Misplaced Pages

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

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:54, 31 October 2015 editGuy Macon (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, File movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers59,287 edits →RfC announce: What claims are governed by WP:MEDRS?: new section← Previous edit Revision as of 02:05, 1 November 2015 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,294,330 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:Neutral point of view/Archive 51) (botNext edit →
Line 80: Line 80:
When starting a new topic, please add it to the '''bottom''' of this page, and please '''sign''' your comments with four tildes: <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>. This will automatically place a date stamp, which will allow us to maintain this page better. When starting a new topic, please add it to the '''bottom''' of this page, and please '''sign''' your comments with four tildes: <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>. This will automatically place a date stamp, which will allow us to maintain this page better.
__TOC__ __TOC__

==WP:BIASED==
The ] section confusingly starts by ]: to overcome this, I propose removing "A common argument in a dispute about reliable sources is that one source is biased and so another source should be given preference. The bias in sources argument is one way to present a POV as neutral by excluding sources that dispute the POV as biased." <BR>In its place, the policy should start with the much clearer statement from the ] guideline ] section: "Misplaced Pages articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." . . ], ] 06:54, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
:The current wording is strange, and the proposal is highly desirable. The current text was added ] by ] (user page has a retired template). I can't find mention of it in talk. ] (]) 10:25, 7 September 2015 (UTC)


== Quantitatively measuring NPOV == == Quantitatively measuring NPOV ==

Revision as of 02:05, 1 November 2015

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

Are you in the right place?For questions or discussions about the application of this policy to any specific article(s), please post your message at either the NPOV Noticeboard (any neutrality-related issue) or the Fringe Theories Noticeboard (undue weight given to a minority view).
WikiProject iconSpoken Misplaced Pages
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Misplaced Pages
Shortcut

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

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

Archive 018: Apr 2006
Archive 019: Apr 2006 - May 2006
Archive 020: May 2006 - Jun 2006
Archive 021: Jun 2006
Archive 022: Jun-Jul 2006 (moving FAQ)
Archive 023: Jul-Aug 4 2006
Archive 024: Aug 4-Sept 21 2006
Archive 025: Sept 22 - Oct 2006
Archive 26: Nov - Dec 2006
Archive 27: Jan - Feb 2007
Archive 28: Mar - May 2007
Archive 29: May – Sep 2007
Archive 30: Oct 2007 – Feb 2008
Archive 31: Feb – May 2008
Archive 32: May – July 2008
Archive 33: July 2008
Archive 34: July – Sep 2008
Archive 35: Sep 2008 – May 2009
Archive 36: April – Aug 2009
Archive 37: Aug – Nov 2009
Archive 38: Nov 2009 – Feb 2010
Archive 39:
Archive 40:
Archive 41:
Archive 42:
Archive 43:
Archive 44:
Archive 45:
Archive 46:
Archive 47:
Archive 48:

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

Quantitatively measuring NPOV

It has bothered me for quite a while that we have no way to measure NPOV. I think this is one reason we argue about it endlessly. It occurred to me that such a measurement is in fact possible. I'll illustrate with a table below. Full disclosure: this was mildly motivated by a dispute I've participated in at Watts Up With That. But I can honestly say that I don't care about that dispute much; what really interests me is having a way to gauge how prominently an article mentions negative information about the subject.

In my opinion, a table like this could be helpful in providing context to NPOV disputes. Others are more than welcome to edit the table below. The paragraph and sentence refer to the first mention of the negative information. If it were in the title, that would get a value of 0. The version column links to whatever version of the article I examined.MissPiggysEx (talk) 22:04, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I've added a group column to the table for sorting purposes. The groupings are imperfect but still useful. For example if one sorts within the "tyrant" group, then by this measure, the negative information is most prominent for Stalin and Marcos, and by far the least prominent for Kim Jong Un. One could then discuss whether that is proper, or not.MissPiggysEx (talk) 13:31, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Article group negative information paragraph.sentence Subsequent article date version
Hamas terror terrorist 1.2 8 Sep 2015
Hezbollah terror terrorist 5.1 8 Sep 2015
Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant terror Daesh; terrorist; war crimes 2.1 3.1 3.1 8 Sep 2015
Al-Qaeda terror terrorist 1.3 8 Sep 2015
Kim Jong-un tyrant poor grades; awkward with girls 9.4 9.7 8 Sep 2015
Kim Jong-un tyrant executions; cult of personality; nuclear threats 24.3 26.1 44.1 8 Sep 2015
Kim Jong-un tyrant crimes against humanity; famine; cannibalism in NOK 54.1 56.1 56.2 8 Sep 2015
Lenin tyrant red terror; dictator; human rights abuse 3.2 4.2 8 Sep 2015
Stalin tyrant dictator; gulag; famine 1.2 3.3 3.4 8 Sep 2015
Hitler tyrant dictator; ww2; holocaust 1.3 1.3 1.3 8 Sep 2015
Mao Zedong tyrant famine; cult of personality; 40-70 million dead 3.2 3.3 4.4 8 Sep 2015
Hugo Chavez tyrant economy faltered; murder rate; corruption 3.4 3.5 8 Sep 2015
Vladimir Putin tyrant electoral cheating, undemocratic, political murders 2.7 5.1 37.2 8 Sep 2015
Ferdinand Marcos tyrant dictator, corruption 1.2 8 Sep 2015
Church of Scientology religion cult 3.1 8 Sep 2015
Catholic Church religion ordination of women; sex abuse 5.3 5.3 8 Sep 2015
Moral Majority religion helped Mondale; is neither 14.4 16.2 8 Sep 2015
Intelligent design theory pseudoscience; no empirical support 1.1 1.2 8 Sep 2015
Homeopathy theory no empirical support; pseudoscience 1.2 1.3 8 Sep 2015
Watts Up With That theory denialist 1.1 8 Sep 2015
Smoking drug kills people 2.2 8 Sep 2015
Cocaine drug addictive 2.1 8 Sep 2015
Cannabis drug impairs memory 2.2 8 Sep 2015
Methamphetamine drug addictive; brain damage 1.5 3.6 8 Sep 2015

RFC initiated re whether "Vulture fund" is derogatory and should not be an article title despite COMMONNAME

An editor has initiated an RFC at: WP:Words to Watch regarding the use of the term "Vulture fund" as an article title as it may be considered pejorative despite being a COMMONNAME. Editors interested in NPOV policy may want to participate. --Mike Cline (talk) 23:51, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

RfC announce: What claims are governed by WP:MEDRS?

RfC announce: What claims are governed by WP:MEDRS?

There is a current RfC that concerns which claims should be sourced under WP:RS and which claims should be sourced under WP:MEDRS. This has the potential to affect sourcing rules for a large number of articles, so please help us to arrive at a clear consensus on this issue.

RfC:

Related:

--Guy Macon (talk) 21:54, 31 October 2015 (UTC)