the talkpage, you seem to be doing what you're doing here - using English in a very peculiar way so nobody can work out what on earth you are saying. Also, you are editing with a tremendous POV of your own. Can I just say "get outta here" and recommend that you stop trying to rewrite this page to support your own confused position.Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Crum375 seems to have a clear and consistent understanding of Misplaced Pages policy, and frankly, i do not understand many of the comments others have made. Above, Zaereth (who I am sure has made countless good edits to the encyclopedia) wrote, "A fact is information that can be verified or documented. It is known to be true. On the other hand, opinions are personal beliefs, views, or judgements." This is simply not true. Yes, facts can be verified. But so can opinions. It is verifiable that Ronald Reagan thought the Soviet Union evil. It is verifiable that George Bush thought Iran, Iraq, and North Korea evil. The distinction is not between one thing that can be verified and one thing that cannot be verified, the difference is between something that may verifiably be claimed by only one person, and another thing that is claimed by all members of the AAAS, and another thing that is claimed by all human beings.

Above, Quack pushes the following absurd policy: "In Misplaced Pages most facts, except the most obvious ones - like “Mars is a planet” and “Plato was a philosopher” - must be verified through a reliable source regardless if it is a truthful statement." This is not our policy, and if you think it is fixing something, I tell you, it is not broken. According to our Vpolicy, all views in Misplaced Pages must be verifiable - not verified, but verifiable or as Crum correctly put it, "attributable." Now, which views actually must be verivied? Controversial ones. Controversial where? Well, on the article talk page. The only practical way forward is if we take the people participating on the talk page to represent a community of people with overlapping intrerests and knowledge. If there is something NONE of them consider controversial, it will naturally be added to or remain in the article without a citation. it has to be possible to find a citation, but no one has to. One day someone comes and deltes something saying it is wrong. Yes, they can even delete the sentence, Plato was a philosopher. Suddenly it is controversial. Well, now you have to provide a citation (if it is so obvious, it should be very easy to find a reliable source). If the new editor still claims Plato was not a philosopher, you don't say "Go away!" You follow our policy: ask that person to present a reliable source. If she does, we rewrite the article, to include both (even though they contradict) views: Some say Plato was a philosopher (lots of cites), some say he was not (some cites) or whatever. Thi sis how it works and Quack's proposed policy only takes a clear an dsimple to follow rule and turns it into something that will promote confusion and conflict.

There is no policy on facts and opinions. There is an NPOV policy and this paragraph was added to try to explain it. Whoever wrote it did not do a great job, thus all the wasted electrons here. Delete it, revise it, but let's stick to our actual policies, NPOV and V: verifiability, not truth, and all significant views from reliable sources go in. These are principles all can follow. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Applauds! There is no need for this ASF. There is a need to emphasise that articles must present a rounded picture, not just one aspect, not only the view of one nation, not an entrenched view etc etc Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Elen of the Roads, you claim I want to rewrite ASF policy when all along you are one one who wants to rewrite or eliminate ASF policy.

Slrubenstein, if you think there is no policy on facts and opinions then I suggest you see Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view#Facts and opinions. QuackGuru (talk) 23:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not a separate policy. Just because it has a separate shortcut doesn't make it a separate policy. Read the title at the top of the damn page - the policy is Neutral Point of View. ASF just stands for 'A simple formulation'. Someone, a long while ago, wrote a piece about how to present information in a neutral manner, that made clear when you referring to something that was just what some guy said, and that's what this is, and that's ALL that this is. Elen of the Roads (talk)

Although it is not a separate policy there is still policy on facts and opinions. Do you want to rewrite or drastically shorten ASF. QuackGuru (talk) 23:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Headdesk! here is the very first appearance of the NPOV policy page. You'll notice that it explains in a long winded but PERFECTLY CLEAR way what the founding fathers were thinking of with the alternate phrasing. All of which has NOTHING to do with your argument with Brangifer, since he is using EXACTLY THE SAME principle, only you are editing with a sizeable POV and he (in this instance) is not. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposed removal of ASF

In my opinion, the ASF section as it stands is essentially an essay embedded inside a policy page. As Elen noted above, although its intent was probably benign originally, the end result was unneeded confusion, as can be seen in the above threads. I suggest that we remove this section, and if there is to be any replacement, it should be carefully thought out and agreed upon on this talk page. At the moment, I see nothing in that section which is not covered in the rest of the NPOV page or elsewhere. I believe removing this section will improve NPOV and eliminate many needless arguments. Crum375 (talk) 23:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Crum375, you claim "At the moment, I see nothing in that section which is not covered in the rest of the NPOV page or elsewhere."

Can you point where in the rest of the NPOV page or elsewhere ASF is covered. The end result was unneeded confusion? I don't see any confusion. QuackGuru (talk) 00:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, you may not see any confusion, but I see nothing in that section which adds anything to other parts of NPOV and the other sourcing policies. I do see lots of things I don't understand, such as trying to distinguish between "opinions" and "facts", which means nothing to my limited mind, and as far as I know has no bearing on Misplaced Pages policies, whatever it may mean. Crum375 (talk) 00:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I think this also is too wordy and confusing. I would say, start with nothing, and if needed, carefully build up only what's required. At the moment I don't see anything critical missing if we remove the section. Just getting rid all that confusing language inside an important policy would be a great step forward, in my opinion. Crum375 (talk) 00:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

What is too wordy or confusing with the original version or the current version? QuackGuru (talk) 00:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Both. Crum375 (talk) 00:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

@Crum375. Agree entirely. You can sum the whole thing up in a couple of sentences - don't say anything you can't verify with reliable sources, and if sources disagree, make this clear in the way you present the information, using in-text attribution or direct quotes. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Elen of the Roads, you claim I want to rewrite ASF policy when all along you are one one who wants to drastically change ASF policy? QuackGuru (talk) 00:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I grow weary of this conversation, so I'm going to go back to what I usually do. Since Crum asked, I will leave this point. Verifiability is synonymous with factuality. Neutral point of view is synonymous with balanced opinion. If you don't believe me, please look it up. I have provided source after source, quotes and everything, and that's all I can do. Zaereth (talk) 01:01, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support It would be better to delete it and start from scratch as and if necessary. This seems to be the sole domain of one editor who constantly misuses it and we need to remove it and recalibrate. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Zaereth, verifiability on WP simply means that a reliable source has published it. I don't know what you mean by "factuality." The two are unlikely to be related except in the empty sense that it's a fact that A published X. SlimVirgin 04:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

About this whole thread: there is no assert facts policy! The policy is "NPOV." Larry Sanger first imported from Nupedia an explanation of his idea of neutrality, and the policy page actually included the discussion (I do not think we had talk pages back then) about the policy. Believe it or not, the discussion was over whether the NPOV policy was "American-centric." Maybe this is because larry included some examples that refered to the US. The question was whether more explanation was needed to make NPOV intelligible to Brits, Aussies, etc who perhaps use English differently. It was during that time that another editor (Graham somebody) added the stuf on asserting facts explicitly as "another attempt to explain the policy" (and it was crystal clear that "explain the policy" meant "explain the NPOV policy")

This is the original NPOV policy:

Basically, to write without bias (from a neutral point of view) is to write so that articles do not advocate any specific points of view; instead, the different viewpoints in a controversy are all described fairly. This is a simplistic definition and we'll add nuance later. But for now, we can say just that to write articles without bias is to try to describe debates rather than taking one definite stand.

Now, I to go back to the spirit of our 2001 discussions, I think adding anything that makes the above easier to understand by people who do not speak American English is a good idea but let us be clear that the above is our benchmark, the question is: do edits to the policy page help people better understand the above, or confuse people as to the above? Slrubenstein | Talk 11:53, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I dug out those old pages (see above) - they certainly make fascinating reading. I don't think the aim of NPOV has changed - do not add your opinion, do not write from a particular position, aim for a neutral presentation of all the information, including variant views, in a coherent form. I think it can be written more concisely without losing its meaning. I also think we could look at creating a WP:Guide to NPOV which held all the examples, which could include examples of particular relevance to the various communities.Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to close the above thread

The proposal to completely remove ASF seems to change (possibly even eliminate) the long-standing policies in the ASF section. If we're going to eliminate one of the purposes of WP:ASF, then I'd think it'd be worthy to have a broader discussion (probably a RFC) specifically on that topic first. So far no logical reason has been given to drastically change or even eliminate core ASF policy. QuackGuru (talk) 00:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Ridiculous proposalElen of the Roads (talk) 00:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. There is a propostion above. Don't start this ridiculous proposal to shortcircuit it. That's just plain disruptive. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:01, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it is a problem with making this thread a subsection of the above thread. This edit was made to separate this thread. QuackGuru (talk) 02:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it created a problem which you no doubt didn't intend. It meant that editors who wished to place their comments at the bottom of the previous section might inadvertently place them in this one instead. I discovered that problem and had to back up to find the right place. I then made the change in heading level and went back up there and added my comment. Now no one else will have to do that. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Summary would be appreciated

Could someone briefly summarize the discussion? This has always been an odd sentence, but attempts to fix it have met with resistance. "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. By 'fact' we mean 'a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute'."

Two problems with the above:

(a) A fact is simply a true proposition; something that is the case (leaving aside the complexities that philosophers get into). Whether it's in dispute or not is irrelevant.

(b) Most of what we do on Misplaced Pages is assert opinions about facts, not facts about opinions. I can see what the passage is trying to say (it is trying to say "cite your sources," because it is a fact that A says X, even if A and X are wrong), but it has it exactly upside down.

So it would be good to fix it at last, but I wouldn't want to do anything to weaken its spirit. SlimVirgin 03:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I was advised above that this section was not about citing. My current preferred version is much shorter than the current version:

* State information which is uncontroversial within the subject; and

* Give appropriate balance where opinions differ.

Overall, this policy is much too long. We can't detail every eventuality. Ultimately users will need experience editing here. I'd rather have something short that they read than something so long it is skipped. Stephen B Streater (talk) 05:55, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. This thread (and continuous other debates here and at WP:V and WPNOR) prove that even experienced editors don't understand what these policies are trying to say, what matters are covered where, and so on. Time to turn them into essays, and write one clear, compact policy which tells people the things they need to know about how Misplaced Pages does things. (Policies don't have to be long - or on separate pages - to be effective.)--Kotniski (talk) 07:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin, if you read the 'earliest' version, you can see that what it was trying to say was exactly 'don't say Elvis is King, say Col. Parker says Elvis is king. You can also see that it was put in because the original policy was written by putting together the favourite versions of several people, which is why its a bit of a contradictory dogs breakfast today.

@ Stephen B Streater, too short, too short. "State information which is uncontroversial within the subject" would remove half the information from wikipedia. Also, NPOV is a bit more than 'give appropriate balance.' It requires an editor not to add information in a way that is heavily slanted to one viewpoint, and also to work with others to create a balanced view. Elen of the Roads (talk) 07:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Saying that something can be stated does not imply that other things cannot be stated ie this would not indicated any material should be removed from WIkipedia. This bit is to say simply what can be stated without needing justification in the article. Stephen B Streater (talk) 07:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Clearly "heavily slanted to one viewpoint" is not "Appropriate balance", so you are just repeating what I have said in a more verbose way. Stephen B Streater (talk) 07:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Your point about working with others is an important one though, as no one has a monopoly on the best ideas. ;-) Stephen B Streater (talk) 07:52, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

What we want to achieve is clear policies which people read, understand and implement. Kotniski is right about core policies and essays. Important core policies on what to write should be in a single accessible place, and be brief and concise. All the archetypal debates and long detailed descriptions (which I can guarantee most editors never read) should be put in essays. Misplaced Pages:Avoid instruction creep is worth a read. Stephen B Streater (talk) 08:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with that. This is the shortest I can come up with for NPOV that covers the three central components: This policy applies where there is more than one view on the topic, or on material in the article. The article must contain balanced coverage of the various views. All the information must be sourced, and where there is not one overwhelmingly accepted view, the article must equally reflect all leading views, and includes appropriate mention of minority views. Where there is a mainstream view and recognised minority views, appropriate weight must be given to each view, so that it is clear what status the minority view has. If the topic has fringe views, it may be inappropriate to include these outside of articles specifically about that view. Elen of the Roads (talk) 08:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

That's actually short enough to read :-) I could probably suggest a few tweaks, but I like the gist. And we can take out the Fringe section too, as a bonus. Stephen B Streater (talk) 08:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd support removing the section because it reads like an essay, and some of what it says isn't right (e.g. its definition of facts, values, and opinions). We could summarize its essential point with one sentence from V and NOR: "This policy requires that anything challenged or likely to be challenged, including all quotations, be attributed to a reliable source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly support the material in question." Then something about competing views, undue etc. SlimVirgin 08:28, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

That's good. It's got the gist of V and NOR in, in one sentence. Elen of the Roads (talk) 08:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I've added something, partly based on Elen's suggestion:

Verifiability and No original research require that anything challenged or likely to be challenged, including all quotations, be attributed to a reliable source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly support the material in question.

Where there is disagreement about a view, use in-text attribution—"John Smith writes that ..."— rather than publishing the opinion in Misplaced Pages's voice. Avoid mass attribution such as "some people believe": see Words to watch.

Articles should contain balanced coverage of all majority and significant-minority views, but make sure they roughly reflect the relative levels of support among reliable sources for the position in question. Do not write: "Charles Darwin argued that humankind evolved from apes, but Keith's mum thinks we came from another planet." Appropriate weight must be given to each view, so that it is clear what status the majority and significant-minority views have among reliable sources. If the topic has attracted fringe or tiny-minority views, consider writing about those views in articles devoted to them, so long as there are reliable secondary sources to support inclusion.

Thoughts? SlimVirgin 08:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

We have not, so far, required inline citations, and I don't think we should. They are preferable, of course, but in particular for small articles may be overkill. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that inline citations are not necessary, but it is almost possible to verify an article if there are just half a dozen 500 page books listed at the bottom, so I think we should encourage them (see edit on page). Stephen B Streater (talk) 09:01, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Stephen B Streater has changed it to read that inline citations are good, but they're not only good, they are required. :) Please see V, which is policy. SlimVirgin 09:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes its hard to keep up with all these changes ;-) Luckily, I been spending hours adding inline citations recently, so now I know why! Stephen B Streater (talk) 09:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes - I must have missed this in the New Year: Stephen B Streater (talk) 09:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Inline citations have been required by policy for a long time e.g. here in December 2007. SlimVirgin 09:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

If they are required by WP:V, there is no need to repeat this here. Moreover, I have my doubt about the breadth of the consensus for that change to WP:V. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

There is strong consensus for it, Stephan. It had been required for a long time before it was added to the policy. SlimVirgin 09:28, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Best to avoid the Holocaust, or anything not obvious to the average reader. We can tweak the Darwin example, or find another. SlimVirgin 09:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

While I appreciate your comment, it was a good example of a generally understood issue, and Keith's mum is even less significant than flat earthers, hence giving an exaggeratedly simple example. More below. . . dave souza, talk 19:02, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Tightening some more

While I'm tightening, I continued and merged the first few subsections, which were very repetitive. So instead of three very long subsections, it now reads:

The neutral point of view is a way of dealing with conflicting perspectives. It requires that all majority- and significant-minority views as found in reliable sources be presented in a disinterested tone, and in rough proportion to their prevalence within the source material. Material should not be removed solely on the grounds that it is "POV".

The neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject. Unbiased writing is the disinterested description of all significant sides of a debate as found in reliable sources. Articles should describe different points of view without endorsing any of them. It may describe the criticism of particular viewpoints found in reliable sources, but it should not take sides.

Verifiability and No original research require that anything challenged or likely to be challenged, including all quotations, be attributed to a reliable source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly support the material in question. Where there is disagreement about a view, use in-text attribution—"John Smith writes that"— rather than publishing the opinion in Misplaced Pages's voice. Avoid mass attribution such as "some people believe": see Words to watch.

Articles should contain balanced coverage of all majority and significant-minority views, but make sure they roughly reflect the relative levels of support among reliable sources for the position in question. Do not write: "Charles Darwin argued that humankind evolved from apes, but Keith's mum thinks we came from another planet." Appropriate weight must be given to each view, so that it is clear what status the majority and significant-minority views have among reliable sources. If the topic has attracted fringe or tiny-minority views, consider writing about those views in articles devoted to them, so long as there are reliable secondary sources to support inclusion.

SlimVirgin 09:28, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Side by side

SlimVirgin 09:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

A much more radical trim

Good work, Slim, for tightening the wording as described above. But for those with more radical ambitions as regards making policy short, clear and accessible, I invite comments on User:Kotniski/Neu, which is intended (when ready) as a replacement for this page AND WP:NPOV AND WP:V.--Kotniski (talk) 09:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I burst out howling there, K, at the sight of your bravery. I've long wanted to do that, but had to stop after ATT didn't get through. Haven't looked at your page yet, but will do shortly. SlimVirgin 09:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

What to do about opinionated statements such as "In 1982 the Israelis allowed genocide to be committed in Lebanon (UN citation given)" when a more neutral statement would be "On December 16, 1982, the United Nations General Assembly condemned the Sabra and Shatila massacre and declared it to be an act of genocide. (UN citation given)" the previous wording of ASF covered this issue, what pithy sentence to we point POV warriors to if ASF is to go? -- PBS (talk) 10:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

What was the pithy sentence that you would have pointed them to before?--Kotniski (talk) 10:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec) That we write in a disinterested tone, and that the NPOV neither sympathizes with nor disparages; see here. SlimVirgin 10:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, why not be a little blunter. "Do not add your own opinion to the article, and do not present information in a biased or opinionated way. Use the most neutral language possible, even if you have strong feelings about the matter." Let's be straight up about it - this is the NPOV policy after all. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• On a separate note, I'd be in favour of pulling all examples etc out into a separate WP:Guideline to NPOV, similar to how the non-free image policy and guidleine are split.Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:53, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I think this is a very constructive suggestion. One thing that wrecks a policy is when people get involved in a conflict, thy then rush to some policy and add their own example. Policies are not quite the same thing as case law!! Slrubenstein | Talk 12:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

These changes are more like the level I was thinking of :-) I'll have a look at K's page too. Stephen B Streater (talk) 11:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

In general, I appreciate Slim's editing very much. I also think Elen's summaries about the discussion, aove, are helpful. I have only this to add about this whole thread: there is no assert facts policy! The policy is "NPOV." Larry Sanger first imported from Nupedia an explanation of his idea of neutrality, and the policy page actually included the discussion (I do not think we had talk pages back then) about the policy. Believe it or not, the discussion was over whether the NPOV policy was "American-centric." Maybe this is because larry included some examples that refered to the US. The question was whether more explanation was needed to make NPOV intelligible to Brits, Aussies, etc who perhaps use English differently. It was during that time that another editor (Graham somebody) added the stuf on asserting facts explicitly as "another attempt to explain the policy" (and it was crystal clear that "explain the policy" meant "explain the NPOV policy")

This is the original NPOV policy:

Basically, to write without bias (from a neutral point of view) is to write so that articles do not advocate any specific points of view; instead, the different viewpoints in a controversy are all described fairly. This is a simplistic definition and we'll add nuance later. But for now, we can say just that to write articles without bias is to try to describe debates rather than taking one definite stand.

Now, I to go back to the spirit of our 2001 discussions, I think adding anything that makes the above easier to understand by people who do not speak American English is a good idea but let us be clear that the above is our benchmark, the question is: do edits to the policy page help people better understand the above, or confuse people as to the above?

Here is my own proposal, to clarify the relationship between NPOV and V - I admit it can be improved upon, but I ask any other edit to bear in mind that any changes should be to make my proposal accord more closely with NPOV as in the summary I quote aboe.:

All views must be attributable, that is, verifiable. Some views are so uncontroversial and commonly accepted that no one expects or asks for attribution (these views are often called "facts."). But they remain attributable, and if there is the slightest controversy, these views should be the easiest to verify. The more controversial a view, the more important it is that we provide attribution, and in many cases multiple attribution. Ideally, controversies on talk pages are indicative of controversies in the real world, so any time here is a conflict on the talk page it is critical that editors provide verification from reliable sources.

Well, just my .02 Slrubenstein | Talk 12:02, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I would say "all material added to the article must be attributable - an editor must be able to verify it with reliable sources. Some information is so uncontroverisal and commonly accepted that no one expects or asks for a source - but there must be one, and it must be provided if there is even the slightest controversy. The more controversial a view, the more important it is that we provide attribution, and in many cases multiple attribution. Ideally, controversies on talk pages are indicative of controversies in the real world, so any time here is a conflict on the talk page it is critical that editors provide verification from reliable sources.

Same really, just removed the 'called facts' component, as I still think this confuses things.Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

No complaints from me. If a couple o othe edits think it is an improvement, or want to tweak it, perhaps then we might replace the first paragraph if "Neutrality disputes" with this? Slrubenstein | Talk 12:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Results so far

I haven't edited the "Neutrality disputes and handling" section yet, but so far we're down to 1,507 words readable prose (the script I used hasn't counted the Commons objections section because of the indents, so it's a bit more than that). Previously it was 3,344 words, but I don't think we've lost anything apart from 1800 words. This takes us closer to the lengths of NOR and V. SlimVirgin 12:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

All good stuff. Thanks Slrubenstein too for the background. I'll have a fresh look this evening after work, and put my suggestions (if any) down in Talk then. Stephen B Streater (talk) 12:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• When the alterations have been finished, I'll give it a proofread. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I merged what Slr and Elen wrote, regarding the section that was called "Attributing and specifying biased statements" (now called Attribution), and came up with:

All material added to an article must be attributable, which means that a reliable published source must exist for it—otherwise it is original research. But not all material must actually be attributed. Some statements—such as "Paris is the capital of France"—are so commonly accepted that no one expects attribution. But they remain attributable, and if there is the slightest controversy, they are easy to find sources for. The more controversial a view, the more important it is that we provide attribution, and in many cases multiple attribution. Controversies on talk pages are indicative of controversies in the real world, so whenever there is a conflict on the talk page it is critical that editors provide attribution from reliable sources.

Is that what you had in mind? SlimVirgin 15:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there's a good reason to emphasise that not all material requires attribution in the article. Digging around on QuackGuru's talkpage, I've discovered that he believes ASF said that you actually mustn't attribute some things, and he even created an 'attribution not required' template. I'd go from the second sentence with "if something is commonly accepted - "Paris is the capital of France" - then it is not a requirement to add attribution in an article containing it, but if there is the slightest controversy, then a source must be provided." The key features being that it is not required to add the source unless someone asks for it. How easy or hard the source is to find is actually irrelevant. I might even say "but a source should always be provided if it is requested." Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:57, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I repeated what the sourcing policy, V, says after this para: "Misplaced Pages's sourcing policy, Verifiability, requires that anything challenged or likely to be challenged, including all quotations, be attributed to a reliable source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly support the material in question." Does that help? SlimVirgin 16:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think that two things are important. First, the distinction between attributable and attributed. I think some people just do not get this distinction, and all this talk of "subjective versus objective" or "fact versus opinion" are red herrings that people go fishing for because they do not understand this simple distinction. So we need to make the distinction clear. The second point, which I think is close to Elin's point, is that "attributable" does mean that it can be attributed. Which leads to - if someone asks for attribution, it must be provided. Now, while I do not think that what I am about to say belongs in the policy, I think it is important: this point, that you have to provide attribution if it is asked for, gets to the whole importance oF wikipedia not just as an encyclopedia, but as a community of editors who are involved in a never-ending collaboration to produce the encyclopedia. The point is deceptively simple: we need one another, to write good articles. Why? Because we cannot rely on our own judgement. I think something is "obvious" so I call it the truth or objective or a fact, and it means I do not have to contextualize it or explain it let alone provide attribution. It i only because there is someone else who says "well, I do not think it is true" or "I do not think it is a fact" that forces me to realize that my opinion is not the only one in the world that counts. I as an editor am accountable to other editors. If they say "no, it needs attribution," well, that is that, I have to provide attribution. Not everyone thinks the way I do. That is why if we are going to write an encyclopedia in the worl, everyone has to be able to edit. "to edit" does not just ean add information or rephrase something, it means questioning the work of other editors. That makes the community a dynamic process. Every Wikipedian has to accept this, the semi-anarchic workings of the community, or they do not belong here. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The attributable/attributed distinction is in both NOR and V. We wanted to combine them three years ago into one policy, Misplaced Pages:Attribution, precisely because both revolve around that key point—that something not attributable is original research, so provide attribution to show you're not engaged in OR. That's V and NOR in a nutshell.

Anyway, both policies refer to attribution. V says: "All material in Misplaced Pages articles must be attributable to a reliable published source to show that it is not original research, but in practice not everything need actually be attributed." So people familiar with those policies are familiar with the distinction. SlimVirgin 16:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Kotniski you wrote above "What was the pithy sentence that you would have pointed them to before?" I would have pointed them to "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves." that covers the difference between "In 1982 the Israelis allowed genocide to be committed in Lebanon (UN citation given)" when a more neutral statement would be "On December 16, 1982, the United Nations General Assembly condemned the Sabra and Shatila massacre and declared it to be an act of genocide. (UN citation given)". As I said the previous wording of ASF covered this issue, what pithy sentence do we point POV warriors to if ASF is to go? -- PBS (talk) 22:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

PBS, I do not get your point. "Assert facts" seems pithy but just muddies the water because it can be interpreted and misinterpreted so many ways and certainly does not answer the concern you raise. You resent two setences as if one is better than the other. One is not better than the other. They are not comparable. They make different claims. Here are tall the claims:

• In 1982 the Israelis allowed genocide to be committed in Lebanon
• On December 16, 1982, the United Nations General Assembly condemned the Sabra and Shatila massacre
• and declared it to be an act of genocide. (UN citation given)".

Three claims and each one is permited by our policy no matter how you write it. Ideally, the article on Sabra and Shatilla should include all three claims and more: (1) the dates of the massacres which are in neither sentence. (2) the UN (and indeed an Israeli commission of inquiry or maybe it was the israeli supremem court) found that Israel was indirectly reponsible as they were in control ov the overall situation and did nothing to stop it. This is in your fist sentence and I have no idea why you have a problem with this. (3) The Un considered this genocide. All of thee are views, all must be attributable. So I see no distinction. Are you really making a distinction? Slrubenstein | Talk 22:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I think most people would see a difference between the claim "there was genocide" (relatively subjective) and the claim "the UN declared there was genocide" (objective). (Of course, the POV warriors wouldn't "see" this difference.)--Kotniski (talk) 06:22, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

My 2cents: I agree with PBS. I quite like Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." As Stephen Streater suggests far above, I would even just keep this and delete the rest of the section. To my mind, most of the arguments that Crum375 and SlRubenstein present argue for retaining, not deleting this; the passage just says what they are saying. I've never seen an average editor or newbie have a problem with this formulation, which to me is crystal clear and succinct. SlimVirgin's (a) above seems to miss the point - this defines what we mean by "fact" here, - what we say in Misplaced Pages's voice with no qualification. A simple "what is the case" definition of "fact" would be unworkable - WP:TRUTH. We can't and don't leave aside the complexities that philosophers get into, because these complexities are the same ones that we are embroiled in in writing a neutral encyclopedia and neutrality policy. I can't understand some of Slim's (b). What we do at wikipedia is assert facts (as defined above), sometimes cite them, and when there is a disagreement, so no "fact", make factually accurate statements about the disagreement. Seems perfectly straightforward to me. What we don't do is assert (say in wikipedia's voice) opinions (disputed statements) about facts (what is the case), so it seems that part of (b), not the old policy passage, is completely upside down.

On a point tangentially mentioned above, not to be disagreeable, but WP:V has only been as rigid as it is now about inline citations for a relatively short time, since this edit. IMHO, the "Alternative conventions exist" footnote removed with little or no notice or discussion was an essential and wise policy, and I think it should be restored.

Last, I agree with Kotniski and PBS and disagree with Slrubenstein just above. There is a very clear, important and I believe well-understood distinction, precisely the one that the "assert facts . . " passage is making - the latter two sentences would be acceptable as is, the first not, as there is a serious dispute among reliable sources.John Z (talk) 08:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I still do not get it. In the first sentence, which PBS has a problem with, an attribution is given (the UN source) - so it is clearly attributed. Is the point semantic, that in addition to giving the source, it is a good idea to name, in the sentence, the ource? Well, actually, I agree with this! But I still do noo see how the "State facts" sentence helps. It is not just that I have seen people refer to that sentence with confusion, it is also that QuackGuru has been removing sources and citing "assert facts" as his justification - and while I think QuackGuru is wrong, I agree that that sentence does not really address this issue (if my understanding of John Z and Kotniski is correct). If you guys' interpretation of PBS's issue is correct, I do not think restoring that "Assert facts" is the solution. It just leads people to try to explain themselves with words like "subjective" and "objective," which get us nowhere because NPOV is otivated by the observation that people with widely divergent views often claim that their view is "objective."

I think the solution is a sentence that actually addresses this issue clearly. Something like "When verification is required, it is not enough to provide a citation for a claim. One must identify the source for the claim in the sentence." PBS, Kotniski, John Z - is this what youguys are arguing for? Then why not just say so, directly? I'll add this to the page. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:30, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "when verification is required". --Kotniski (talk) 20:58, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

That puzzled me, and I've commented below at #In text attribution. I'm in agreement that this paragraph should be left out until resolved, one way or the other. . . dave souza, talk 21:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I thought we all agreed that verification is required when material is controversial. So that is what it means. How would you word it? I am all open to some alternative. Above, Kotniski provided two examples, oboth with verification (the source provided) and one that named the author of the source and said that that sentence was better. I thought David Souza and JohnZ agreed. So that is what I put in - if verification is needed, naming the author of the source is also likely to be needed. If not this, then what did you mean? Slrubenstein | Talk 21:50, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

A citation needs to include author (so I guess that when you say author you mean an author in the text). I don't think that is usually true. For example someone might write "St. Pauls is 365 feet hight" someone else might ask for verification. One would not usually provide an author in the text for a fact such as this because it is not a controversial opinion.

In the example I have given, there would be no dispute over the source. The dispute is over the summary of the source. So verification can be put to one side. I still do not know from what has been written here what pithy sentence do we point POV warriors to if ASF is to go. Can someone please point me to it. If not I am going to reinstate ASF. -- PBS (talk) 22:31, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I object strongly to this "ASF." And so far, no one can explan to me what it means, that is not already in the policy. What point do you wish to make? Can you explain what you intend to say, that is not already in the policy? What do you man by "the dispute is over the summary of the source?" In Kotniski's example, the only difference was, in one sentence the name of the author of the source was in the sentence, in another version it was not. Is that what concerns you? If it is something else, I fear you have not yet explained it clearly enough to me. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:37, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The pithy sentence might be "Where a statement is controversial or subjective, use in-text attribution—"John Smith writes that"— rather than publishing the material in Misplaced Pages's voice." Perhaps it should be in a separate paragraph, with some attempt to explain what "controversial" and "subjective" mean (I don't think I've seen anyone do this successfully yet). The proposed "When verification is required..." doesn't seem to be a meaningful wording (or if it is, then it means something other than what it's supposed to say).--Kotniski (talk) 06:06, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

@Kotniski: the policy already states this. If you do not believe me, please ask User Talk:Crum375, who deleted my "pithy sentence" twice. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Slrubenstein lets break it down. Do you agree that this source: "A/RES/37/123(A-F) Adopted at the 108th UN General Assembly plenary meeting 16 December 1982 and the 112th plenary meeting, 20 December 1982." covers both sentences so we can put verification aside? -- PBS (talk) 07:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

@PBS Look, I asked you a question. I would really appreciate an answer. I would like to work in an AGF collaborative way but now you are just playing games. I am trying to understand what you want and have asked you to clarify. Your asking me a new question is hardly clarification. Are you implying that you do not wish to make things clear to me? Slrubenstein | Talk 09:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not quite following this, but the three core content policies have to be consistent, and the others don't award a special status to "facts" (quite the reverse). We only have material that we require reliable sources for in the form of an inline citation. When it's controversial or distinctive in some relevant way, we require in-text attribution. The NPOV policy says this, so all is well (I'm not hugely keen on "subjective," but perhaps we can talk about that).

Verifiability and No original research require that anything challenged or likely to be challenged, including all quotations, be attributed to a reliable source in the form of an inline citation that directly supports the material in question. Where a statement is controversial or subjective, use in-text attribution—"John Smith writes that"— rather than publishing the material in Misplaced Pages's voice. When attributing views to individuals, exercise care to ensure that the text does not give an impression of parity between a majority and minority view.

SlimVirgin 11:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

How about changing "subjective" to "represents only one view among others?" I think this is the real issue; when there are multiple views the proponent of each view ought to be named in the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:49, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

My preference would be that we don't get into it, because it's like the facts issue. All views on WP are subjective in some sense; all arguably represent just one view. My preference would be to leave it to editorial judgment and just say something like: "contentious or in some other way distinctive." SlimVirgin 11:54, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

How about this? "Where a statement is such that identifying the source is deemed beneficial—perhaps because the point is contentious, distinctive, or represents only one view among others—use in-text attribution such as "John Smith writes that," rather than publishing the material in Misplaced Pages's voice." SlimVirgin 11:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand what "distinctive" is supposed to mean. What's wrong with "subjective"? (Or simply "an opinion"?) This is what we mean, surely - it doesn't matter whether other views have been expressed (possibly all the sources that address the matter say that the Nazis were evil or that Boffsville is picturesque), but we don't make such a statement in Misplaced Pages's voice, just because of the type of statement it is. Isn't this correct?--Kotniski (talk) 16:09, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe in this case "distinctive" may be a way of saying fringe? I could take the word or leave it. But in reply to Kotniski, Slim Virgin answered your question in her 11:54 comment. The whole idea of "verifiability, not truth" is that all statements in Misplaced Pages must be "verifiable." I am not sure what you mean by "Misplaced Pages's voice." But if you mean "Misplaced Pages's voice" as opposed to say "the voice of ... philosopher Richard Rorty, or ... historian Eric Hobsbawm, or physicist ... Stephen Hawking, or ... chemist Linus Pauling, or ... sociologist C. Wright Mills, or ... Chief Justice John Roberts or ... Prime Minister Gordon Brown" — well, if this is what you mean, that there is some voice that cannot be attributed to anyone, well, that just violates our NPOV and V policies. "Verifiable" does not mean that we have to name whose voice it is, and in utterly uncontroversial cases we sometimes do not name whose voice it is. But "verificable" means "verifiable," it must be possible to attribut it to a person or group of people. This applies to any claim made in an article. "Misplaced Pages's voice?" "Misplaced Pages" itself does not claim anything. It provides accounts of what others claim or have claimed, that is what makes things "verifiable." Slrubenstein | Talk 16:25, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I think SV's above suggestion makes sense. "Subjective" is unacceptable, because it's effectively a pejorative, almost like saying that we think it's incorrect. "Distinctive", on the other hand, only means that it stands out, or is clearly different from the other views. In most cases, the need for in-text attribution boils down to editorial judgment, but SV's wording is a good starting point. Crum375 (talk) 16:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Are people deliberately missing the point here? "Misplaced Pages's voice" means we say something directly in an article ("Boffs is a good singer", as opposed to "Boffs is described by... as a good singer"). Can we do this? Yes or no? (Assuming that we have reliable sources saying he's a good singer and no sources saying he isn't.) If yes, then OK, I've totally misunderstood Misplaced Pages's fundamental policy all these years. But if not, then what is it about the adjective "good" that distinguishes it from, say, "English" (where we could happily just say it). A normal educated person might say it's because "good" is "subjective" or "an opinion", whereas English is more "objective" or "a fact". Can anyone say it in a way that will keep the epistemologists happy, while still being comprehensible to the poor people who are going to read this page?--Kotniski (talk) 17:22, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages's voice means we just plainly state the material, without in-text attribution, for example, "The Solar System has eight planets." If it's contentious, we need in-text attribution, "According to IAU, Pluto is not a planet." Or if it's common knowledge among a generic group, we can say, "Scientists believe that the Earth was formed 4.6 Billion years ago." If it's a qualitative evaluation of something, which is by definition contentious, we'd say, "According to NYT film reviewer Jennifer Smith, Squiggles was the worst film of the 1990's." All these formats depend on editorial discretion, but in general, the more contentious the material the more the need for in-text attribution. Crum375 (talk) 18:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Ignoring all the idealism, where all reliable sources agree, I think we should state this in Misplaced Pages's voice. An article which only states who says what all the time will be completely unreadable. Since I joined a few years ago, I've notices the inline citations breaking up the flow of the text, and making the source code almost incomprehensible where they are densly packed. If we now have to bring information from the cites into the text, we'll break the articles. My other encyclopaedias don't have this. Not every reader will be paranoid about sourcing - they just want to know what the subject is about, and to be pointed which direction to research further where they require it. Stephen B Streater (talk) 17:46, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Kotniski, I think the thing here is that it is really only a small subset of information that requires this type of accreditation. Yes, it is that which has a level of subjectiveness, but it is also information that is correctly ascribed only to one author. It is I would say quite necessary to attribute David Irvine's views directly to himself at all times, but the majority view should not correctly be ascribed to one person, even if one selects only one reference to source it. In science topics, conflicting theories can be described without being directly attributed "Tonks thinks....". It is possible to say "the prevailing theory" "another well respected theory" etc etc, with the attribution being in the reference, not directly in the article.Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Well what the page currently says (in the sentence that effectively replaces the old ASF) is "controversial or subjective" (i.e. controversial or subjective statements need to be attributed in the text). Can anyone do any better than this "controversial or subjective"? (Given that the question of what's controversial or subjective is itself controversial and subjective.) PS "subjective" has just been changed to "qualitative".--Kotniski (talk) 18:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

What about this? "Where a statement is controversial or otherwise not universally accepted, use in-text attribution—"John Smith writes that"— rather than publishing the material in Misplaced Pages's voice." Crum375 (talk) 18:18, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

No, I reverted that - that's quite wrong (just because the fact of the Holocaust isn't universally accepted doesn't mean we can't ever say simply that it happened. And a subjective comment might be undisputed in any source we have, but we still wouldn't say it direct.) There must be something like sibjective or qualitative there which is independent of the assertion of any kind of disagreement or controversy.--Kotniski (talk) 18:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I combined both: "Where a statement is controversial, qualitative or otherwise not universally accepted, use in-text attribution—"John Smith writes that"— rather than publishing the material in Misplaced Pages's voice." Crum375 (talk) 18:25, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

That's still wrong, but just for one of the two reasons this time (the Holocaust one). Anyway, time for me to take a short break from this.--Kotniski (talk) 18:27, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I softened "universal" to "broadly accepted" to cover the gas chambers. Crum375 (talk) 18:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

All statements are either qualitative or quantitative - and this policy applies to quantitative claims as much as qualitative ones. I do not think qualitative is necessary and I think it muddies the waters again. I removed it - I really think we have the "pithy" statement that was asked for. I really hope we can move on now. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not keen on using scientific example in this discussion, because compared to national/political issues they are minor disputes. Very few scientists will kill each other over an idea, but there are opinions expressed in articles about national issues that would get a person killed if they were to express them in certain parts of the world. We have to have wording in this policy that allows us to control the bias that originates from entrenched national opinions. I think the sentence "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves." is extremely useful in that context. AFAICT to date in this conversation no one has suggested an alternative.

@PBS: There is no need or the word "opinion" - it merely disrupts any normal conversation, because one man's opinion is another man's fact. So let's stick with WP policy - there are only views. You are saying that there is a view that is particularly controversial. You want to exclude it from the article. That violates NPOV. All significant views from reliable sources must be included in an article, Phil. You cannot censor an article just because a view is controversial. What does matter is that our NPOV and V policies require than any view must be verifiable, and if it is controversial it is usually necessary to provide the reference and also to name the person or persons whose views it is. This is clearly stated in the current policy, as currently worded. I see no other issues. If you can show me an issue that I have not covered in my explanation of policy to you, please do try to explain it. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

SV you wrote "I'm not quite following this, but the three core content policies have to be consistent, and the others don't award a special status to "facts" (quite the reverse)." As we are looking at the content of one of the three content polices I do not see what you are suggesting here. This is about articles having a neutral point of view, and this issue is about how to present information in a neutral way, given that the other boxes are ticked (that there is a source, and the information is not OR or more specifically SYN).

Slrubenstein you have not answered my question if you think that the citation I gave covers both sentences, allowing us to put aside the validation question. If we can agree that then we can address the neutral wording issue, but first we have to agree that the citation I have given does cover both sentences. -- PBS (talk) 23:16, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

@PBS non-sequitor. If the source covers both sentences, then it is the validation. This does not "put aside the validation question," it answers the validation question. What is your question? Slrubenstein | Talk 00:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't quite follow your point, Philip. We don't assert facts; we deal only in verifiability. That means we just repeat whatever the most appropriate sources are saying. Those are the only facts we publish: that A said X. SlimVirgin 00:05, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Random break

Kotniski seems to have the issue backwards here. The point is not that "we can't ever say simply that it happened." The point is that everything must be verifiable. that means that if someone ever asks for verification, they have a right to. If the editor who wrote the sentence - even if it just says "The Holocaust happened" is still around, that editor has to provide verification. This does not have to be "inline citation" (Harvard style), it can be a footnote with a source. If the editor who wrote it is gone, and no one else can provide verification, the editor can just leave a tag asking for a citation. or there can be a discussion on the talk page. Editors may agree that the statement is so widely known and uncontroversial that attribution is unnecessary. But to understand Misplaced Pages policy, you have to understand the difference between attribution is possible and attribution is necessary. All statements must conform with the first phrase; editors can decide that a particular statement does not call for the second phrase.

There has been a lot of talk. Let me try to focus on the point. PBS raised the matter of "opinionated" claims, feeling that Slim Virgin's edits did not cover thse kinds of claims. Kotniski then asked "What was the pithy sentence that you would have pointed them to before?" My point is that PBS is wrong to use the word "opinionated;" the issue is not whether a claim is opinionated or not - many times, un-opinionated statements need verifiation/attribution. The question is whether the claim is controversial or not. And the "pith" sentence Kotniski is looking for is in fact in the version edited by Slim Virgin, in the third paragraph of the section, "Explaining the neutral point of view." Now we are just talking about whether we can tweak that sentence to make it clearer.

Does this make sense? Slrubenstein | Talk 18:53, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I can't see a problem, except that we're not clear on how to word the sentence about in-text attribution (just a point about inline citation btw: it can mean a footnote or Harvard ref). The truth is that when to use in-text attribution (John Smith argues that) boils down to editorial judgment, so we should be aiming for some non-restrictive advice. SlimVirgin 19:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Jayjg 20:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

It is presentation that is the issue here. If is not a fact that the Sabra and Shatila massacre was a genocide, it is an opinion, but it is a fact that the UN general assembly passed a resolution stating it was a genocide. This comes down to the use of the passive narrative/editorial voice of the article asserting something, for which there is a dispute.

The reason we do not attribute every sentence in the text of articles is because articles would be turgid. However in most cases, it is important to attribute opinions to the source of the opinion and if it is controversial to name the source in the text so that it does not appear that Misplaced Pages is endorsing the opinion.

It is OK to say in the passive neutral voice of an article that "During World War II the millions of Jew died in a genocide instigated by the German government", in an inverse of "undue weight" no one seriously questions it. But "In 1982 the Israelis allowed genocide to be committed in Lebanon (UN citation given)" is not neutral because there are a lot of sources that question the UN resolution, making it clear that in the option of questioners it was a political move designed to embarrass Israel and her supporters/allies. If we use the passive neutral voice of an article to endorse a view we are taking a political position, however if we rephrase it as "In 1982 the United Nations General Assembly condemned the Sabra and Shatila massacre and declared it to be an act of genocide. (UN citation given)" the we are not giving an opinion on the issue we are presenting a fact. I am not wedded to any particular wording as to how we address this issue but it needs to be summed up in one concise sentence at the start of a section and have a link directly to the start of a section as was done with ASF. How about "Do not assert opinions in the passive narrative voice of the article."? -- PBS (talk) 01:31, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

There are no "facts", "opinions", "truths", or any other special classes of information on Misplaced Pages, only bits of material, or views, which must be attributable to a reliable source. One man's "fact" is another's "opinion", all these terms are meaningless for us. All we care about is that reliable source X wrote Y. If it's challenged or likely to be challenged, we include an inline citation. If it's contentious, we present it using in-text attribution. But the bottom line is that we don't try to classify our material beyond the established terms of "likely to be challenged", "challenged", or contentious/controversial. I don't see any situation not covered by the existing text of the policy. Crum375 (talk) 01:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Which sentence(s) in this policy covers the difference between "In 1982 the Israelis allowed genocide to be committed in Lebanon (UN citation given)" and "In 1982 the United Nations General Assembly condemned the Sabra and Shatila massacre and declared it to be an act of genocide. (UN citation given)"? -- PBS (talk) 02:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

First, the editors determine whether the characterization as "genocide" is controversial. Once that's determined by consensus and study of sources, according to the current policy, in-text attribution is needed ("Where a statement is controversial or otherwise not broadly accepted, use in-text attribution".) Therefore, the highest quality source to hold that view is found (e.g. the UN), and the second sentence will be used. The first one, which has no in-text attribution, will fall by the wayside once determination of contentiousness is made, which should be easy when a hot-button word like "genocide" is used. Crum375 (talk) 03:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

That sentence is fine by me, (which is all I have been asking for). But it probably needs moving to a more prominent position or highlighting in some way. -- PBS (talk) 07:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

We seem to have got mixed up in a tangle of words here - you won't let us say directly that opinions need in-text attribution, you just want to force the one word "contentious" or "controversial" in and then expect people to know that all opinions are regarded as contentious or controversial. Well if that's the case, and given that people won't necessarily make that deduction spontaneously, why not just take a couple of extra words to spell out that opinions require in-text attribution. I suggest that discussion continue in the thread below, about reinstating ASF.--Kotniski (talk) 06:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I would agree that it needs expanding and explaining but that could be done in guidelines, if people do not want in on the policy page -- I don't care providing the big stick is available somewhere in the policy (To paraphrase "the art of consensus is to say nice doggy while feeling around for a big stick"). -- PBS (talk) 07:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I think I understand the concern now. I think saying "represents a particular point of view" or "a specific point of view" is clear and unambiguous, pithy, and gets right at the heart of NPOV - I think this wording covers the gap you and some others seem to be concerned with. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Parity of presentation

The previous wording did make it clear that we should not present a supermajority view as though a tiny minority view was equal to it. The move to remove the Holocaust as an example removes that clarification, and Darwin versus Keith's mum presents an inaccurate and ambiguous caricature of positions rather than anything realistic. I've substituted something more topical:

Articles should contain balanced coverage of all majority and significant-minority views, but make sure they roughly reflect the relative levels of support among reliable sources for the position in question. Appropriate weight must be given to each view, so that it is clear what status the majority and significant-minority views have among reliable sources. If the topic has attracted fringe or tiny-minority views, these may be too insignificant for detailed coverage in main articles on the subject. Consider writing about those views in articles devoted to them, as long as there are reliable secondary sources to support inclusion, and the majority expert view is shown as such in these articles. It would give a false impression of parity to state that "according to Gavin Schmidt science demonstrates global warming, but Jim Inhofe says it is a hoax", assigning both the clear majority view and a tiny minority view to a single advocate of each view.

This also reorders things to make it clear that we're talking about a tiny minority view among experts. If we want an example of a mainstream versus a significant minority view, examples could be found but the contrast would be less clear. . . dave souza, talk 19:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Good in principal, but not ideal yet: people not involved in the details of the GW debate will not understand who these people are, and so will miss the point (unless they got it anyway). Stephen B Streater (talk) 19:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Dave, (1) Parity is from the FRINGE guideline and we can't give it the status of policy; (2) the example is unclear; most people won't get it; (3) it is wordy. It would be good to keep the policy really tight, and make every word count. I deliberately chose an extreme example so that everyone would get it without having to stop and think. Global warming is a bad example to use at the moment, with the recent controversy. SlimVirgin 20:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

SV, that was restoring something already in the policy, so this represents a significant weakening of policy as well as misrepresenting Darwin's argument. It also has the problem that Darwin's views aren't equivalent to modern evolutionary theory, and it risks presenting the stereotype that his views are holy writ. Go for a flat earth example if you want an extreme caricature.

Even more significant, undue weight had been rewritten as a charter for minority viewpoint articles presenting an in-universe view on the basis of lack of mainstream sources on the specific minority view. That's already a serious problem despite the current policy, which I've restored in part. Brevity is nice, but dramitic shifts in policy and the effects of policy are not good. . . dave souza, talk 20:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Dave, I am not sure I get your point. Currently, the policy states this: "Neutral point of view requires that articles fairly represent all majority and significant-minority positions that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each. In determining appropriate weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence within reliable published sources, not among Wikipedians or the general public." which I think really says it all. Above, Elin suggests that we have a separate page for various examples. That strikes me as a very constructive idea, it would serve the function that many auxiliary pages (like FAQs) serve - provide illuminating information for people who need examples, without cluttering up the policy with examples that would require a lot of verbiage to explain the application of the policy in that context clearly, or, if presented concisely, would be meaningless to most Wikipedians. We have tried that in the past and the result is whenever anyone gets into an edit war they add their own example to the policy and it gets more and more overwrought and muddled. Elin's suggestions seems eminently practical. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Good idea, better no example than a bad example, so removed it. . . dave souza, talk 21:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Dave, I didn't catch your point here: "... undue weight had been rewritten as a charter for minority viewpoint articles presenting an in-universe view on the basis of lack of mainstream sources on the specific minority view." Can you rephrase? SlimVirgin 21:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

My edit restored earlier wording in place of "In articles about a minority viewpoint, the majority view should also be explained, so long as the distinction is discussed by reliable sources, so that the reader understands how the minority view differs from it." That now removed wording would invite a situation where a fringe viewpoint is promoted by a newspaper, but not discussed in reliable sources giving the views of any experts on the mainstream view, and so an in-universe article is written showing only the minority view. This happens. . . dave souza, talk 21:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I also want to say this is a bit troublesome undergoing such a major revision of this core content policy in such a short period of time--that long bit about "facts" had seemed to be stable for quite some time. Sure hope there are enough eyes on it among experienced WP users. ... Kenosis (talk) 22:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Fully agree, even at a cursory inspection significant parts of the policy were considerably changed or weakened, and as discussed below the rewording was not always as clear as the original. Detailed review is needed. . . dave souza, talk 22:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

That trimming in itself is reasonable and in line with the recent approach. However, by ending the paragraph with a requirement that all controversial views be attributed inline, for example to "John Smith writes that", it suggests attribution to individuals even where that's inappropriate. The old formulation was wordy, but did cover the point:

"In attributing competing views, it is necessary to ensure that the attribution adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity. For example, to state that "according to Simon Wiesenthal, the Holocaust was a program of extermination of the Jewish people in Germany, but David Irving disputes this analysis" would be to give apparent parity between the supermajority view and a tiny minority view by assigning each to a single activist in the field.

It is not sufficient to discuss an opinion as fact merely by stating "some people believe...", a practice referred to as "mass attribution". A reliable source supporting a statement that a group holds an opinion must accurately describe how large this group is. Moreover, there are usually disagreements about how opinions should be properly stated. To fairly represent all the leading views in a dispute it is sometimes necessary to qualify the description of an opinion, or to present several formulations of this opinion and attribute them to specific groups."

Accepting for the moment SV's reluctance to include the piped link to WP:PARITY, I've summarised the most significant aspect in this context as "When attributing competing views, ensure that the attribution adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity between a majority view and a small minority view by assigning each to a single individual." It's less nuanced, but at least avoids the obvious pitfall. . . dave souza, talk 05:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The prior sentence that I removed here was inappropriate, overly specific for such a short summary of the policy, and linked to a style guideline . This edit by Dave Souza is reasonable and expresses the accepted principle well. ... Kenosis (talk) 11:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

If the topic has attracted fringe or tiny-minority views, consider writing about those views in articles devoted to them, so long as there are reliable secondary sources to support inclusion.

This has been the advice and practice for years, K, following Jimbo. SlimVirgin 15:00, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure, WEIGHT has been the advice and practice; encouraging POV forks for fringe views has not. Where's it archived that Jimbo advocated this? ... Kenosis (talk) 15:26, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

If the topic has attracted fringe or tiny-minority views, these need not be mentioned in main articles on the topic, but provided they are described by reliable third party sources independent of those supporting the views, articles devoted to these views can be based on such independent sources. Such articles are to also show the majority view, giving it due weight, and describe how the minority view has been received by those holding the majority view.

Think that covers the basics. . . dave souza, talk 16:36, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Fringe views in an article are traditionally forbidden. But a separate article is actually not a POV fork, because it is not intended to provide an article on the object of the view (e.g. why are there different forms of life on earth). it is to provide an article on that particular, fringe, view. This may seem pretty subtle but it is an important distinction. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:07, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, in general. Part of the problem I have is with over-representing WP:FRINGE in such a compact version of WP:NPOV, when it's already explained in WP:WEIGHT a bit farther down on the page. The "simple formulation" section now titled "Explaining the neutral point of view" (intended mainly for previously unfamiliar users and for reference to help guide users through the basic principles to be used in dealing with POV content disputes) should be tight and to the point, leaving the peripheral points to be explained elsewhere. That's what the radical truncation of this project page from 33kB to about 19dB was about in the first place, right? Anyway, Dave souza's sentence seems reasonable and adequately to the point regarding WP:FRINGE. And so long as the sentence doesn't imply to unfamiliar users that they should just go ahead and create an article for every fringe view (WP:AfDs tend to be increasingly lax these days, stretching the idea of WP:Notability farther and farther with time), I suppose it's reasonable in that section. ... Kenosis (talk) 21:03, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

By the way, as far as wording goes, would "multiple attribution" be better than "mass attribution?" There should be a simple way to convey that what is expected are multiple distinct sources, and not weasel words. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:07, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Other suggestions

I've read through the text, fixing all the obvious mistakes and other changes which don't change the meaning. Here are my additional suggestions for approval/rejection:

• It requires that all majority and significant-minority views as found in reliable sources be presented in a disinterested tone, and in rough proportion to their prevalence within the source material.
  • Most people think disinterested means uninterested. Should we link this word or otherwise guide these people?
  • Prevalence in the sources sounds like weighing the amount of paper used to print it. It is the content which should be weighed, and more reliable sources should carry more weight. Also, a story repeated in a hundred tabloids probably is based on a single source, so quality is important when applying the balance criterion.

• Neutral point of view requires that articles fairly represent all majority and significant-minority positions
  • This text appears many times. This indicates there is still a large element of repetition in the text.

• In determining appropriate weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence within reliable published sources, not among Wikipedians or the general public.
  • Is the quality of the sources also important?

• Undue weight can occur in several ways, including depth of detail, length of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements. The same principle applies to images, wikilinks, external links, and categories.
  • We could also include formatting such as bold/italics, spacing, ordering of information.

• All material added to an article must be attributable, which means that a reliable published source must exist for it—otherwise it is original research.
  • Is it worth mentioning that it might be false too? It might just be a typo or a misunderstanding.

• The views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except in articles devoted to them, as long as reliable secondary sources exist that describe those views.
  • I think this looks like it is saying views of tiny majorities should not be included as long as reliable sources exist.
  • I think it is supposed to say:
  • The views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except in articles devoted to them, unless reliable secondary sources exist that describe those views.

The current wording doesn't make sense to me. Stephen B Streater (talk) 21:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't mean that last example you gave. It said before: "The views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except in articles devoted to them, and only then if reliable secondary sources exist that describe those views." SlimVirgin 21:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

So it means they cannot be included at all if reliable secondary sources exist? That's very odd. They can only be included if there are no secondary sources? Or does it mean that the articles about them can only exist if secondary sources exist? But that clarification was reverted. Stephen B Streater (talk) 21:33, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

OK - I see that what I wrote isn't what I meant. I still think the current version is wrong because the negative and positive words don't match up in the right way. Stephen B Streater (talk) 21:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

See this comment. Stephen B Streater (talk) 21:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm - perhaps I'll get some sleep and then come back tomorrow. Stephen B Streater (talk) 21:39, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your various comments. Stephen B Streater (talk) 21:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

It's getting better. My problem is that the way I read it the condition "and only if" applies to the verb, which is in the first bit, not the bit in commas. You can not do x, (), only if y. I would prefer it to say You can not do x, except in case y, and only then if z. Stephen B Streater (talk) 21:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The earlier wording was clearer, so I've adapted that. I've also reintroduced WP:GEVAL which clarifies a specific aspect. . . dave souza, talk 22:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I understand that now. Stephen B Streater (talk) 05:03, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:SOURCES all articles have to based on reliable third party sources, which I've linked in a separate sentence to make the issue clearer, and Crum375 has also tightened the paragraph a bit. . . dave souza, talk 21:57, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Last point: It mention "resume", which I suppose means "resumé". Is there an alternative example, as this is American English which may not be familiar to other English speakers? Stephen B Streater (talk) 05:03, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

That's in a footnote, any objections to adding the accent? . . dave souza, talk 20:57, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I recall from years ago when I started employing US staff that a résumé in the US has a different standard form to a CV in the UK. So a comparison to a résumé may not be easily understood by people in the UK. As I can't remember what all the differences were, I couldn't comment on whether this is in fact a problem, but I think, if no one knows better, we shouldn't assume this will be understood correctly by UK readers. Stephen B Streater (talk) 16:57, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

In text attribution

This paragraph adds "When verification is required, it is not enough to provide a citation for a claim. One must identify the source for the claim in the sentence that introduces the claim." As far as I can see, an inline citation link is generally sufficient, and meets WP:V. The reference in the guideline WP:CITE#CHALLENGED is more specific,

The need for citations is especially important when writing about opinions held on a particular issue. Avoid weasel words where possible, such as, "Some people say ..." Instead, make your writing verifiable: find a specific person or group who holds that opinion and give a citation to a reputable publication in which they express that opinion. Remember that Misplaced Pages is not a place for expressing your own opinions or for original research. Opinions, data and statistics, and statements based on someone's scientific work should be cited and attributed to their authors in the text.

Only the last sentence specifically requires attribution in the text. MOS:QUOTE requires in text attribution where necessary, but not when it's clear who's being quoted from the context. Is there another requirement? Don't forget the possible tension between this and the requirement that we do not give a false impression of parity between a majority view and a small minority view by assigning each to a single individual. Should the paragraph be made more specific? . dave souza, talk 20:57, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The paragraph you quote is a mess, trying to say lots of things at once. I don't agree that "data and statistics" necessarily need in-text attributions, nor do statements based on someone's scientific work. Not always, anyway. In fact it's hard to lay down general musts and must-nots in this area. The more contentious something is, the more likely it is that in-text attribs are appropriate. Where contentiousness might result from disagreement between reliable sources, the imperfect reliability of the sources, and/or the subjective nature of the statement itself. (Or something else I haven't thought of.) --Kotniski (talk) 21:10, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with what Kotniski is saying. Moreover, based on discussion above, it looked like Kotniski, Dave, and Joshua agreed that this has been expressed in the NPOV policy before Slim Virgin's edits. My adding the following:

When verification is required, it is not enough to provide a citation for a claim. One must identify the source for the claim in the sentence that introduces the claim.

as a way of putting the principle back in. We already say that the more controversial the claim, the more it is necessary to require attribution, so I think this follows logically. If Crum has a problem with this, I wish he'd explain why here on the talk page - and give Kotniski, David and Joshua an opportunity to respond. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:46, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Undue

I'm concerned about some of the editing of this section, which strikes me as contradicting the policy. I've removed some repetition, but also this:

"The majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader may understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding parts of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained."

This is almost encouraging WP:SYN violations. To make up an example, if we create an article based on some newspaper reports that drinking lavender tea has helped some cancer patients, the sentence above says we have to have even more material in the article about what some doctors might think is the standard treatment. That would be classic SYN. SlimVirgin 21:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm also moving this here:

"In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more widely held views ..."

I've never heard of this principle before. It would surely depend on the context, the sources, and the willingness of editors to add material. Note this isn't about tiny-minority views, but about significant-minority ones. Having this in the policy strikes me as a way to exclude material about minority positions, which this policy is actually here to defend. SlimVirgin 22:01, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

In regard to the second point, I think the spirit of the wording is to prevent the minority points of view from overwhelming the majority point of view. Also, I don't think it is always clear cut when a point is a tiny-minority point of view and a minority point of view.

We need to guard against adding loads of easily available content from sources with a minority point of view just because they are more easily available than the works from scholarly sources that present the majority point of view. A recent article published about the quality of Misplaced Pages FAs raised the point that Misplaced Pages articles choice of sources for articles could skew the content in ways that captures the topic differently than most works of reference do. I think that this wording is attempting to prevent that from happening. Maybe we could make it clearer. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 22:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

There's a significant problem of in-universe fringe articles on topics with little attention from mainstream sources – our articles should show that these are tiny minority views and how they differ from the mainstream view. If no sources can be found, then there's a lack of appropriate third party references and it's questionable if they're notable enough for coverage. Syn isn't encouraged, balance is encouraged. I've restored a trimmed version of the wording to weight, but once again there's a danger of changing policy in cutting the words. The summary in the Explaining the neutral point of view section aimed to cover that – it's misleading to cut that back as was done by SV and thus suggest that fringe in-universe articles are ok if sources can be found, so I've removed that altogether. The detail belongs in the Weight section. . . dave souza, talk 23:44, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I think the intention is honourable, so let me make that clear, but I also think it's causing problems. The UNDUE section was largely developed over the years by editors who were keen to keep pseudoscience out of our articles, which I mostly support, but I also think it went too far, and the way the policy was worded allowed that.

It also makes no sense at a practical level to insist that articles always point out what the majority view might be, and that they give the minority view less space. When writing about Otherkin must we make clear the majority view that human beings are not, in fact, fairies or werewolves? When writing about animal rights do we have to make clear whatever the majority view is (and where would we find it)? Someone did try to do that once by adding an opinion from the American Cattlemen's Association to the lead! If we're not allowed to give minority views as much or as detailed a description, must we add 8,001 words from the cattlemen and similar to balance the 8,000 words about animal rights? Looking at a page I'm currently editing, Christ myth theory (the small-minority view that Jesus did not exist at all), must I add thousands of words explaining the majority view of biblical scholars that yes, of course, he did exist?

My worry about this section of NPOV is that it was developed by a small group of editors for a very specific purpose, and that it doesn't reflect how the policy is applied and understood most of the time. SlimVirgin 23:54, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I removed this verbiage because I believe this would violate NPOV and possibly NOR. Imagine we have a small religious sect, and we are writing an article about their beliefs. Do we need to explain that even though they believe man came from frogs, the majority doesn't accept that view? And as we try to juxtapose their beliefs with the majority, unless it is sourced directly to a reliable source, we would probably violate NOR and SYN. When we write about a minority, we focus on the minority, using the available reliable sources. If there are good secondary sources directly comparing the minority to the majority, they should be included, but we can't mandate this information unless we have the sources which make the direct comparisons for us. Crum375 (talk) 00:16, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Context is key. While the article about said minority probably should focus on it, NPOV also demands that the information isn't presented out of context: if something is a minority, then it needs to be clearly stated to be so, at a minimum by pointing back to the majority view, otherwise we're making it look as though that view has more prominence that it really has. — Coren  06:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The longstanding wording covered that point by noting that a brief mention of the majority view will often suffice, as in the case of the flat earth. I've therefore restored that wording. If all the available "reliable sources" referring specifically to a new "cult of flat earth" are part of that cult of flat earth, a very strict reading of SYN makes it difficult to show the mainstream view, but it is still needed to avoid misrepresenting the status and prominence of flat earthism to readers of that article about a tiny minority viewpoint. This is a serious problem, even with the longstanding policy, and the answer is not to remove the requirement to show the majority view in sufficient detail. . . dave souza, talk 07:11, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

In some cases, we would be running into WP:FRINGE territory here, and FRINGE has plenty to say. My own opinion is that if a NEW religion pops up, particularly a new Western religion, I would follow the line that it must also contain the majority view (so MHO the article on Wicca should pooint out that although some Wiccans believe their religion goes back to the days of the prehistoric matriarchs, there's actually very good evidence that it started in the 1930s). For old religions which are still going today, it is enough to say that "the traditional belief that the earth is carried on the back of a giant turtle is still taught" - because there's usually also info such as "alongside modern classes in geography and biology". Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:18, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I added a caution about potential NOR violation when comparing the minorities to others, to address the issue I raised above. Crum375 (talk) 10:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Worthy and correct on a strict NOR interpretation, but elevating NOR above neutrality. "Comparison of the minority views with others should be based on reliable secondary sources which directly make that comparison, to avoid introducing original research."

The essence of Weight is that majority views be shown as such, and extreme minority views need not be shown at all. The exception allowed to this is that extreme minority views can be shown in articles devoted to them which show that they are minority views in relation to the majority view. If all the reliable secondary sources promote or present the fringe view without stating or fairly describing the majority view, the article is automatically unbalanced. Sources might be readily available showing the majority view, but can't be used on this extreme reading of SYN. To take an example, the Daily Telegraph informed us that an electronic device called the Quantum QXCI can scan humans for vitamins, minerals, food intolerances, toxicity, organ function, hormone balance, parasites, digestive disorders and stress levels. Taking that as a reliable source, as is commonly argued, could justify an article on that fringe idea, and the mainstream view of such quackery would have to await a more reputable analysis, if it ever came. There are more serious examples actually occurring. For all its wordiness, the longstanding wording of this and other related sections at least set a higher barrier against such imbalance, and a complete restoration of that wording would be less destructive than this changing of core policy on the hoof without wider consultation. . . dave souza, talk 18:46, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

An article can only be created once it passes WP:N and its various sub-specialties. If it seems WP:FRINGEy, it will likely end up on AfD, where notability will have to be clearly shown, based on non-trivial mentions in reliable secondary sources, etc. Let's assume the article is on a small religious sect, which believes that the Moon is our god and creator. Assuming there are good secondary sources describing this religion, but none comparing it to other religions or criticizing its beliefs, do we then add, on our own initiative, verbiage and sources showing that the Moon was created 4.5 billion years ago, and it's made of essentially same stuff as Earth, and that according to most people's beliefs, god is not an orbiting rock? Who is going to write this? Would this really "preserve NPOV"? We should certainly clarify that this is a small sect, and include anything else relevant we can find in the secondary sources describing it. But to conjure together sources which do not address the article subject directly, in order to trash a minority, would clearly violate NPOV and NOR. Crum375 (talk) 02:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

This is where it is appropriate to gather as many sources as possible. "New Age" books are usually only reviewed in "New Age" periodicals, so I can see it happening that an author, book or school of thought is notable but the sources are all 'in universe'. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm very disturbed by the recent cuts made to policy described in WP:UNDUE. I feel very strongly that such long standing policy should not be arbitrarily cut without a widespread referendum on the issue. Misplaced Pages must present first and foremost the mainstream scientific view. The recent cuts have made it that much harder to fight minority POV pushers. If anyone wants to change the policy, please hold a RfD on this issue first. LK (talk) 08:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Slrubenstein reverted my edit on style grounds, and asked for a better explanation of my edits. I will reinstate with a shortened, and hopefully stylistically better version, and also explain what I'm doing.

1. First, this sentence was a recent introduction, it significantly restricts the use of majority literature in minority articles, and afaik, was introduced without discussion. I have removed it.
2. Second, we need to spell-out that more weight should be given to majority views, except in articles about minority views. Although it is a logical consequence of the previous paragraph, people will argue about it. Also, the sentence about 'tiny minorities' doesn't stand very well by itself. I have changed it in this edit.

LK (talk) 10:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

@ Crum who has just reverted me. I am reverting to wording from an old consensus version that was long standing, and was only changed last week. If consensus is needed for my one sentence reversion, I would rather suggest that consensus is needed for the wholesale cuts that have happened in the last week. I would like to propose a reversion to the version from before the wholesale cuts, and a AfD on this issue before going forward. LK (talk) 12:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Secondary sources

Dave, you keep removing reliable secondary sources and replacing it with independent third party sources. What distinction are you drawing there? SlimVirgin 00:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The context is whether an article should exist at all, and WP:V says "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Misplaced Pages should not have an article on it. .... Articles should be based on reliable, third-party (independent), published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy; this avoids plagiarism, copyright violations, and unverifiable claims being added to articles." . . dave souza, talk 07:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Third-party and independent are used to mean the same thing there, and both refer to secondary sources, per NOR. One day we'll be able to streamline the policies with one term about sources, but people resist it, so we're left with lots of different ways of saying the same thing. SlimVirgin 10:16, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

V and NOR are both important, although V is the older policy. Why not write "independent third-party (i.e. secondary) sources." Yeah, it adds one more word. Byt linking to two other policies strengthens the point, that these three policies fit together. Two links also provides two slightly different explanations for the same thing, so if one explanation is not clear to the reader, the other one may be clearer. You know, different people read things differently - I think having both links will make it crystal clear. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine, though unfortunate because third party and independent mean the same thing, so we're effectively saying "third-party (by which we mean independent, by which we mean secondary) sources". :) SlimVirgin 10:27, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, done. Thanks for the suggestion. SlimVirgin 10:34, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I like the edit, but of course the independent sources may be tertiary sources (as already linked to under independent). What I don't think is finished yet is that we don't seem to mention anywhere that Misplaced Pages should not be used a source - and we should. Stephen B Streater (talk) 20:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

That's mentioned in WP:PSTS. Crum375 (talk) 20:29, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I think the old text could mislead a new editor, so I've clarified it in the text: Stephen B Streater (talk) 20:30, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Also in WP:CIRCULAR. Crum375 (talk) 20:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

We say it at WP:V... do we need to say it here as well? I realize that there is a lot of overlap between the two polices, but not using Misplaced Pages as a source strikes me as being one of the areas where they don't overlap... I don't see it as having anything to do with the concept of maintaining a Neutral point of view. Blueboar (talk) 20:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes - I didn't add the WIkipedia bit in directly as I don't think this is required here; but referring only to sources in the text has a different meaning to the Misplaced Pages jargon reliable sources. Expecting people to follow every link is unreasonable, as to understand those fully means following their links... and by the time you've followed all the links everywhere, the content will have been changed anyway. Important things should be pretty much self-contained on the relevant pages. Stephen B Streater (talk) 20:45, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Verifiability vs Verifiability

Ha! They look the same, but are different. I am happy to change all the links to Verifiability to Verifiability so new readers of this section are encouraged to investigate and discover the difference between a policy page and an English word. For consistency, I'd also change No original research to be italics. If no objections in 24 hours, I'll do them. Stephen B Streater (talk) 21:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. Although I understand the motivation, I think this will introduce confusion and lack of consistency. We have a large body of policies and guidelines, many of which are inter-linked. To pick just a couple and make them appear different would make the rest inconsistent, and readers would start wondering what the differences mean. This is a clear case of all-or-none, IMO, and in this case none makes much more sense. Crum375 (talk) 21:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it is necessary to italicize the word... the key is that we link to the policy page and not the article. Blueboar (talk) 21:19, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The policy opens with a nod to our NOR and V policies. And we make it clear that we do not mean "neutral" in all colloquial senses of the word, so I think people understand that policy defines its terms specifically and that when discussing the meaning of our verifiability policy, one must go to the policy page and not a dictionary or encyclopedia article on "verifiability." I think computer programers also take words that have common meanings and then regularly use them in very specific ways. When my computer has a virus, I don't pour tea into the tower! Slrubenstein | Talk 22:22, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

It occurred to me that most of the people discussing here are extremely knowledgeable and experienced. With only 6k edits, and four years as an editor, I'm probably one of the least experienced here. But the article should be aimed at the new editors too. They may come here straight from the 5 pillars link on their welcome message. I haven't seen much thought directed specifically as to how a new editor would read the page. The problem editors I come across tend not to have issues involving the detail we are discussing, important though that is. It's more that some editors (particularly new and SPA ones) seem unaware of this policy - or at least how it relates to them. To encourage people to read it is one reason that I have been suggesting a significant effort to make the article more concise - which Slim Virgin's and others' efforts have gone a long way to achieve. But I'm suspicious of having dozens of interconnected links between long articles. This was my reason for this post. A concise version, which Kotninski had already started, does not justify verbosity and complexity here. Sometimes more is less. Stephen B Streater (talk) 23:11, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd be opposed to that, Stephen, because the way we use terms can be quite distinctive, and it's the policies we're referring to when we add links, not ordinary English usage. SlimVirgin 02:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree. The way Misplaced Pages uses verifiability and notability are quite specific to the organisation. In the real world, something can also be verified by test ("its salty"), which would be rejected as original research.Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

RfC on merging Words to avoid into Words to watch

• Misplaced Pages talk:Words to watch#RFC. There's a proposal to merge several pages as part of a project to streamline the MoS. One part of the proposal is to merge Words to avoid, Avoid peacock terms, Avoid weasel words, and Avoid neologisms into a new page, Words to watch (W2W). Fresh input would be appreciated at the RfC. SlimVirgin 00:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to reinstate ASF

Facts and opinions

• WP:ASF

Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." For example, that a survey produced a certain published result would be a fact. That there is a planet called Mars is a fact. That Plato was a philosopher is a fact. No one seriously disputes any of these things, so we assert as many of them as possible. An objective observation expresses a fact. A subjective interpretation expresses an opinion. A fact can be asserted without simon-says inline-text phrasing. An opinion can be attributed to so-and-so said.

By value or opinion, on the other hand, we mean "a matter which is subject to dispute." There are many propositions that very clearly express values or opinions. That stealing is wrong is a value or opinion. That The Beatles were the greatest band in history is an opinion. That the United States is the only country in the world that has used a nuclear weapon during wartime is a fact. That the United States was right or wrong to drop the atomic bomb over Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a value or opinion. However, there are bound to be borderline cases (see Undue weight) where it is not clear if a particular dispute should be taken seriously and included.

When we discuss an opinion, we attribute the opinion to someone and discuss the fact that they have this opinion. For instance, rather than asserting that "The Beatles were the greatest band ever", locate a source such as Rolling Stone magazine and say: "Rolling Stone said that the Beatles were the greatest band ever", and include a reference to the issue in which that statement was made. Likewise, the statement "Most people from Liverpool believe that the Beatles were the greatest band ever" can be made if it can be supported by references to a particular survey; a claim such as "The Beatles had many songs that made the UK Singles Chart" can also be made, because it is verifiable as fact. The first statement asserts a personal opinion; the second asserts the fact that an opinion exists and attributes it to reliable sources.

In attributing competing views, it is necessary to ensure that the attribution adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity. For example, to state that "according to Simon Wiesenthal, the Holocaust was a program of extermination of the Jewish people in Germany, but David Irving disputes this analysis" would be to give apparent parity between the supermajority view and a tiny minority view by assigning each to a single activist in the field.

It is not sufficient to discuss an opinion as fact merely by stating "some people believe...", a practice referred to as "mass attribution". A reliable source supporting a statement that a group holds an opinion must accurately describe how large this group is. Moreover, there are usually disagreements about how opinions should be properly stated. To fairly represent all the leading views in a dispute it is sometimes necessary to qualify the description of an opinion, or to present several formulations of this opinion and attribute them to specific groups.

A careful selection of reliable sources is also critical for producing articles with a neutral point of view. When discussing the facts on which a point of view is based, it is important to also include the facts on which competing opinions are based since this helps a reader evaluate the credibility of the competing viewpoints. This should be done without implying that any one of the opinions is correct. It is also important to make it clear who holds these opinions. It is often best to cite a prominent representative of the view.

• Unnecessary in-text attribution (so-and-so says) is a violation of WP:ASF when no serious dispute exists among reliable sources if it is a fact. WP:ASF does not require in-text attribution for information where there is no serious dispute. Requiring in-text attribution for widespread consensus of reliable sources on the grounds that it is "opinion" would allow a contrarian reader to insist on in-text attribution for material about which there is no serious dispute, using the argument that the material is an "opinion". This would mean, in the end, that all material in Misplaced Pages would require in-text attribution, even if only one Misplaced Pages editor insisted on it, which is not the intent of WP:ASF or of WP:CONSENSUS. When an editor has a concern with in-text attribution this proposal will help an editor who does not understand for a fact in-text attribution is not required. When there is a serious dispute such as among reliable sources or the text is very controversial it is considered an opinion. When it is an opinion in-text attribution may be required. QuackGuru (talk) 02:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose reinserting it. It's wordy, difficult to follow for that reason, and parts of it are wrong e.g. "By 'fact' we mean a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." That's not what the word "fact" means. It's also not consistent with the other policies, or with editing practice. What we do is supply reliable sources for anything challenged or likely to be challenged, whether it's a fact, argument, opinion, or whatever else. SlimVirgin 02:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

  Comment As we have been discussing above as far as I can tell the issue has nothing to do with "reliable sources for anything challenged or likely to be challenged" (which is covered in WP:V). It is how we present the verified text eg the difference between "In 1982 the Israelis allowed genocide to be committed in Lebanon (UN citation given)" and "In 1982 the United Nations General Assembly condemned the Sabra and Shatila massacre and declared it to be an act of genocide. (UN citation given)". While I am not wedded to ASF I do think that something similar must exist in this "Neutral point of view" policy, otherwise we open the lid to a box containing all sorts of problems that this section has kept closed -- PBS (talk) 02:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

  Philip, I think saying "represents a particular point of view" or "a specific point of view" is clear and unambiguous, pithy, and gets right at the heart of NPOV - I think this wording covers the gap you and some others seem to be concerned with. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support reinserting it. It is not too wordy. It is a clearer, detailed version. This concise proposal gives the editor something to follow. For example, "By 'fact' we mean a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." This is a concise explanation of what a fact means to Misplaced Pages in this proposal. When is it a fact it can be asserted as a fact. "A fact can be asserted without simon-says inline-text phrasing." The issue with ASF is not about reliable sources. It is about after you find a reliable source how to present the facts (non-controversial text) or opinions (controversial text). With or without in-text attribution (so-and-so says). We should explain to editors how to write articles. Or NPOV is a blind page without a ASF guidance. I don't see anywhere on this or any other policy page a clear explanation covering this. QuackGuru (talk) 02:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose reinserting. The current verbiage is clear and concise. The proposed wording is unintelligible (to me) and conflicts with other policies. The existing section on explaining neutrality says that all we need to do is to make sure the material is properly sourced, present it neutrally, weighted by its prevalence, and if it's controversial we require in-text attribution. I don't see what else is needed. Crum375 (talk) 02:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

  Comment There is no current verbiage for ASF (facts and opinions) when it was deleted (without establishing consensus first). So how could it be clear and concise when it is no longer a section explaining facts and opinions. The proposed wording was not shown how it conflicts with other policies. Please show and not assert your view. When it was not shown it conflicts with other policies it is an opinion. If editors agreed it was shown to conflict with other policies it would be a fact. We need a concise explanation when it's an opinion (controversial) we require in-text attribution and if it a fact (non-controversial) we may not require in-text attribution (so-and-so said). Saying just in-text attribution could be misinterperated. Editors may think it means inline citations for text that is challenged or likely to be challenged. QuackGuru (talk) 07:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• View not summarizable in one boldface word, something like this (but not the whole wordy text - a couple of sentences will do) clearly needs to be put back, since attempts to say it differently have failed. People are claiming there's no difference between the way we should treat objective (though possibly disputed) facts and subjective (though not necessarily disputed) opinions, which is just wrong - or would require community consent for such a major change in the way we write Misplaced Pages. BUT if the insertion I've just made (that statements of opinion rather than fact require in-text attribution) is left alone - and I believe it should be, people shouldn't take advantage of the rationalization of this page to sneak through major changes in policy - then there is no need for any restoration of ASF.--Kotniski (talk) 06:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

  Comment Kotniski, the reason editors are claiming there's no difference between the way we should treat facts (objective) and opinions (subjective) is because they prefer WP:IAR. QuackGuru (talk) 07:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

  Kotniski, I think saying "represents a particular point of view" or "a specific point of view" is clear and unambiguous, pithy, and gets right at the heart of NPOV - I think this wording covers the gap you and some others seem to be concerned with. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose: Here is my take on this original version - I'm not saying it is perfect, and it predates all this analysis, but it is much shorter and easier to read. The original version was very wordy and repetitive. Stephen B Streater (talk) 06:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

  Comment What was repetitive or are you pulling my leg. QuackGuru (talk) 07:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

  If you look at the last paragraph, you see that my version is 1/4 shorter. I've removed sentiments like: you must do this to ensure NPOV - the whole article is about NPOV, so we don't need to say this all the time. Also things like It is important to - this section is a summary, so only important things are here anyway. (And why are we mentioning unimportant things?) There are also many implicit ideas which do not need to be made explicit: ensure attribution adequately reflects becomes, in my proposed version, ensure attribution reflects since no one would expect it to be interpreted as ensure attribution inadequately reflects. I think this illustrates my point, but there are dozens of these redundant words in the original section. Stephen B Streater (talk) 07:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support What is necessary is the first two sentences, especially the definition of "fact". This is supposed to be a simple formulation, and for many or most people, including me, it is very simple and crystal clear. One could throw out most of the rest of the policy as superfluous, with little detriment, if one understands these sentences. There is a definite difference between sentences in wikipedia articles. Some are bald statements written in wikipedia's voice, implicitly saying (Misplaced Pages sez). Then there are ones with in-text attribution, (Professor X says). It is useful to have a word for statements of the first type, and it is natural to use the English word "fact." People have different philosophies, so for some this rubs them very much the wrong way. So call it "wikifact". Is there really anything unclear if one just uses "wikifact" for "fact" in these sentences? I oppose using the words "objective" and "subjective" as they are too slippery and can make things too complicated. Of course one can find problems, but one can find problems with anything, this is supposed to be a simple basic instruction, and I think it has served this purpose admirably well. I have to say though that the current WP:ASF is pretty good, and says exactly the same thing, mainly in the sentence "Where a statement is controversial or otherwise not broadly accepted, or is a statement of opinion rather than fact, use in-text attribution—"John Smith writes that"— rather than publishing the material in Misplaced Pages's voice." Perhaps giving the old formulation in a footnote as an alternative would be a possibility.John Z (talk) 08:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose As QuackGuru's formulation says, "No one seriously disputes any of these things," well, this is what makes them uncontroversial which is why this stuff is unnecessary because the NPOV policy as written already covers this. Moreover, QuackGuru shows his hand when she writes, "Unnecessary in-text attribution (so-and-so says) is a violation of WP:ASF when no serious dispute exists among reliable sources" QuackGuru has twice been banned from the Chiropractic article for edit warring. In one case she has been accused of removing attributed material, claiming that facts do not need attribution. So all we have here is, an editor (who is it seems a POV-pushing SPA) taking an edit war at an article to the policy page, trying to spin policy to support her edit war. This is ... in poor taste. The bottom line is that all claims must be verifiable, this is straight WP:V policy. QuackGurus edit conflicts simply reveal that one woman's facts are another woman's opinions, so this language is unhelpful. "Controversial" at Misplaced Pages cannot mean that all reliable sources agree - that is like saying "if it is easy to verify something, you are not allowed to verify it." Huh? If it is easy to verify something, just add the citations when asked? What matters is not that there is no serious dispute among sources 9that makes it easy to attribute); what matters is that there is controversy on the aticle talk page (and the claim needs to be attributed). Everything I am saying is clear in our NPOV and V policies. QuackGuru is trying to impose a self-serving but confused and dangerous spin. We certainly do not need this sentence added to the policy. The policy as stands clearly and consistently explains NPOV just fine. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Please don't start personalizing this - most of us have not the slightest interest in what some editor may be doing somewhere else. All we're concerned with is expressing the fundamental and long-established principle that Misplaced Pages articles don't contain direct statements of opinion. The wording you have now replaced it with is "represents a particular point of view". Why do you find "point of view" better than "opinion"? I may be wrong, but it seems you have some private quarrel with QuackGuru and just want to move as far as possible from whatever that editor wants, which isn't how policy should be written. --Kotniski (talk) 10:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Now you are being personal ;-) And me - oops. I think background is useful, but of course it doesn't invalidate the opinions. Not knowing someone has a POV is not the same as knowing they don't, so I think we should treat all suggestions with scepticism and on their own merits. As it happens, I didn't find my discussion with QuackGuru a few weeks ago very productive, but did at least manage to have a conversation and am again above. Generally, I agree with both you and Slrubenstein, but obviously not on this particular point of disagreement between you. Stephen B Streater (talk) 10:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I do not have any personal quarrel with QuackGuru (for all I know, I may even share his views about chiropracty). But I do know that edit conflicts at an article should be resolved at the article and not carried over here. that is my only point. To answer Kotniski's second question, I prefer "point of view" over "opinion" because the word "view" is what "Neutral Point of View" is all about- I want to use language that is consistent within the policy. I think we should be showing the usefulness of words in the title of the policy, rather than introduce new words which might have other uses or meanings. "Point of view" is what this policy is all about and it seems very reasonable to say that if a statement introduced in an article reflects or expresses someone's point of view, the article should say whose view that is. This seems like the simplest and most straightforward response to PBS's concerns. That is why I like it. I don't mind Kotniski asking me these questions, I hope I have answered them adequately. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Slrubenstein there: use the terms which match the policy names. Adding extra words which may or may not have identical meanings is unnecessary complexity. As Einstein put it: The purpose of science is to simplify as far as possible. But no further. I think some more can be squeezed out still. Stephen B Streater (talk) 13:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Has no-one noticed - QuackGuru's insistence is not because of anything to do with controversial information. QuackGuru believes it is a "violation of ASF" to add a citation to information which is common knowledge, and this is why he wants it retained. I believe his action is based on a dispute he is having in another place, but regardless, it is unhelpful to advance this argument in this way. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

  Yes - I don't think anyone else agrees with QuackGuru on this point. Stephen B Streater (talk) 12:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

  Comment Elen of the Roads, stop putting words in my mouth. As I previously explained ASF is not about a citation. So that makes Elen of the Roads argument irrelevant. This proposal has nothing to do with a citation or V policy. Editors are unable to provided a direct response to my comments because they have ran out of excuses. ASF has always been a part of NPOV. Editors don't like ASF because they want to break apart NPOV in order to make it meaningless. The editors who allege ASF conflicts with other policies or claim it is already covered in-depth are really saying they love to WP:IAR. Editors who oppose ASF should reconsider there purpose here and try to respect core parts of Misplaced Pages policy. If editors want to shorten the proposal then at least try to compromise. Again, ASF is not about attributing to a reliable source. It is about after you find a reliable source how to present the text. Is it a fact or opinion. Should a sentence be presented with or without in-text attribution (so-and-so says). QuackGuru (talk) 17:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

  So are you saying it is about attribution in the text after it has been decided to add references? Stephen B Streater (talk) 17:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

  I would decide if the text is a fact (objective) or an opinion (subjective) through talk page consensus. "A fact can be asserted without simon-says inline-text phrasing. An opinion can be attributed to so-and-so said." QuackGuru (talk) 18:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Quack, consensus can't determine whether something is a 'fact' (define fact) or not, all it can determine is whether material is uncontroversial or whether there is more than one view. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

This is actually one of the sentences of the proposed policy I have a problem with. An opinion MUST BE attributed. The current wording implies that attribution of opinions is optional. 24.57.77.99 (talk) 01:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Talk page consensus can determine if something is a fact (non-controversial) or is an opinion (controversial). Please respect WP:CON and WP:TALK. QuackGuru (talk) 18:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Non-controversial =/= fact. All it means is that all the people currently contributing to the talk page agree with it. WP:CON does not anywhere refer to the ability of consensus to determine facts. And I fail entirely to see the relevance of WP:TALK Elen of the Roads (talk)18:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose: I was only at oppose, per SlimVirgin, until I read that QuackGuru had slipped in "Unnecessary in-text attribution (so-and-so says) is a violation of WP:ASF when no serious dispute exists among reliable sources". This is a concern that I had previously raised above, on this talk page. QuackGuru is trying to change WP:ASF to her interpretation. ASF has never previously included a statement like this, because previously one wouldn't "violate" ASF by including unnecessary attribution. Opinions must be attributed, but that doesn't mean that facts CAN'T/SHOULDN'T be attributed. Also, it changes the definition of fact. If I have a source that states that "New York is the prettiest city in the world", and no one can find a source that disputes this, according to this version, it wouldn't need attribution. It is a serious flaw. 24.57.77.99 (talk) 01:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Question

Quack, I've noticed a few editors say you've been using ASF to keep citations or in-text attribution out of articles, or to argue that they're not needed for facts, or certain kinds of facts. I haven't followed the background to this, so could Quack or someone explain that angle, please? It would be good to see an example of how ASF was applied. SlimVirgin 17:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

When there is a serious dispute in-text attribution (The 2008 book Trick or Treatment states) may be required.

In-Text attribution such as this edit was a violation of ASF when no serious dispute exists. The editor eventualy removed the in-text attribution because it was a violation of ASF. From time to time there are editors who disagree with what a researcher says from a highly reliable source or does not understand ASF policy but wants to include in-text attribution in violation of ASF.

The problems are not always easily fixed. Sometimes discussions can go on for weeks. See Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for mediation/Vaccine controversy. For the sake of argument if I am actually correct there are reasons ASF will be useful because there are content disputes that take a lot of effort to remove the attribution or explain to other editors it is not the intention of ASF to have detailed attribution when there is no dispute among researchers. According to ASF (the longing standing version for many years) there is a difference between a fact that can be asserted versus an opinion that may require in-text attribution.

Where do we point the POV warriors to when they want to continue to re-add attribution and eliminate ASF policy. Do we need ASF or clueless editors can add in-text attribution whenever they want. QuackGuru (talk) 18:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Quack, if someone wants to cite a source for something that appears obvious, it's not a violation of anything. In the Race and Intelligence dispute, although there is a majority and a minority position, there are precious few facts. Where a majority source contradicts a minority source, it is perfectly acceptable to attribute the majority source. Where multiple sources say the same thing, it is incorrect to attribute to only one source, but that's nothing to do with this mythical view you have of ASF, it's part of the core NPOV policy. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

As previously explained, this is not about someone who wants to cite a source. See WP:IDHT. QuackGuru (talk) 18:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I think Quack wants to weaken or eliminate the need for in-text attribution. But per NPOV, in-text attribution is needed for controversial or contentious material, to present some particular or distinct view, or anything else which is not broadly accepted, and this has been our policy and practice for a long time. Crum375 (talk) 18:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

In fact, if the information were non-controversial, this debate would not be taking place. Quack seems to want to be allowed to define what is "The Truth" Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Crum375, I want to preserve when in-text attribution may be required for controversial or contentious material. When there is a serious dispute in-text attribution (The 2008 book Trick or Treatment states) may be required. I previously explained in-text attribution may be required. According to Crum375, ASF is essentially an essay and proposed the removal of ASF. I don't see a current ASF section and ASF is not covered in the rest of the NPOV page or elsewhere. I believe the removing of this section did not improve NPOV and will increase many needless arguments. Elen of the Roads, I want to define when text can be attributed to so-and-so says and when it can be asserted without simon-says phrasing. QuackGuru (talk) 19:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

As an editor, I would like to know where to find references for anything which I, a layman, do not know. There is a difference between "Mars is a planet" and "Mars has a mass of 6.4185x10kg. I would want to know where this information came from, even though it is not disputed by experts in the field. In practice, I want to be able easily to check that a vandal has not altered the figure. Stephen B Streater (talk) 19:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

As previously explained, ASF is not about verifying a claim. QuackGuru (talk) 19:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Quack, there's no need for a rigid policy on when to NOT use in-text attribution. If someone is using in text attribution to make it appear that a majority view is a minority one, then point them to Neutral point of view requires that articles fairly represent all majority and significant-minority positions that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each. If 50 sources support view X, in text attributing to just one fails the above. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad you made that quote, as it is one which I take issue with. Does the each refer to the view or the publication? Isn't the language ambiguous? Stephen B Streater (talk) 19:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Good point. As previous incarnations were clear that it was the view, not the source, I have added a word to remove the ambiguity. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, good catch and good fix. Crum375 (talk) 19:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your appreciation. I like that edit too. But I have one further question here. If I have 10 tabloid newspapers read by millions vs a couple of peer reviewed scientific journals, which would you say was more prominent? And is prominence exactly what we are looking for? Are we after an element of accuracy in NPOV? Stephen B Streater (talk) 19:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

This is where WP:RS comes in, as RS does make it clear that peer reviewed tops tabloid. In this case, one could correctly say that 'it is popularly held that wet feet makes one susceptible to the common cold (cite the Sun and the Mirror), but research over a number of years by Sniff (cite), Snizzle (cite) and Koff (cite) has not supported this view.'Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes - Dave souza has changed the wording to explicitly reflect the different weight of the sources in assessing the prominence of the views, which is what I was after in this policy. Stephen B Streater (talk) 21:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Suitable

Good edit. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with this edit. We can't say in advance what counts as a reliable source in any given instance. The policy is quite clear that expert and non-expert sources are welcomed, so long as they're high-quality; to focus on one type of source is often the same as focusing on one POV. "Suitable" anyway doesn't tell us anything. SlimVirgin 21:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I've removed "suitable." One example of the problem: supporters of a cult figure tried some years ago to have academic sources prioritized over non-academic ones, and there was an effort to change the sourcing policy to reflect that. The reason: it was newspapers that had exposed much of this cult figure's activities, so there was an effort to downgrade them as sources. High-quality newspapers are often the main source of material that counters the claims of experts, and it's therefore very important that we preserve their status as reliable sources of equal quality. SlimVirgin 21:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

So, do you disagree with "The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments; as a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources where available, such as in history, medicine, and science, but material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, and mainstream newspapers. Electronic media may also be used, subject to the same criteria."? Not all sources are equal, and in broad terms we look to expert views published in the best sources. High quality newspapers have a record of publishing scientifically illiterate rubbish in many cases, which is why peer reviewed publications in respected journals are given more weight. Do you prefer to promote fringe views publicised by newspapers? . . dave souza, talk 22:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I prefer Dave souza's version. At some point, for NPOV, we have to decide which sources should carry which weight. I would like this to be explained here, not in a blue link, as it is so fundamental to NPOV. And the current version doesn't clearly allow a grading of the weight of the sources, which is de facto part of the process of editing. Stephen B Streater (talk) 22:05, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Dave, I'd appreciate if you wouldn't just quote other policies, because I know what they say. It's the relevance you need to explain. You can't try to push through a change here to the sourcing policy.

Stephen, what counts as "appropriate" has to be left to editors' discretion. To try to define it in advance as "expert" is POV pushing. When writing about animal rights, should only experts be allowed as sources? And what would count: only academics specializing in animal rights? A point would come where no criticism would be allowed into the article, because all the sources would more or less agree with each other.

We had a situation last year where apparently The New York Times was being kept out of a global warming article because the reporter wasn't deemed an expert. It's exactly that kind of situation the content polices are here to protect us against. SlimVirgin 22:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I ever mentioned expert. Dave's edit said suitable, which could easily cover a well read newspaper journalist writing in a reliable source. Stephen B Streater (talk) 22:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Dave said suitable, which Slim changed to (or back to) reliable. Dave's point was around choosing among sources that are already agreed as reliable. No-one mentioned expert. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

And the other point, which I don't think Slim Virgin has addressed fully yet, is the question of how we let editors know that they don't have to give all reliable sources equal weight. I like Slim Virgin's points about appropriate weight above, but unfortunately the current version says essentially that all reliable sources must be given equal weight if they give equal prominence to a notion. Stephen B Streater (talk) 22:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

If it doesn't mean expert, what does it mean? There's no point in adding words that could mean anything and therefore nothing. SlimVirgin 22:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

What it means is to leave it up to the discretion of the editors. The current version not only doesn't allow discretion, but forces a oft-repeated inaccuracy to take precedence, even when a few later sources demonstrate the inaccuracy. Stephen B Streater (talk) 22:30, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not insisting on any particular word, but just the concept that NPOV may require unequal weight for reliable sources. Stephen B Streater (talk) 22:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Which part of the policy says that, Stephen? SlimVirgin 22:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Slim, you're the one doing the most to change this policy, I'm content to revert back to its longstanding state. On this specific point, WP:V requires us to evaluate sources – this policy requires us to give sources weight on the basis of evaluation, not on the basis of number of tabloid sources or whatever. The policy should make that clear. Expert opinion is important, if editors feel that newspapers have better experts than scientific journals then they have to make that case. If you've a better word than "suitable", do please add it. The point remains that not all reliable sources are equal, and we shouldn't imply that they are. . . . dave souza, talk 22:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

This isn't a change to policy; it's an attempt to make it readable. As for V, it doesn't mention tabloids, as you know. This is what is regarded as a reliable source on WP. There was a prior attempt to remove mainstream newspapers, which would have been disastrous for NPOV, and it was also connected to an effort to prioritize academic sources. That has been rejected time and again by the community, for very good reason.

Think of it outside the science context. What you want to write into the policy would have effects in other areas that I guarantee you would not like. I'm dealing with one at the moment where a group of editors were trying to insist that only biblical scholars be used as sources of whether Jesus existed (and of course they say he did). To prioritize experts is to prioritize certain points of view over other views that may come from equally responsible people. This policy is here to guard against that, not to facilitate it. SlimVirgin 22:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

No one is proposing giving experts blanket priority. But if editors decide experts are more accurate in a particular case, they should be able to give them more weight. Or less weight if they decide that. Stephen B Streater (talk) 22:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the term "reliable source" as defined by WP, already includes a preference for the best quality sources. So we need to get the most reliable of the reliable sources, by our own definitions. But the point is not to leave out small minorities, as long as they are not a tiny or fringe minority. Crum375 (talk) 22:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it says what you want it to say. It doesn't say "Give more weight to more reliable sources". And the choosing of reliable sources is in the blue link. I think that this is so important to NPOV that guidance over what is expected in weighing up sources should be mentioned explicitly. This will also prevent a corresponding major rewrite at SOURCES from having unforeseen knock on effects here. I haven't even got round to starting to check what we've accidentally changed in other policies which link back here. Stephen B Streater (talk) 23:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I added "quality" as an extra attribute, which we define in WP:SOURCES. What do people think? Crum375 (talk) 23:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I like it. Stephen B Streater (talk) 23:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

That could work. See what Slim thinks. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks good, dave souza, talk 23:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm fine with that. Thank you. SlimVirgin 23:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

There is another problem with "expert" in many articles there are more than one type of expert and not only do experts disagree between within their own discipline, there is often interdisciplinary differences and rivalries. For example who are the experts on the extermination of the Tasmanian Aborigines, is it genocide scholars who specialise in the study of genocide or historians who study the history of Australian and specifically Tasmanian history. In cases such as this the word "suitable" has an unclear and potentially biased meaning. -- PBS (talk) 00:58, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that this edit is quite appropriate, because it has done two things. The first is that it has changed the meaning of the second phrase from "not the viewpoint's prevalence among Wikipedians or the general public" to "the viewpoint's popularity among Wikipedians or the general public." prevalence and popularity is not the same thing. Something my be prevalent but bot popular. The second (and more important point) is that "quality" of the source is not really the issue the issue is "relevance". A source my be of the highest quality (by a well known expert, university publisher etc), but it only mentions something in passing, or the field of expertise is misleading. For example Leo Kuper was a well respected genocide scholar (cited in many genocide papers) who wrote a book called Genocide: Its Political Use in the Twentieth Century., New Haven: Yale University Press. This ticks all the boxes on quality, but "The author is a specialist in African studies, ..." "... and that declaration raises legal problems, in the handling of which Professor Kuper is insecure." (Telford Taylor, , NYT, March 28, 1982). This is because Kuper is not an expert on international law, and on that specific issue at that time TT was more expert, but he was writing in a forum that not of the same "quality" as Kuper, but his expert opinion was more "relevant" on issues of international law than Kuper's was. -- PBS (talk) 00:58, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

These are good points, particularly the second about relevance of a source. I've made a change to reflect this. Stephen B Streater (talk) 06:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

On the popular point, I have noticed a dichotomy between saying what to do and saying what we want to achieve. What we want to achieve is text which reflects what reliable sources say, not what Wikipedians think. Perhaps this popular section could be better phrased to say what we want to achieve rather than what we do - most simply done by adding it to the first sentence, which is about what we want to achieve, rather than the second which is about what we do. Something along the lines of:

• Neutral point of view requires that articles fairly represent all majority and significant-minority positions that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each position, rather than its prevalence among Wikipedians or the general public. In determining appropriate weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence within the reliable published sources, and the quality and relevance of these sources. Stephen B Streater (talk) 06:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

"Undue weight: we'd have to define "relevance" in wp:sources first" Crum375 neither "quality" or "relevant" appears in "WP:V#Reliable sources" but both appear in WP:SOURCES and in other places in WP:V and neither is explicitly defined. -- PBS (talk) 12:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Original flow of discussion

Also, if the mainstream sources broadly support some view, but there is one source which is particularly reliable, we can even combine both formats, e.g. "Since 2006, Pluto is no longer considered a planet. According to the IAU, Pluto is a dwarf planet, along with Eris and Ceres." Crum375 (talk) 19:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

What Elen of the Roads sugggested I point editors to does not explain to editors about ASF. There is no specific explanation of ASF (facts and opinions) in NPOV anymore. Elen of the Roads, you agree with Crum375 to remove ASF. QuackGuru (talk) 19:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

How about Where a statement is controversial or otherwise not broadly accepted, or expresses a particular point of view, use in-text attribution—"John Smith writes that"— rather than publishing the material in Misplaced Pages's voice. When attributing views to individuals, exercise care to ensure that the text does not give an impression of parity between a majority and minority view. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

That does not define facts and opinions according to long established ASF core guidelines. QuackGuru (talk) 19:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

What was your objection to in-text attribution in that case? I'm wondering how that got mixed up with the fact/value debate. SlimVirgin 19:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

SV, the other edit I linked to above made by Tim Vickers is a good edit, exactly the way we should be editing after it was explained on the talk page about ASF. The disagreement was with editors but not the reliable sources. You can check the archives for the specifics. When there is a serious dispute or it is an opinion, we also need to explain in a ASF section when in-text attribution is recommended. QuackGuru (talk) 19:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I just quoted you the section where it recommends using in-text attribution. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

QG, I've not been involved with you before on this issue, so I don't know what your position is. Could you explain your reasoning? I'm not quite following the points you've been making. SlimVirgin 20:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I think I understand Quack's problem. He is concerned, as Elen noted above, that some editors opposed to the mainstream view will use in-text attribution to minimize the mainstream position and make it appear less accepted. We actually discussed this issue higher up in the talk page, where we agreed that the existence of Holocaust gas chambers, because it is broadly accepted, should not be in-text attributed to a single source. The way we addressed that point is to make sure the policy says "or not broadly accepted." IOW, if something is broadly accepted, there is no general requirement to use in-text attribution for it, although we may still do so to reflect a particularly reliable view, as long as the majority position is clear (overwhelming in the gas chamber example). In general, using in-text attribution is up to editorial judgment and consensus, which is why we can't make the policy wording too specific. Crum375 (talk) 20:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

It is not quite that simple. Historians make their reputations on analysing historical events and drawing conclusions. When an historian writes a biography for the Dictionary National Biography or similar they will often present all the known information about a person from a the known sources and speculate about certain things which may or may not be true. At the end of the piece they may draw some conclusions about the person and express an opinion on the subject's character. Now one can simply copy the opinion strait into a Misplaced Pages article, but ASF suggested that those opinions were attributed in the text, and I think that is good practice and should be continued, unless a Misplaced Pages editor know that the view/opinion is not controversial and is broadly accepted as I agree that for well known and broadly accepted opinions there is a danger that incline attribution may be misleading: "...the fool on the hill see the sun going down ...". There are many occasions where it is better to attribute opinions to an historian even if they are not known to be controversial (apart from anything else it helps to avoid plagiarism, if the ideas behind the opinion are novel).

Perhaps "controversial or novel" would improve the text, or the text should be turned around and say: "Unless a point of view is broadly accepted, ...". Such wording would change the onus of proof from an editor having to prove it was controversial, to an editor who does not want to use in-text attribution to show it is broadly accepted, it alters the default from "don't use in-text attribution unless" to "do use in-text attribution unless" and as such is closer to the old wording of ASF. --PBS (talk) 23:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I share PBS's concern, but the wording specifies claims that reflect particular points of view needing attribution - I think this covers the cases Philip is referring to. I do not strongly object to the word "novel," but I would like to know what others think - I think it is unnecessary. And my problem with adding words like "novel" is the way people love to interpret these things - so someone will say "well, if we HAVE to provide attribution when it is novel, then that implies we do not have to provide attribution when it is not novel" and then someone will add more verbiage explaining cases when non-novel things will have to be covered and so on. I am not dismissing PBS's concerns, I just genuinely feel the current wording covers it. sizable proportion of policy - abuse here occurs when people spend their time gussing what the wording implies rather than just following the policy. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not wild about 'novel' either - it introduces a new and undefined word. 'Controversial' is OK, as we have said that controversy on the talk page is sufficient to show that a view requires attribution. I would change When attributing views to individuals, make sure the text does not imply parity between a majority and minority view. to when attributing views, attribute mainstream and majority views in such a way that it is clear that multiple sources support the view. Do not imply parity between a minority and a majority view."Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I like your wording! Maybe if no one ojects strongly in the next 24 hours you can make the change? Slrubenstein | Talk 20:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

"Novel" is used in WP:OR "avoid novel interpretations of primary sources". -- PBS (talk) 20:52, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Confused

The section above is mixing up so many different issues I'm confused as to who is making which point. Bottom line: V and NOR are the sourcing policies. Nothing can be said in NPOV that contradicts them, because the three policies work in harmony (as the lead of each one says) and are pretty well meaningless without each other.

The issue of what is a fact or an argument is a red herring. Anything challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, period. This is what we mean by "reliable source," and nothing should be written into this policy that changes that. If you want to change it, please go to Misplaced Pages talk:Verifiability. That leaves only the issue of in-text attribution, which is dealt with in this policy with this text:

Verifiability and No original research require that anything challenged or likely to be challenged, including all quotations, be attributed to a reliable source in the form of an inline citation that directly supports the material in question. Where a statement is controversial or otherwise not broadly accepted, or expresses a particular point of view, use in-text attribution—"John Smith writes that"— rather than publishing the material in Misplaced Pages's voice. When attributing views to individuals, make sure the text does not imply parity between a majority and minority view.

The above is a good summary of the policies. If anyone thinks it's problematic, could they offer a real example of the problem they believe it would cause? SlimVirgin 21:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Where it can get problematic is when there's a dispute about whether the material in question is the same as the title of the article. In an article on a book promoting homeopathy, when discussing its claims about homeopathy is the material in question homeopathy or the book itself? The three core policies should work in harmony. . . dave souza, talk 22:05, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The material is the book if the article is about the book. If the article is about homeopathy, the book is a source about the subject. In the article about the book, the main thrust should be how the book was received by homeopaths (this is following FRINGE principles). It is not necessary to go into the view of the mainstream, unless the mainstream also comments specifically on the book, but the article must link to the main article in which the subject of homeopathy is discussed from all aspects. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Thinking through this some more, in the case of homeopathy (or any other pseudoscience or science fringe) it would be easy to find a counter to the article that could be used without over loading the article ('...puts forward the view that homeopathy can cure AIDs; a view not supported by mainstream science, (cite - Linus Pasteur: 'Why homeopathy cannot cure AIDS', Nature 2010). According to FRINGE, it is enough to state that the mainstream regards this as fringe. It is not necessary ones'self to deconstruct the theory. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

<edit conflict> The problem is that unless the mainstream publishes comment on the fringe book in a reliable source, the article give undue weight to fringe views and could readily confuse readers into thinking that homeopathy has more widespread medical support than is the case. If a newspaper welcomes the book's recommendation of homeopathic treatment for malaria, as has happened, this could endanger our readers. As a hypothetical example discussed earlier, the Daily Telegraph as a well known respectable newspaper commonly cited as a reliable source gave details of an electronic device called the Quantum QXCI which, in the hands of a homeopath, scans humans for vitamins, minerals, food intolerances, toxicity, organ function, hormone balance, parasites, digestive disorders and stress levels. On that basis our article on the device would report that uncontested until the mainstream view of such quackery appeared in a more reputable analysis. . . dave souza, talk 22:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Your second thought looks better. A brief mention of mainstream views on the specific claim of the book should suffice, ideally they would appear in a critique of the book but provided they are specifically about a notable topic in the book discussed by a secondary source, some flexibility is reasonable. . . dave souza, talk 22:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Dave, you seem to be saying the Telegraph is a poor source because you didn't like their conclusion, and the Guardian a good source because you did like theirs. I'm concerned that you're entirely focused on your efforts to counter certain ideas, and that the policy is being held hostage to that. This policy has to cover all areas, not just the fight against homeopathy and similar. There shouldn't be a fight against it. We are here to report what the reliable world says about it, not only what anti-homeopathy "experts" think. SlimVirgin 22:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that majority medical opinion views such devices as quackery and our articles should be careful about presenting uncritical promotion of fringe or small minority views. Per Weight. . . dave souza, talk 22:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem with the newspapers is that they have different sections with different standards. The Telegraph undoubtedly did not promote this piece of quackery in its science coverage, probably in the 'Lifestyle' section. The Grauniad's 'Bad Science' column and New Scientist's Feedback page are both constantly taking the piss out of newspapers who basically print advertising as copy - and all of them, even the Grauniad, do it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:54, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Well said, like all sources thay have to be treated with caution. . . dave souza, talk 23:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

As do expert sources. All sources do. I can only ask again that any attempt to change how we handle reliable sources be discussed on Misplaced Pages talk:Verifiability. SlimVirgin 23:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I am happy to discuss it there as well. Whatever is agreed should be reflected here explicitly though, as given NOR, how we select sources is at the heart of NPOV. Stephen B Streater (talk) 06:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

-

Let's test it

Let's test the wordings against a few classics, see if it holds up.

• I'm writing an article about Doreen Valiente. Other than sources by New Age publishers, who all assume that not only does magic exist, but she can do it, the only source is a bio that doesn't mention actual magic anywhere. Someone writes the article, including sourced claims about the efficacy of Doreen's spells

• I'm writing an article about the small country of Freedonia. I am rejecting all sources written by citizens of the neighbouring country of Heredom, because they are 'all biased, since Freedonia always beats them at the national sport of chicken charming'

• I am writing an article about the Cult of Skaro, and insist that only the historic documents of the cult, and sources written by cult members contain accurate information. The views of later researchers into the cult, who are not believers, and indeed who may be hostile to the cult, should be excluded as they are not experts. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:PSTS, these are primary sources, and per WP:SOURCES."Articles should be based on reliable, third-party (independent), published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", these examples are all rather close to the topic and independent sources can reasonably be required – which is a good reason for the reference to these policies in the Weight section "so long as independent reliable sources are available". It's more of a problem in cases like articles in the Telegraph which may uncritically promote the Cult of Skaro, while having no obvious connection and generally being regarded as a reliable source as much as any other newspaper. If the article is about the Book of Skaro, and multiple reliable sources describe Skaro as a fringe cult without specifically mentioning the book itself, while the Telegraph and the primary sources give the book uncritical acclaim without mentioning the fringiness, what then? . . . dave souza, talk 11:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that works (first part). As to your second, the article must mention that the Book represents the sacred writings of the Cult of Skaro, an organisation regarded as fringe by the religious establishment (cite "Archbishop denounces CoS as 'a bunch of loonies': Church Times) (cite 'Nicht gefingerpoken' is Pope's response to Skaro claims':Vatican Press). The book received positive reviews in the Grauniad and Times Literary Supp. The rest of the article can discuss the content of the book, having established that the Cult itself is fringe - my opinion would be that it is not necessary (indeed not appropriate) for the article editor to deconstruct the content and provide a counter argument to it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Words to watch

Some words carry non-neutral implications. For example, the word claim can imply that a statement is incorrect, such as John claimed he had not eaten the pie. Try to present different views without using biased words: for example, John said he had not eaten the pie. Similarly, it is sometimes appropriate to make clear that, for example, Shakespeare is widely considered one of the greatest authors in the English language, but make sure this really is the view of multiple sources, and not only of Wikipedians.

See Misplaced Pages:Words to avoid#Claim

This wording is in my opinion deficient. There is nothing wrong with the word "claim" on its own. The problem arises when it is placed in juxtaposition with another type of statement. This has been thoroughly discussed on the talk pages of words to avoid.

For example suppose someone writes. "Smith claims that Johnson was at at home on the night in question while Jones claims that Johnson was in Leeds". or "The Conservatives claimed that the government was lying about unemployment figures, while a Labour spokesman claimed that the Conservatives were trying to mislead people in the run up the election." The problem comes when claimed is used with a more positive word: Smith stated that Johnson was at at home on the night in question while Jones claims that Johnson was in Leeds." and "The Conservatives stated that the government was lying about unemployment figures, while a Labour spokesman claimed that the Conservatives were trying to mislead people in the run up the election."

The second sentence is misleading because it is not clear. Surly it is not meant to mean mean do your own survey to determine that multiple sources consider "Shakespeare one of the greatest authors in the English language" because that is OR. What we mean is find one or preferably more sources that state that Shakespeare is widely considered one of the greatest authors in the English language.

-- PBS (talk) 13:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The use of "claimed" in place of "said," "argued" etc is almost always best avoided. SlimVirgin 15:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Perhaps there should be a list of charged words in one of the links at the bottom. Stephen B Streater (talk) 15:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Personaly I would not make words to be avoided policy. There should be a guideline with a list of such words, and we should have a link here. Editors on the talk page should try to reach consensus concerning the bon mot. But I think this is guideline not policy stuff. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think the idea is to alert newer editors that an innocent choice of words can have a subtle impact on neutrality, with a couple of examples, such as "X claims" or "Y denies." But the actual list, which in itself is not a "taboo list" but simply an "alert list", should be linked to as a style guideline. Crum375 (talk) 20:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree. mention there is a guideline on these issues, and leave the specifics out. "Claimed" is a pefectly good word to use, it depends on context. The appropriateness of "claimed", or anyother word, needs a level of explanation that does not belong in a policy. If there is a feeling that there really should be an example word I would suggest using "terrorist". What about the second sentence does it make sense to anyone and if so could they explain it to me? -- PBS (talk) 20:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I think "claimed" is actually a better example than "terrorist" (although the latter can be used too) because it is more subtle, and less likely to be obvious to a new (and sometimes experienced) editor. I think there is hardly any need for us to ever use "claimed", since other more neutral words can virtually always replace and improve it. I have yet to see an example where "claimed" must be used. Crum375 (talk) 00:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

You are asserting that "claimed" is not neutral, but I think it is, (perhaps it is a dialect issue). It is the context in which it is used. As is true for many other words including "said". "Delorian was accused by the FBI of dealing in drugs. He said he was innocent." does not have read the same as "Delorian was accused by the FBI of dealing but he was tried and found innocent". The trouble is that when an assertion is made and then there is a denial, it almost always reads that the assertion is more positive than the denial, particularly if the assertion is made in the passive neutral voice of the article. This is because in such a context the first statement frames the proposition and the second is a denial. For example "The FBI said Delorian was dealing drugs, but he said he was not" is not as well written "The FBI claimed Delorian was dealing drugs, but he denied it", and trying to say claimed is not to be used, particularly in a policy such as this is not helpful. -- PBS (talk) 20:47, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

It may not have gone to court, the point is that "said" can be just a biased as claimed. It depends on usage. As I said before -- the appropriateness of "claimed", or any other word, needs a level of explanation that does not belong in a policy. If there is a feeling that there really should be an example word I would suggest using terrorist -- But I would suggest leaving out all specific words and just mention in general that there is guidance on the appropriateness of some words and phrases and base the description on the section headings of the guideline.

Unless someone has something to say in defence second sentence about Shakespeare I will remove it. -- PBS (talk) 20:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Myth

Editors may wish to comment at WP:VPM#Add "myth" to WP:LABEL. --AuthorityTam (talk) 15:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Relevance and quality

We seem to be lacking a resolution on the issue of relevance and/or quality . Personally, I'm up for relevance and quality, for reasons we can discuss when we've resolved the relevance question. Crum375 was saying that we'd have to define relevance in WP:SOURCES first, so we could do that, then include relevance. Then talk about whether to include quality. Does this seem a productive course of action? Stephen B Streater (talk) 21:12, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

There has to be some room for editorial judgment, Stephen. Editors tend to interpret the policies very literally (especially when it suits them), so it's important when writing policy to tread lightly, and to use ambiguity deliberately, not by accident. The more words, the greater the danger. V already says of "relevance": "The appropriateness of any source depends on the context." I don't think we should go beyond this. SlimVirgin 21:19, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Before the copy edit, the policy didn't say anything about relevance or quality of sources. It said "How much weight is appropriate should reflect the weight that is given in current reliable sources." And "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Misplaced Pages editors or the general public." SlimVirgin 22:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

"neither 'quality' or 'relevant' appears in 'WP:V#Reliable sources' but both appear in WP:SOURCES and in other places in WP:V and neither is explicitly defined. -- PBS (talk) 12:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)" -- PBS (talk) 23:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there is any need to define them but given the example I gave above about Leo Kuper and Telford Taylor and international law, it is relevance not quality which better in the policy sentence under discussion. -- PBS (talk) 23:10, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:SOURCES is V, so I don't know what you mean by writing as though they're two pages, and "relevance" doesn't appear there, nor did it appear in NPOV before (or since) the copy edit. And "quality" didn't appear in NPOV or V either in the sense you're trying to use it now. So this is an entirely new thing you're trying to force in. SlimVirgin 23:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure why you say I am trying to force in quality. It was not I who introduced the sentence or the word (see this edit by Crum375) I am trying to replace quality with relevence for the reasons given with the example of Leo Kuper and Telford Taylor.

I made a distinction between WP:V and WP:SOURCES because SOURCES is specific to the section in WP:V called "Sources". A search on WP:V shows the use of the term:

• the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications
• English source of equal quality can be found that contains the relevant material.
• claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community
• footnote 2 When there is dispute about whether a piece of text is fully supported by a given source, direct quotes and other relevant details from the source should be provided to other editors as a courtesy.

So we use relevant in WP:V in the sense I an using it here. -PBS (talk) 23:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

But none of those are how you're using the word "relevance" here, as you surely know. SlimVirgin 00:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I was the one who introduced the word "quality", and it gained consensus on the talk page. My reason for it is that there are several "reliable source" attributes mentioned in WP:SOURCES which can make a source "count more" or be preferred to another, such as a seminal article in Nature vs. a local story for a scientific discovery. The point as I see it is that although neutrality involves presenting each view based on the "prevalence" or quantity of sources supporting it, we also want to emphasize and encourage the use of higher quality sources, for any of the individual views. Relevancy is just one aspect, but so are appropriateness and the number of vetting layers of the publisher. All these terms are quite vague, but "quality" is a bottom line which enhances mere "quantity". Crum375 (talk) 00:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Where did it gain a consensus? How does the use of the word "quality" address example of Leo Kuper and Telford Taylor? It will only work if you argue that TT is better quality source that "LK" which on issues of international law he clearly was, but quality in this case only works if one ignores the difference between a university published book and a a newspaper article. -- PBS (talk) 00:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the edit history of the sentence I would suggest going for the minimalist approach and strip it down to "In determining appropriate weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence within reliable published sources." and rely on a reading of WP:V for the details. -- PBS (talk) 00:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I can support that. Crum375 (talk) 00:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Me too. I thought "quality" had been added for Philip's benefit in the first place. SlimVirgin 00:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Although I didn't add the wording myself, we were aiming for some element of weighting of the sources themselves. Something may be simplified or "dumbed down" in many low grade reliable sources, but the precise meaning may appear in relatively few high grade reliable sources. I wouldn't want the prevalence in low grade sources to necessarily outweigh the high grade sources. Stephen B Streater (talk) 06:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind retaining the quality issue, but to add relevance would be problematic, because we have no idea what we'd mean by it. The point of the copy edit was to tighten NPOV and to make sure it's working in harmony with V and NOR, and not contradicting them. But we shouldn't be introducing new ideas over and above what's already in those policies. SlimVirgin 10:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Relevant, is no more of a new idea than introducing quality. SV I did not bother to answer you question before, as I thought we had put this issue to bed, but clearly the way that relevance is use in the V is the way I am using it here, therefor it is not a new concept. Before I give an example I want to make it clear that the discussion of sources is bound by the definition of reliable sources (so that we do not get detracted by arguments about the difference of reliable and unreliable sources). There can be two articles of the same quality (they could be published in the same journal and written by the same person) but if one only mentions an topic in passing while the other mentions it in detail, clearly the more detailed one is more relevant than the one that mentions it in passing. So the issue is not quality but relevance. Quality becomes misleading attribute when considered in the context of the Leo Kuper and Telford Taylor example I gave above. -- PBS (talk) 21:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

SYN

Lawrence, this isn't new. It's the NOR policy. NPOV, NOR, and V work in harmony with each other. SlimVirgin 10:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

It's new on this page. And its a new interpretation of Syn above and beyond what the syn page says.

IMO, the addition which I have just reverted is an egregious and mistaken extension of the WP:SYN policy. It can be interpreted to mean that in the article about the flat earth society, only sources that specifically address how the flat earth society's theory is wrong can be mentioned on the page. Since almost all geology textbooks don't mention the modern flat earth society's theories, this would exclude the mainstream views almost entirely. IMO, an RfC discussion is needed before it is reintroduced. LK (talk) 13:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

This was discussed at some length above. Let's say we have an article about a religious sect which happens to believe that the Moon contains a large core made of gold and diamonds, was created 5,000 years ago, and that it is our God and Creator, which created all life on Earth. Do we then let WP editors add the following? "But scientists believe that the Moon is largely made of the same substances as Earth, and was created 4.5 billions years ago, shortly after the Earth itself. Also, scientists believe life was created by evolution, originating from a primordial gene pool billions of years ago." Clearly this would violate NPOV, along with NOR. We may write all of this if we have a reliable source which makes these points in relation to this sect. That is a key issue of NPOV and NOR: we may only introduce sources written in direct relation to the topic in question, or else we'd be in clear violation of WP:SYN. Crum375 (talk) 13:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

According to policy as currently written at WP:SYN, in an article called the 'Moon Core Life Creation Theory', it would not be synthesis to contrast the mainstream view that the moon's core is rock, and that life evolved on Earth with the beliefs expressed on that page. It would not be synthesis, since those mainstream sources directly address the topic of the article, which is about what the moon's core is made of and how life started on Earth. In fact, as policy stood up until last week, such mentions would be required by WP:UNDUE to maintain balance. The changes to WP:UNDUE have reversed that policy, standing it on it's head, and now it forbids what was previously required. This is a major change, and should require at least an RfC before being implemented. LK (talk) 14:22, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Since I have been reverted again on this drastic change, I am going to call for an RfC on this issue. I guess it would be too much to ask that the addition be removed until this issue is settled? LK (talk) 14:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I've removed it since — at least as currently worded — it says the opposite of what the page is about. — Coren  15:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE and sources

In the section on undue weight (WP:UNDUE), there is a disagreement about what mainstream sources should be allowed in articles that describe a minority or fringe viewpoint (e.g. Cold fusion, Climate change denial). Specifically:

• Should the policy WP:UNDUE forbid citing majority viewpoint sources that address the same topic, but that do not explicitly address the minority viewpoint?
• Does citing mainstream articles about the same topic violate the policy on synthesis (WP:SYN) if those articles do not explicitly address the minority viewpoint?

LK (talk) 14:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• Of course not. Neutrality is about context, and depicting a fringe viewpoint unopposed violates that thoroughly; it's not synthesis to present the mainstream viewpoint to avoid ending up with a biased article. — Coren  14:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

  To make that clear, the proposed change would not only allow but in fact demand cherry picking of sources — this is not only unacceptable on principle but would pretty much guarantee that the more outlandish and ridiculous the claims, the fewer sources not in direct support can be used (since the mainstream is vanishingly unlikely to directly address claims as they become less credible). This is obviously the opposite of what neutrality requires. — Coren  15:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• No: I agree with Coren above. The fringe view has to be put in context. This was an ambiguity I raised with the previous wording, but the sweeping changes made it moot for a while. Stephen B Streater (talk) 15:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

  Now think that AfD could be tightened to exclude fringe topics which compete with mainstream topics which are ignored by mainstream sources as non-notable. Stephen B Streater (talk) 17:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Articles on minority or fringe viewpoints must necessarily be placed within the wider context of their field in order to understand why they are considered minority or fringe viewpoints. Therefore any prohibition on quality sources disucssing the "mainstream" point-of-view would be counter-productive. Naturally, quality sources that disucss both the mainstream and a given minority view are invaluable for the highest quality weighted coverage, but one can only cite the sources we have, not the ones we want. To forbid, for example, citing a consensus health organization statement on the causitive relationship of HIV in AIDS at Duesberg hypothesis because it doesn't discuss the fringe theory would be damaging to the project and misleading to readers, in my opinion. — Scientizzle 15:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
• No. For policy to explicitly restrict to one view would be POV. Maurreen (talk) 15:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC) Further, this could lead to articles on the most far-out material being the most one-sided. The more that something is on or past the fringe, the less likely it will be to be addressed by reputable work. Maurreen (talk) 15:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• Yes the sources must address the topic of the article. If you're going to present a mainstream view, you have to do it in a way that doesn't violate WP:NOR, and specifically WP:SYN, which means the source you use for the mainstream view must have addressed the issue in question. Otherwise we end up with the kind of editing we often see (I'm making this example up, but it's entirely typical):

  In many cultures, psychopomps such as Hermes conduct the spirits of the dead into the afterlife. A belief in the afterlife was one of a number of positions identified in a 2010 Gallop poll as pseudoscience, according to the National Science Foundation."

  It's exactly that kind of editing that the content policies try to advise against. People have been misusing UNDUE to try to force in what they see as the majority view—invariably a Western scientific view, often according to some lobby group.

  I also want to add that I feel the RfC is not neutrally worded; it seems designed to provoke a specific response. SlimVirgin 15:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

  Your hypothetical is indeed horrid, but not for the reason you state: the claim "In many cultures, psychopomps such as Hermes conduct the spirits of the dead into the afterlife" is irredeemably POV to begin with (though it would be marginaly saved by a properly cited "People of many cultures believe that "). It's poor prose and hopelessly weaselly, and then the NSF quote hammers it in by coming as a non sequitur slapped on it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Coren (talk • contribs)

Comment If we allow WP editors to bring in sources which don't directly address the topic, it would conflict with WP:NOR and WP:SYN and allow original research and NPOV violation by Wikipedians. If we want to trash some minority view, we need to use reliable secondary sources which directly do the trashing for us. We can't bring in sources which don't explicitly mention the topic in question, and use them to push our POV that that minority position is contradicted by the mainstream or whatever. For Flat Earth, we must use reliable secondary sources which tell us about the Flat Earth, and put it in perspective for us. We don't bring in sources which don't address Flat Earth to create our own Wiki-brewed view point. Crum375 (talk) 15:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

If some group claim the moon is made of cheese, there is no need to bring in a source that addresses that specific group's claim: a reliable source that states that the moon is made of (anything but cheese) is sufficient and necessary for neutrality. The mainstream doesn't take the time to specifically address every ridiculous claim out there because they are already completely opposite to the basic knowledge and literature in the field. To demand that every flight of fancy be specifically addressed when the literature already plainly says the opposite is simple misuse of WP:SYN into a tool to violate NPOV. — Coren  15:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

(Which doesn't mean that a source that directly addresses the specific claim isn't better; it's just not necessary). — Coren  15:25, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

What you are essentially saying is that we need to do away with WP:SYN which has been a key part of WP:NPOV for years. The principle of SYN is that we may not bring in sources unless they directly address the topic in question. What you are suggesting would allow anyone to trash any position he doesn't like by digging for sources which don't mention it, but seem to contradict it. We have SYN in place for a reason, which is to prevent original research by Wikipedians. Crum375 (talk) 15:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

(2 x ec) Coren, what you write sounds obviously correct, but out there on the floor, as it were, this is being misused in the way I mentioned above to direct articles toward a scientific point of view (SPOV), something the community has long rejected. And not only SPOV, but SPOV as dictated by lobby groups, with references to their views slapped into leads willy nilly, or particular studies (primary sources) misused to make general points. What's required is common sense and intelligent, nuanced editing, but how do we word that in a policy? SlimVirgin 15:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

No, what Coren is saying is that in an article about XXX's theory of YYY, the topic of the article is YYY. So, in an article about the Dusty Theory of Redshift, wherein Prof. Dusty claims that redshift is caused by interstellar dust, the topic of the article is Redshift. Hence, it would not be SYN to include a description of the textbook view of what causes redshift. LK (talk) 15:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) We can't legislate common sense or good prose; and the current attempt tries to do so by scuttling NPOV by allowing (demanding, even) that fringe viewpoints be presented unopposed. WP:SYN is meant to prevent novel synthesis as a way to sneak original research in, not as a means to prevent an obvious counterpoint to be presented to maintain neutrality in an article. — Coren  15:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Coren, SYN is not there to only prevent "sneak" POV, but also obvious POV. The plagiarism example in SYN is not sneaky — it's as direct as can be. And what you are implying is that there is some kind of Higher Truth, and as long as we commit SYN to further that Truth, we'd be protected. But NOR applies to everyone and everything equally. If all Misplaced Pages policies are applied together, they'll work as we expect them to. See also my reply below about the "moon cheese". Crum375 (talk) 15:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec, reply to Lawrence) And I agree with that. The problem is the misuse of UNDUE, and its misuse is more common than its use, I fear, because good editors don't ever need to read it; they just use their common sense, good sources, and write well. Unfortunately, UNDUE has been misused a lot in recent years to force in the kind of editing I gave an example of above. So the question is: how do we word UNDUE to retain the good and not facilitate the bad? SlimVirgin 15:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Common sense and careful consideration of each case is always required. Out there on the floor, there are fringe articles being presented with an in-universe perspective, and editors refusing to show the majority view that applies to the broad topic. This can be justified on an extreme reading of SYN when the article is about a subset or, for example, a book promoting the fringe view. In that circumstances, are mainstream sources addressing the specific fringe view inadmissible unless they refer to that particular book? Should Misplaced Pages host such articles which promote fringe views with no weight being given to majority views of that fringe view? LK's comment makes good sense. . . dave souza, talk 15:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• No – if a minority viewpoint makes claims about an issue which has a clear majority viewpoint, then the majority viewpoint has to be shown in sufficient detail to avoid misleading the reader. In the case of a tiny minority or fringe view, articles should not present an in-universe view. The question of sources addressing the topic to avoid SYN is significant and right, the sources have to address specifically the topic raised by the minority. SYN is an established policy, as was NPOV, and both have to be balanced. That's not achieved by deleting from NPOV any wording that some editors think might possibly lead to a tension between the two. An alternative would be that if no sources mention the mainstream view in sufficient detail, then the fringe view does not justify a dedicated article – the relaxation of WEIGHT by allowing detailed articles to give more attention to such a minority view has long been predicated on the basis that the majority view is adequately covered in such articles. I'm willing to see the previous wording reinstated and a full community discussion on proposals, rather than this drastic pruning which ignores concerns being raised. . . dave souza, talk 15:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• Question: So Dave, tell me, how would you present the mainstream view of the beginning of the universe in the lead of Genesis creation narrative, pursuant to your understanding of UNDUE? SlimVirgin 15:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The lead looks good, due weight is given to various scholarly views on the myth, and in the body of the article due weight is given to the scientific consensus when discussing creationist interpretations that present fringe views of the science. Seems ok to me. . . dave souza, talk 16:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The article on Genesis creation narrative makes clear that it is a religious story, and open to many interpretations. Hence it is not directly about the physical formation of the Earth. However, it would be entirely appropriate to include the mainstream theory about the formation of the Earth in the article on Young Earth creationism which makes specific claims that directly contradict mainstream scientific understanding. LK (talk) 16:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I have seen many mainstream sources debunking YEC. So that won't be a valid example. Crum375 (talk) 16:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but if the article is about a book called Genesis Fludde Revisited presenting YEC, which has several reviews in sympathetic reliable sources, none of which debunk YEC. Is it then ok to refer to one of the many mainstream sources debunking YEC? . . dave souza, talk 16:41, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Regarding the "moon made of cheese" argument by Coren above, I think we need to realize that an extreme tiny minority position would not even make it into WP in the first place, unless it had reliable coverage by secondary sources. And even then, if it's in an article of its own, it has to be notable to be included, or else the AfD gang will delete it. So if we have enough "non-trivial" mentions in reliable secondary sources about the "moon cheese" theory, there is bound to be reasonable comparison to the mainstream. If not, odds are the "reliable sources" are not all that reliable. But we can't just make up our own comparisons as Wikipedians to push our POV that the moon is made of rocks. Crum375 (talk) 15:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately there are significant subject areas where there are many "reliable sources" in WP terms that discuss detailed areas of the overall topic without showing the majority expert view. It's just not true that "there is bound to be reasonable comparison to the mainstream". . . dave souza, talk 15:59, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Dave, do you have an example of an article which has survived AfD, and has a tiny minority position which is not compared to the mainstream by any reliable source? Crum375 (talk) 16:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm watching The Hockey Stick Illusion which presents a fringe view with no reliable sources directly addressing the subject of the article presenting the majority view. It's not been proposed for deletion, as far as I can tell, so presumably doesn't meet your criterion. . dave souza, talk 16:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm concerned that I might come across a fringe theory in an area I am unfamiliar with and have no indication that it lacks credibility in the field. The good thing about SPOV is that it is internally consistent, unlike NPOV. But NPOV should not ignore completely conflicting mainstream theories which do describe the same things as the fringe theory. As a minimum I would expect a See also section to Moon geology in the cheese case. Stephen B Streater (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I see no problem including a 'See also' to Moon geology, because 'See also' is intended to give readers a broad overview of the topic, with links to related articles. But I have yet to see an example of a moon-cheese equivalent article which has survived AfD without any reliable secondary source available to compare it to the mainstream. Crum375 (talk) 16:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to put a marker down for this as a minimum then. I can't give you your missing AfD example. Stephen B Streater (talk) 16:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I can see adding something minimal to NPOV to explain that 'See also' may include all related articles. Crum375 (talk) 16:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: I do not see a reference on the moon being made of rock as a major synth issue in an article about the moon being made of cheese. Is that where opinions differ? Stephen B Streater (talk) 16:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• No, the question is what to do if there are no reliable sources comparing cheese to rock moon. I contend that in such a case the cheese article would very likely fail AfD. Crum375 (talk) 16:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Remember, before the policy was hacked about it specifically noted that less attention to the mainstream view would be needed in an obvious case like the flat earth. A nuance that's currently been removed. . . dave souza, talk 16:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean about "less attention". We still say that tiny minorities should be excluded, except perhaps in dedicated articles, if they are well sourced. What is missing? Crum375 (talk) 16:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

As of Jan, "How much detail is required depends on the subject: For instance, articles on historical views such as flat earth, with few or no modern proponents, may be able to briefly state the modern position, and then go on to discuss the history of the idea in great detail, neutrally presenting the history of a now-discredited belief." . . dave souza, talk 16:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

And where does it say that we may violate SYN to do so? We describe the mainstream view of Flat Earth by relying on reliable sources which describe it for us, as always. Crum375 (talk) 16:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Synth to me is source 1 saying that the moon is made of cheese, and source 2 saying that cheese is yellow - and concluding that the moon is yellow. (It may be black if it is a new moon - the sources refer to different contexts and can't be simply combined). I wouldn't want to guarantee that the dynamic process of AfD was not going to let through fringe articles which don't have sources comparing them to the mainstream. Stephen B Streater (talk) 16:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

No, I think you are missing the point. If the article is about the Moon, and you have one source saying it's white and another it's black, you can present them both with no SYN fear. The problem arises when you have the Black Moon Society article, where an editor tries to include sources which don't mention that specific society to debunk it. The point is that all sources must directly apply to the subject, we can't bring in sources which don't address the subject to debunk it, or advance some position. Crum375 (talk) 16:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

"where an editor tries to include sources which don't mention that specific society" is exactly the point. This is not only allowable, but necessary for neutrality. A rule saying that only sources which address the society specifically are permissible guarantees that the article cannot be made neutral; it's obvious why the members of that society might find this desirable, but it's misleading to our readers, non-neutral and completely improper for an encyclopedia. — Coren  16:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Maybe likely but by no means garanteed. Some fringe stuff is eminently notable without having serious direct coverage by mainstream sources. No physicist would take the time to publish a paper examining a claim that hydrogen can have seven protons because any basic physics textbook explains clearly why that's wrong by definition; does this mean that we have to allow an article about some crackpot (book/author/theory) that makes this claim to stand without reliable sources to place it in context just because it got enoufh random press coverage to be notable? (And god knows how insane the press can be about republishing faux-science uncritically). — Coren  16:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

We make policies to cover real life situations. I am still waiting for one example of an article about a tiny minority view, which has survived AfD and has no reliable source comparing it to the mainstream. Crum375 (talk) 16:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm thinking that a See also link would satisfy my requirement that a novice in the subject would have a chance of finding out mainstream views. I'm also moving towards the view that if the subject is notable, it will have a mainstream response. No mainstream mention could make it fail AfD on notability grounds. Stephen B Streater (talk) 16:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Though I could agree with the spirit of these proposed changes, we need to tread very carefully. Even a small change can have unintended consequences. Crum375 (talk) 16:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the need for "significant coverage" by reliable secondary sources should effectively include mainstream comparison in the case of tiny minority views. I contend that if there is "significant coverage" without such a comparison, the reliability of the reliable sources would be in question. Crum375 (talk) 16:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

See The Hockey Stick Illusion and discuss. . . dave souza, talk 16:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't think this is a good example. They do include at least one comparison to the mainstream, although it may not be the exact POV you want. Clearly the ClimateGate issue is a highly contentious one, with lots of fur flying, so all that's needed there is adding more sources for more views, the same as any other contentious issue on WP. But there is no "extremely tiny" view here, or else there would be no mention of any dispute at all in the main IPCC article (where the hockey stick controversy is even included in summary style). Crum375 (talk) 17:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah, so the tiny fringe of scientists denying the "hockey stick" isn't "extremely tiny" enough for you, so you think we can give that fringe "equal validity"? As for the comparison to the mainstream, check the source. Your argument that the Hockey stick controversy (which gives due weight to the mainstream) is summarised in the main IPCC article fails, the evolution article mentions creationism, which like the views promoted in the book is a tiny fringe view in science. It's going to be very difficult to find the exact example you seek. . dave souza, talk 17:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I included the wikilinks above (and repeat them here) to show that the the hockey stick controversy is included in summary style in the main IPCC article. That means it's not a "tiny minority" by the definition of the NPOV policy, since per NPOV tiny minorities are not mentioned at all in the main article, and certainly wouldn't get summary style coverage. So what am I missing? Crum375 (talk) 17:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The book in question promotes a tiny minority view in scientific terms, a larger viewpoint in political terms and one that therefore gets coverage. By your argument, an article on a book promoting young earth creationism would not need to mention majority scientific views if no mainstream sources referring specifically to that book were found, as the Creation–evolution controversy is significant enough to get a mention in mainstream articles such as evolution. In my understanding undue weight applies to minority views as well as to extreme minority views, you seem to be saying otherwise. . . dave souza, talk 17:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

If we have an article on a book, we need to cite the sources which refer to that book. We can't start using sources that don't mention it in order to push our own POV, regardless of what the book says. And yes, UNDUE applies to everything, but the greatest potential for abuse, and what we were focusing on here, is when the view is too tiny to merit a mention (and therefore comparison to mainstream) in the main article. Crum375 (talk) 18:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• Per common sense, the goal of our coverage is to honestly inform the reader of the current state of knowledge on a topic. We can't cover fringe views in a vacuum, because doing so will leave the reader with an inaccurate understanding of the subject. I do think we need to be wary of original synthesis. But if you're discussing Inventing the AIDS Virus, then it's not "original synthesis" to mention the scientific understanding that HIV causes AIDS. In fact, it's essential to do so to avoid misleading the reader. Policies should serve common sense, and they should serve our goal of honestly and accurately informing the reader. These proposals will be wikilawyer-bait for approaches that are counter to that goal, so I think they're probably not a good idea in their current form. MastCell  17:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

  OMG, the second source in that article is to "Fact Sheets on HIV/AIDS, from the Centers for Disease Control", but does that source directly make that comparison with the book, as required by a literal reading of this amended policy? If not, should that source be deleted as SYN? Worried of Tunbridge Wells, dave souza, talk 17:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

  Point. Set. Match. — Coren  18:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this view, but try telling it to the folks over at WP:OR, which is where this discussion probably belongs (or maybe not - another case that shows the absurdity of maintaining these three separate pages - and note that the consensuses at two of these pages can be contradictory). --Kotniski (talk) 18:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

What is the specific clause referring to this in OR? . . dave souza, talk 20:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

If you cite a source which does not mention the topic in question to promote a point of view, even if it's the mainstream view, you'd be violating WP:NOR and WP:SYN, and very likely NPOV too, because you'll be trashing a minority without a reliable secondary source doing it for you. There is no violation of UNDUE to require sources, since UNDUE requires reliable secondary sources to prove that it's UNDUE, it can't be based on editors' opinions or POVs. Crum375 (talk) 18:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

But what is the topic in question? Is it the specific book, or is it AIDS? If the latter, the source is legit. If the former, which in my opinion is an unduly restrictive reading of SYN, then tne article will clearly fail Weight if it promotes a fringe (or minority) view without noting the clear majority view on that specific subject, in sufficient detail as set out in the old version of this policy. Of course "making necessary assumptions" meant that we didn't have to argue the mainstream view of AIDS in detail – but oops, has that gone too? So, if there are no sources giving the mainstream view and referring directly to the book, does that justify deleting the article? . . dave souza, talk 19:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

If the article is about a book, then the topic in question is the book. We can always say, the book says X, and reliable sources say A, B and C about that book. If the book says the Moon is made of Swiss Cheese, we shouldn't (and don't need to) introduce sources about the Moon generically, only about that specific book and its specific claims. In a 'See also', we can include links to other Misplaced Pages articles related to the Moon. Crum375 (talk) 19:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

As the AIDS book article clearly shows, you're pushing an interpretation of OR which is not universal practice, or even necessarily standard practice. Policies should reflect common sense and reasonable practice rather than a self-contradictory ideal which taken to an extreme can lead to articles giving dangerously misleading advice on AIDS treatment, in this example. NPOV should apply to all articles, and there shouldn't be a way of evading it for small subjects with little or no mainstream coverage. Are you going to check out and delete that reference from the article if it doesn't mention the book? . . dave souza, talk 20:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Simply put: No. This is simple cherry picking to present fringe view in isolation to "protect" them from the context that shows them as fringe. I disagree in the first place that SYN or OR stretch that far to begin with, but even if they really did we'd need to fix them because that construction completely destroys NPOV and none of the pillars are supposed to render another moot. — Coren  20:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Simply put, that's not the case. OR is OR if one constructs arguments from the sources. Simply explaining what mainstream sources say (especially in a summary fashion in an article about a minority subject with an appropriate link to the main article) isn't OR, just good writing. If this were OR it would be almost impossible to ever write summaries on any topic. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• UNDUE is overused to suppress minority views on non-scientific topics: "X is a tiny minority view, thus MUST be excluded from the (relevant) article per UNDUE!" is a far more common misuse. Overall, I agree with MastCell's take on the topic. Jclemens (talk) 19:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
  • That's not an inherent misuse. If there's a clear consensus view that's the way it works. It doesn't inherently matter if it is an area of science or not. History isn't a science but we're not going to put extreme minority views claiming that the Illuminati instigated the War of 1812 in War of 1812. There's nothing about this aspect of policy that is restricted or should be restricted to science. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Perhaps this could square the circle: We allow sources which refer to the topic directly, but also sources which refer to elements of the topic eg HIV/AIDS in the above case. But we do not present a judgement on the accuracy of the fringe topic, leaving that to the reader. The original wording said we should provide enough information for the reader to investigate and make up their own minds on controversial ideas, if they so wished. Stephen B Streater (talk) 21:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• Reword RFC, there is a difference between the subject or topic of an article and the contents of that article. Sources need to be in relation to the subject or topic of an article and not merely in relation to just any content the article may contain. NOR/SYNTH is talking about sources that ‘’do not’’ talk about the topic of the article. One of the main problems with using sources unrelated to the topic/subject of an article that seem to mention similar or even identical subject matter within that article, is that we have no real means of verifying that the WP article is talking about the exact same thing as does the unrelated source. If a "tiny minority" or fringe view is sufficiently notable to merit a WP article, then there ought to be sufficient numbers of sources for other views on that topic. An article on a group that believes the moon is the diamond-cored creator god of the Earth, where there are no mainstream sources that talk about their belief about the moon shouldn't contain OR in the form of sources unrelated to the subject of that article - which is the group, not the moon. The moon can take care of itself, because it should be wikilinked to the appropriate moon article. One of the problems is illustrated by the very moon examples on this page...are we talking about the composition of this moon, this moon, this moon - or maybe even something completely different? Sure, none of them are made of cheese, but really...we can't just assume it's any specific moon from the content of the examples, can we? The problem is compounded by the fact that some WP editors regularly attempt to use unrelated sources to advance a position, usually their own POV. Dreadstar ☥ 21:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Time to announce the "new and improved" WP:NPOV to the entire WP community, no?

W.r.t. the current version of this policy: Basically, I personally like it-- though there are of course the inevitable quibbles about how the language might be interpreted and implemented wiki-wide, one of which appears at issue in the section just above.

Despite personally liking it "slimmed down", I still do have some significant concerns about what just happened to this policy. Yes, there appears to have been a need to reduce the accumulated bloat, for example as of 17 April 2010. But what's happened here is essentially a complete rewrite, most of it in a single day.

Here are among the major things the small number of editors participating here did in less than a day, on 23 April 2010, essentially the work of about three or four editors, with two in particular taking the lead. Remember this is among 48,463,165 registered users, many thousands of which I feel sure are familiar with and rely on long-standing policy provisions but don't necessarily check in on the policy page on a regular basis.

• Rewrote the lead and the "NPOV in a nutshell" template.
• Removed WP:ASF ("A simple formulation"). one of the earliest expressions of NPOV going all the way back to its beginnings in the "Executive Summary" of December 2001 here (scroll down to see "Alternative formulation of the policy: assert facts, including facts about opinions--but don't assert opinions themselves")
• Removed WP:GEVAL ("Giving equal validity"), also one of the earliest expressions of NPOV going back to 2003. ()
• Removed the section on "Impartial tone" (earlier "Fairness of tone" and originally "Fairness and sympathetic tone", which also goes all the way back to 2002 (), with its roots also in the 2001 "Executive summary" ().
• The section on "Characterizing opinions of people's work" has essentially been subsumed into a brief summary linking to the guideline "WP:Words to watch".
• Reduced WP:WEIGHT to about half its prior length.
• There are other things too, but AFAICT these are the main ones.

Here's the diff between the beginning of 23 April and the end of SlimVirgin's edits alone in less than a single day, on: 23 April. Crum375 and Stephen B Streater followed up with further edits, I posted a few minor ones myself, as have some other users (here's the recent edit history). Which ends up with, in less than a week, this diff. And all this comes immediately on the heels of removing WP:RNPOV on 21 April, and reducing/eliminating "Fringe theories" and the link to the guideline WP:FRINGE, mostly also 21 April.

I should think it's time to run this entire change by the community. A partial announcement is made by the RfC immediately above. But I think the entire set of changes needs community review and comment. ... Kenosis (talk) 16:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, do what you want, but I do not see it the way you do. even people who watch this page (which I grant is a considerable number) do not look at it regularly (which is why we don't have 800 people participating in this discussion right now). So the fact that the policy page might double in length in a two year period does not to me signify that there has been any real community consensus over the changes. My point is that as far as I am concerned the deletions and rephrasing of the past few days is in my mind no more or less radical than all the crud that a host of editors, some of them not very experienced, added or changed over the past years.

I think it is wrong to characterize this as a rewrite of policy. It is a rewrite of the policy page, but I realy cannot see any place where the policy itself has changed. We have a modification in form but not in content.

Now, if there were a real change in the policy I would completely and enthusiastically agree that it should be announced for community discussion and approval. I just do not think anyone has changed the policy.

AM I saying that we should not announce a change? Well if you put it that way I sound pretty devious. So I am not saying that. But do we announce to the community that a change was made to this page any time someone edits in?

Maybe this is not a bad idea. Maybe anytime someone edits a core policy every registered user should get a message on their talk page notifying them that the page has been edited, so people can check and see if they approve of the edit .

To be blunt, here is what I think: I think that if we had such a system, over the years more people would have registered disapproval for one of the countless revisions or additions that various editors have made, than for the version as we now have it. It is just that people do not pay attention to each small change. We are like lobsters in the pot. We only notice when all the many little changes cross some sort of threshold. for lobsters when that happens it is too late. Here, what happens is someone or group of editors periodically do an overhaul. It is (multiple metaphor alert) like changing the oil and transmission and brake fluid all at once, and getting a car wash to boot. Some things that were removed were indeed old, like the line about asserting facts (which was NOT written by Larry Sanger or Jimbo). SO? The fact is, back then the whole idea of NPOV was new to most people, I thyink very few editors understood what Larry and Jimbo were trying to accomplish - now there are editors with years of experience who understand the policy and its implications quite well. So it hardly surprises me that we can explain the policy more clearly (not necessarily more clearly than Larry or Jimbo, but more clearly than early editors when the whole rpoject was new). Let people comment. I know already that a diverse group of experienced editors participated in this revision, and the bottom line for me is, I read it and I see no change in policy. The page has changed, but the policy has not. SO, well, whatever. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

In other words, Slrubenstein, when were you, or anyone here, planning on telling the WP community about this and inviting comment and criticism? Or was the plan to just let folks happen upon this concise version when they came here in search of quoting a particular provision or section that they'd previously relied upon for years? ... Kenosis (talk) 17:41, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Your question confuses me. When has anyone ever done this? Any member of the communicy can put this page on their watchlist. They can see how often it is being edited. They can see the edits and comment anytime they like. Isn't this how people monitor edits here? Look, what you're talking about has happened to me - I have deleted or reverted other people's edits because of what i considered standard practice, and others then told me that I was violating a policy and hey, i had no idea someone had written a new policy. That is how I found out. And i am talking about a whole new policy, not just editing an old one. What you are talking about happens ALL THE TIME here. I think people who watch this policy, and there are about 800 of them, should check in now and see what they think of the changes. If they think some are too radical, they should discuss it, as happens periodically when people debate PST at NOR. MastCell registers some concerns below - fine, that is what talk pages are for, I hope he will act on his concerns immediately or if he wishes wait a day and if no one objects then make his own edits to the policy. Isn't this how it always goes here? Slrubenstein | Talk 17:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

W.r.t. your last question, the simple answer is no --the obligation is to have community involvement in major policy changes, which this undoubtedly is. Call it mere changes to the language if you like, but the fact is that significant changes in the language frequently carry implications that might not always be apparent to a small participating group of editors such as here.

As to what you said in your prior comment about WP:ASF, originally "an alternative formulation" ("Cite facts, including facts about opinions . . . ") it was indeed Larry Sanger who submitted it in late 2001, and it's been part of the policy ever since. While I agree with Crum375 when he said it was like an essay within a policy, the core statements ("assert facts, including facts about opinions... ") have been with WP from its beginning. Only the accumulated bloat read like an essay. But as I said, my prime point is that the WP community deserves an opportunity to review these major changes at some point in the process. There's been a week to arrive at the proposed new form, so community attention should be called to the current version and what the changes were, so the community that needs to use the policy can be informed and involved to the extent it collectively chooses. ... Kenosis (talk) 18:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I feel there is some fine tuning to go maybe, which would not be practical if x million people chipped in. I'd rather let it settle for a day or two and then invite comment, if inviting comment is deemed a good idea. Stephen B Streater (talk) 17:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, the section on avoiding a "disparaging" tone needs to be tightened to deal with cases where reliable, mainstream sources themselves routinely adopt a disparaging tone. Any accurate reflection of the content of sources in such a case will end up sounding "disparaging" to some people, and then we get the inevitable charge to water down our language and euphemize the content of reliable sources.

As a nitpick, the section on POV forks asserts that they are "deliberate attempts to evade the neutrality policy". I don't think that's true. In my experience, most people who create POV forks don't understand the neutrality policy. They're not trying to deliberately evade it, they just don't get it. MastCell  17:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

MastCell, would you be willing to go through an change the prescriptive statements to descriptive ones, as you suggest? I think your concerns are reasonable which to me is a reason for you to participate actively in this process. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this. I mentioned above the difference between defining actions and the end result. The advantage of defining the end result is that we can get there wherever we start from. I've also removed the assumption of malevolent intent in POV forks. Stephen B Streater (talk) 17:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

In the meantime, I also really think the smart thing is to get more and more people who watch this page to join in. MastCell is an example. But many others watch this page; I assume they have good reason to. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:12, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

From the original policy

I am not a fundamentalist in the sense that I think that everything Larry Sanger said is gospel. But it might be clarifying to recall the priginal policy.

Jimbo summed it up like this:

Perhaps the easiest way to make your writing more encyclopedic, is to write about what people believe, rather than what is so. If this strikes you as somehow subjectivist or collectivist or imperialist, then ask me about it, because I think that you are just mistaken. What people believe is a matter of objective fact, and we can present that quite easily from the neutral point of view. --Jimbo Wales

I bolded what for me is the essence ... he is clearly arguing against using the word "fact."

Why Jimbo would argue against using the word fact is I think made clear in a comment larry made around that time: In a discussion with one interlocutor who had many doubts about the policy, Larry wrote,

Maybe you understand the following perfectly well--but it can't hurt to say it one more time. As far as we on Misplaced Pages are concerned, to speak of a lack of bias, or of neutral writing, is not to speak of a single viewpoint that is expressed in an article. The neutral point of view, as conceived by myself and Jimbo and many others, is not the view from nowhere. It is not "the truth," enunciated from "a neutral standpoint." In an encyclopedia at least, that's a silly fantasy and a total misunderstanding of what unbiased writing is like. Instead, where there is disagreement on a topic, one takes a step back to characterize the controversy--rather than to as it were engage directly in the controversy by taking a position, or by trying to find some bogus "middle" position that is the official view of the encyclopedia. Therefore, the notion of a neutral point of view that is "neutral in the U.S." really makes no sense. (Maybe you realize this, though, and you're just accusing some Americans of having this misunderstanding.)

I have bolded a portion that I consider especially important because as I interpret it it really calls into question what many call "the voice of Misplaced Pages."

Now, Kenosis claims that the "Assert facts" was in the Larry Sanger formulation. I honestly have to say: I do not remember it that way. I think it was another editor who added it, maybe the Cunc, maybe Taral. These guys have been around a long time and I do not dismiss their views out of hand. But whichever one of them added it, I think it has caused far more confusion than it ever cleared up. I think the quotes from Jimbo and Larry above are pretty clear. I selected them because I find them so clear. Obviousl larry wrote more, Jimbo too, but the original policy was like two paragraphs long. Then there was a lot of discussion and please remember that back then there were NO talk pages - all discussion occured on the policy page. So this stuff about facts and so on was in the context of a discussion among the most active editors at the time. Those were the days when policies were few and "be bold" really was more important, so I think we need to read what was on the NPOV page in this context. You see a lot of people saying what they think and Larry responding, often disagreeing - much like what now happens on the talk page. If you want to claim that this "assert fact" thing was larry's idea, please provide an appropriate edit diff. I am not trying to be a jerk here, I really do not think he ever said this or would have said this. I do not think it is consistent with the quotes I provide above. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

My guess is that Larry (a philosopher) was trying to find a simple way of presenting the fact/value distinction in philosophy, and it got misinterpreted over the years. But regardless of where it started, as it was being used and understood it was wrong. SlimVirgin 20:12, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The fact/value distinction was introduced by sociologist Max Weber. I don't think Larry accepted the fact/value distinction at all. He claimed to be an objectivist but i think he was working in the pragmatist tradition. I think he genuinely believed that people could not agree about facts, but could agree about what different people believe. He and Jimbo were trying to create a basic framework for an encyclopedia edited by all people and NPOV was the principle for a process, not an epistemology. My recollection is that Larry always evaded or rejected any discussion of epistemology or metaphysics. His line was always "You can't claim it is a fact. You can only claim that certain people think it is a fact." Slrubenstein | Talk 20:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I took a look through some early NPOV edits the other day, and some of them did seem to stem from Larry Sanger—possibly him writing what he thought others wanted to see, because there were no talk pages back then. SlimVirgin 20:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I am just asking for the edit diff, as I would in any such case. I know it was not in the original policy. I do not dispute that it was added early on. But unless you can provide me with an edit diff I do not believe LMS added it. It does not square with either wuote above, and larry was pretty unyeilding. Larry and Jimbo would yeild to someone else's edit if it has general support but I never saw them compromise on their own position. they were just committed to the idea that "everyone can edit" (which is what you are doing right now)! Slrubenstein | Talk 20:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I already provided a link to Sanger's submission entitled "Executive Summary" in December 2001 (the last of several edits by Sanger that month) in my opening comment in the section above. Here it is again (scroll down to see "Alternative formulation of the policy: assert facts, including facts about opinions--but don't assert opinions themselves"). Here are the original edits to the policy. The words "assert facts, including facts about opinions--but don't assert opinions themselves" have verbatim been a featured part of the policy continuously ever since then-- most recently as the opening sentence of the section "A simple formulation"-- until the major rewrite on 23 April 2010. ... Kenosis (talk) 21:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

As well, if you look at the Executive Summary in the 27 December 2001 edits, you will see that the recently removed section on "Impartial tone" (earlier "Fairness of tone" and originally "Fairness and sympathetic tone") also goes back to the original Executive Summary. It too has remained a section in this project page continuously since then, until the major rewrite on 23 April 2010. The removed section on "Giving equal validity" has been a part of this policy continuously only since 2003 (link provided in the section above). ... Kenosis (talk) 21:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Kenosis, you have provided a link to a version of the page LS edited, but you have not provided an edit diff showing that he h=added thephrase in question. Look, there is anb article, it says lots of stuff, I make an edit, and many years later you call up that version that I edited. Does that mean I wrote every word in the article? We both know, the answer is no. Many people have edited NPOV. Your link just shows LS was one. I don't see that he was the one who added this passage. Or are you just saying he did not delete it? Well, yeah, I afess irh rhar. But that doesn't mean he added it. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the Cunctator wrote the "Assert facts" stuff,. I still maintain that the two quotes I provide above are the core of NPOV. That doesn't mean that ehey say if all, and Kenosis - an editor by the way whom i admire grately - raises some good issues. But when we say NPOV is non-negotiable, I think it is what those two quotes from Larfy and Jimbo say that are the non-negotiable essense of the polby. Just my opinion. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it does appear The Cunctator submitted the "Executive Summary" here, on 24 December 2001, followed by multiple edits by Sanger on 27 December 2001. So I stand corrected on the issue of who first submitted that text. (Here's the history for that month again). You'll note that the two sections I mentioned just above originated right at the outset in 2001, and if you check the history, say for each year since then, you'll note that as I also said above, they have remained part of the policy continuously since then. I'm not saying it's necessarily wrong to remove these sections, or the three other long-standing sections that were also removed on 23 April 2010. I am necessarily saying it's not just a tweak of the wording, but rather a major change in the policy page about which the entire community should be conspicuously informed so as to allow comment, support for and/or criticism of each significant change. ... Kenosis (talk) 23:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Sweeping, unwarranted rewrite

I've watched three or so editors here in the last few weeks drive to a single goal of removing and demoting key clauses in an effort to refactor this policy in a roughshod manner that is not consistant with community guidelines and policy.

This sweeping rewrite was forced through without sufficient consensus, in fact over an equal or greater number of objections, and without sufficient participation from the greater community, as the small number of participants here shows. Particularly troubling is that concerns and objections from respected editors in good standing were ignored and dismissed time and again by the small group here bent on this sweeping rewrite. Attempts at compromise seem half-hearted and end with the original intended changes being made each time. The section above, "From the original policy," is a prime example of this. Other examples are seen above as well. I see nitpicking, shifting goalposts, anything to avoid addressing the issue: lack of consensus.

The much of original text goes back to the eariliest formulation of the NPOV policy before it was even and policy, and formed the core kernel of what became this policy that saw Misplaced Pages through it's largest period of growth. Objections to the removed text center on a claim that there's been a recent problem with it being abused. If true, then the problem is in the application of the policy, not in the policy itself. I suggest that fixing the application of the policy first is a more reasonable approach to dealing with that issue rather than a unilateral rewrite of the core policy, consisting of a substantial deletion of longstanding clauses central to the policy's spirit. To the claim that the policy has been misused and needs a major refactoring, I for one have not seen the issue, nor have others I've spoken with, apparently whatever abuses of WP:NPOV there are were limited to certain topics. Meaning the wholesale removal and deletion of core clauses is unwarranted and overreaching. And it was done over the objections of others. In my opinion the rewrite removes practical examples that served previous generations of editors well and replaces it with ambiguity.

Two of the key clauses, pseudoscience and undue weight, are affected. The former has been demoted to guideline and the latter watered down to the point of meaninglessness. The pseudoscience clause was in the earliest formulation of this policy and was used as an example of how best to handle fringe views by it's origianl drafters. It was spun out as a policy sub-page to Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ in 2006 and was challenged unsuccessfully as policy by one of those making sweeping changes here now. This time this person made a unilateral change to that page removing the policy template over the objections of others.

Is this how Misplaced Pages's core policy was meant to be rewritten? I don't think so, and I know there are others here who agree. I have a long history of contributing to and maintaining this policy, from 2004 through 2008. I'm going to restore the last version of the article prior to the recent purges and restore the status of the FAQ page to where it stood since 2006. And I also ask that those seeking sweeping rewrites of this policy 1) engage those with objections more meaningfully and constructively, 2) seek wider support for significant changes to the substance of this policy, 3) stop trying to force through substantial rewrites without both 1) and 2). FeloniousMonk (talk) 00:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. That's why I was not going to wade in. But now that you have, I'll add my two cents worth. The rewritten version sucks. It's far less clear and far more useful to pseudoscience and fringe POV pushers. I support you restoring the version before all this one-sided rewriting. Good to see you back, hope you stick around. Odd nature (talk) 01:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

1. Opinions involve both matters of fact and value; see fact-value distinction
2. ^ See also: Misplaced Pages:Avoid weasel words, Misplaced Pages:Avoid peacock terms.
3. ref
4. ref
5. ref
6. ref
7. Opinions involve both matters of fact and value; see fact-value distinction
8. ref
9. ref
10. ref