Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Archive 43

Not supported vs. contradicted by

In WP:ASF the condition "an apparently factual statement which is contradicted by other reliable sources" has been changed to "...not supported by other reliable sources". (This being a condition for not stating something directly as a fact.) Is this what we mean? (After all, for any statement it must be possible to find some reliable sources that don't support it, namely the sources that don't address it at all.)--Kotniski (talk) 07:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

"an apparently factual statement which is not supported by other reliable sources" is OK so presumably one that is not is the opposite. I did not put in a comma as I suggested above because when pondering it "we mean a statement which expresses a value judgement" is not the same thing whether or not supported by other sources. For example the use of the adjective "terrorist" as in "terrorist bombing" my well be supported by lots of reliable sources, but because of the common usage it is usually a value judgement. For this reason we should consider cleaving the sentence into two. -- PBS (talk) 10:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

As I've said above, the wording offered is definitely not right—the notion of requiring exactly two reliable sources (which is what this amounts to) is not the intent. What we're really interested in are notable omissions from other reliable sources that could be expected to also contain the fact. But I think this is a significant change to policy and should be put to RfC; I recommend reverting the edit. Rvcx (talk) 10:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

As I said above this whole clause "or an apparently factual..." is a new clause, so it is not a significant change in policy. Your arguments above was about verifiability not about presentation which is what this change is about as arguments about undue still apply. The older wording implies that if no-one has contradicted a supposition then it can be treated as a fact which is not what I think we mean. -- PBS (talk) 10:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the old wording fails to articulate what would be a useful policy addition, but I disagree that the new wording expresses a sensible policy addition. This is not a trivial change to get right, and so far we haven't. Rvcx (talk) 11:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Although it may well need further fettling, I think it is closer now to what we mean than it was before. -- PBS (talk) 11:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the latest change ("not adequately supported...") makes it OK for now, until we work out exactly what it is we mean.--Kotniski (talk) 11:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately that's vague enough that it doesn't clearly explain that disputes are sufficient. I've suggested "...does not reflect a consensus of reliable sources", which does to note that disagreement between sources is sufficient to make something not a "fact", but also (quite vaguely) suggests that one voice among many silences also fails to achieve consensus. A really crisp policy on this matter should await clarification...possibly in the form of an ArbCom statement of principle in the next week or so. Rvcx (talk) 12:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's a bit better. The topic really needs to be addressed in a separate section; we can't pretend that we're able to say fully what we mean in half a sentence.--Kotniski (talk) 12:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

- You know, I hate to offer this suggestion, but maybe it's time we considered axing the 'simple formulation' bit entirely. It should be clear to everyone involved that there really is no simple formulation (at least not a one-liner) that going to actually capture the essence of the concept without misrepresenting it in one way or another, and opening a door for wikilawyers. and there's been just way too many arguments over it recently. Who else agrees with me on this? --Ludwigs2 16:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)--Ludwigs2 16:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The current version is open to wikilawyering. We should restore it to something that makes sense. The curent version contradicts the original meaning of ASF. We should not axe the simple formulation. We should axe the altered version. QuackGuru (talk) 16:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

That's good old Quack, who took very strong exception to several attempts to do just as Ludwigs has suggested... Any updates to this policy have been a struggle; I'd support informal mediation on rewriting it. Rvcx (talk) 17:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't even recognise ASF anymore. It is a mess. Is it amusing to any editor what editors have done here. QuackGuru (talk) 17:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

QG, please try to play nice. Even if the above is your honest opinion (which I don't understand, as very little has actually changed in the last month), we work in a collaborative environment. When a consensus of people see things one way, you should go along with it, on the principle that you might be wrong, and that beating a dead horse would merely be disruptive. LK (talk) 09:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Editors are not working in a collaborative environment. For example, the section title Different points of view was repeately removed wirhout explanation. A lot has been changes in the last month. Most of the changes were not discussed first and were forced changes through edit war. QuackGuru (talk) 18:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

"which does not reflect a consensus of reliable sources." has the problems that the former "which is nonetheless contradicted by some reliable sources." The whole point is to address the issue of when a reliable source synthesises a "fact" by joining the dots but that "fact" is not covered one way or the other by other reliable sources which is what the wording "which not supported by other reliable sources" covers. It will only work if one assumes that a consensus must involved more than one sources how about: "that not reflect the consensus in other reliable sources."? That covers my fail safe concerns and "other reliable sources" implies at least two more to support the "fact". -- PBS (talk) 06:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

So are you saying that every fact we state (without attribution) ought to have at least three references to support it? (I presume you realize there is not currently any such standard in operation on Wikipedia, so we shouldn't be trying to word this policy in a way that implies that there is, until the community has accepted it - and knowing the community, that's unlikely.)--Kotniski (talk) 08:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

When does expert speculation become an established fact? If one expert speculates that is speculation -- think of it like getting a second option on a medical condition, get three opinions which agree and its probably time to book the operating theatre. Take your example "Chopin's citizenship" one source attribute, two sources sucks teeth and discusses the pros and cons and the reliability of the sources on the talk page, three with no dissensions then no need to attribute in the text and up to someone else to prove it is controversial with other sources. -- PBS (talk) 11:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that makes some kind of sense, but I doubt we could get consensus on precisely how many sources are required to state a fact (in any case it would often depend on what kind of source and what kind of fact).--Kotniski (talk) 13:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The problems continue. Wikilawyering is now part of policy. The wording "which does not reflect a consensus of reliable sources" should be replaced with the original wording that is which is "a matter subject to dispute". QuackGuru (talk) 07:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Current sentence: By "opinion", on the other hand, we mean a statement which expresses a value judgement, or a statement construed as factual that does not reflect the consensus in other reliable sources.

Proposal to replace current sentence: By "opinion", on the other hand, we mean a statement which expresses a value judgement.[1] Or a statement construed as factual which is "a matter subject to dispute". This proposal is clearer. QuackGuru (talk) 18:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Headings

This page is called "Neutral point of view", its first section is called "Explaining the neutral point of view", that section has two subsections called (respectively) "Neutral point of view" (i.e. back to the title of the page) and "A simple formulation" (presumably of the principle of neutral point of view, even though this subsection is much longer - and so apparently less simple - than the previous subsection, which is presumably also a general formulation of the same principle). Doesn't anyone agree that this is all a bit messy and illogical?--Kotniski (talk) 07:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I concur. It's short hand is WP:YESPOV so a better title of the section would be something like Many points of view or Point of views. If it's changed many links will get broken, like WP:YESPOV, and I don't know how to hunt down internal heading links. Alatari (talk) 09:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

That can be got round by including an anchor in the wikitext. (In fact I think that first heading is not particularly long-established - I seem to remember changing a shortcut a few days ago because it was pointing to a now non-existent heading.)--Kotniski (talk) 10:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

:I understand we can use future anchors but how do we find all the links which will have used to link to that section title? Oh you mean leave an anchor there with the old name then add the new name so no other linkto's get broken? Alatari (talk) 09:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps "Dealing with viewpoints" would work better rather than repeating the policy title. . dave souza, talk 18:10, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

This edit was not the way to go about things. A subsection title should be kept or renamed. WP:YESPOV is about "Different points of views". QuackGuru (talk) 18:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I made this change to add a section heading. QuackGuru (talk) 18:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The section header was removed without explanation. So, I restored it. QuackGuru (talk) 19:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The section heading was removed again without explanation. QuackGuru (talk) 20:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The heading "a simple formulation" is just not applicable to the "assert facts" policy, which (unlike the preceding subsection) does not summarize the general framework of policy. I suggest moving this subsection down into the "Achieving neutrality" section and retitling it "assert facts". Rvcx (talk) 17:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I restored the "Different points of views" header again. I think it may have been accidentely removed. QuackGuru (talk) 03:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Numerous times the "Different points of views" header was removed. There never was any explanation. QuackGuru (talk) 17:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Editors are not explaining the reason for deleting the renamed section title. QuackGuru (talk) 18:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I have given other editors plenty of time to reply. The title "Different points of view" summarises the general framework of the section. QuackGuru (talk) 02:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I restored the section title "Different points of view". QuackGuru (talk) 00:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I restored the section title "Different points of view" but it was removed again without any reason. QuackGuru (talk) 19:07, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be consensus for renaming the section. I propose "Different points of view" again. QuackGuru (talk) 17:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see much support for that proposal, and I object to it. I find it very hard to interpret that as consensus. Rvcx (talk) 17:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I do see support for renaming the section and you have not suggested any other section name that would be better. You repeatedly removed it without discussion. What is your objection to it. Do you have a better name. QuackGuru (talk) 18:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

This stretches WP:AGF to the breaking point: the last comment in this section that wasn't from you is precisely such a suggestion. Rvcx (talk) 18:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

You repeatedly removed it. Where was your discussion on this. I discussed it. But I didn't see you explanation. Where is your previous explanation.

The last comment in this section that wasn't from QuackGuru was a suggestion for a different section called "A simple formulation" to be called "assert facts" which does not have consensus. We are discussing a section header that is not about "A simple formulation". The section header is just underneath "Explanation of the neutral point of view" for the section about WP:YESPOV. "Different points of view" is a good section name for that section. Is there any other section name for this particular section that would be a better title. QuackGuru (talk) 18:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

<sigh.> To clarify: the "explanation" section doesn't need subheadings; it should just be a single summary of the whole policy. The "a simple formulation" subsection is not a summary of the whole policy, so it should be moved to the following section (on specific techniques for achieving a neutral point of view. I don't expect you to agree with this view, but you are obliged to acknowledge it. Rvcx (talk) 19:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Based on comments from other editors like Dave souza there is consensus to rename the section. The "A simple formulation" subsection is the correct placement for it. "A simple formulation" is an explanation on how to present all the text for a fact versus an opinion. Is there a better section title than "Different points of view"? "Explanation of the neutral point of view" does not describe the section WP:YESPOV. So it is apparent a section title that describes the section is appropriate. QuackGuru (talk) 19:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Here you appear to be using "consensus" in a bold new way. I see no substantial support for your proposal. I do see opposition: mine. Do not make such an edit without consensus. Rvcx (talk) 19:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a better section title than "Different points of view"? "Explanation of the neutral point of view" does not describe the section WP:YESPOV. So it is clear a section title that describes the section is appropriate. I don't see any specific objection to my well presented comment. QuackGuru (talk) 19:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't really see a need for any heading at that point. Unfortunately the logical structure of this page is such a mess, thanks to the people who unthinkingly reverted the great improvements that were made a month or two ago, that it's really hard to say what should be titled how, but I don't see any way in which subtitling that section would help anyone. --Kotniski (talk) 06:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

There is a need for a heading for the section. "Explanation of the neutral point of view" does not fit the section WP:YESPOV. So it is obvious a section title that describes the section is needed. "Different points of view" describes the section WP:YESPOV. I don't see any rational opposition for a section title. The opposition is vague objections. QuackGuru (talk) 01:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I see consensus to rename the section like "Different points of view". The arguments against renaming the section are vague and make no sense. QuackGuru (talk) 22:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

different approach to this whole ASF thing

During a protracted conversation with a pushy editor, it occurred to me that maybe it would be better to turn this whole ASF things around. rather than saying 'Assert facts...' (with all the weird tangles that gets into, definitionally speaking), say something like the following:

Do not make assertions about content - Wikipedia is not the place to debate the truth-value of topics. Instead, present sources who make assertions about content, and debate the reliability and weight of those sources. Some ideas are so uncontested that any reasonable source would accept them - e.g. "Mars is a planet" or "Plato was a philosopher" - and these ideas do not normally need citations. For topics which are contested, however, reliable sources should be found that assert the various positions on that topic. Editors who find themselves asserting a position without reference to a source should stop immediately and find a source.

thoughts? --Ludwigs2 03:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

That formulation does not provide a measurable criteria for discerning the differences between such statements. That is the main problem with some of the recent changes in my mind and this only pushes the problem along even further. It also doesn't deal with when one needs to use inline attribution and when one does not, even in its ambiguity. We need a clear statement about when something can be written in Wikipedia's voice, and how to discern this in a measurable way. We cannot leave this up to editors to argue over ... for example what is and is not "so uncontested".Griswaldo (talk) 04:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm following you - "provide a measurable criteria for discerning the differences between what statements"? The usual problem (to my mind) is that editors get hung up on what they think is the correct perspective (which is how most editors will interpret the term 'fact'), and end up arguing against other perspectives rather than integrate and balance other perspectives. from wikipedia's perspective, a 'fact' is just an assertion that nobody disputes, but that's not the way most people think of the word, so the positive formulation is terribly confusing. what I think we need to do (and what I was aiming for here) is to discourage editors from debating what is factually true, and encourage them to debate about which sources need to be referenced in the article. --Ludwigs2 04:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

This might fit in somewhere, but it doesn't seem to me to address the specific issues that the "Assert facts" section addresses, so it can hardly be a replacement for that section.--Kotniski (talk) 04:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I guess that's kind of my point - I think the whole 'Assert Facts' thing is far more trouble than it's worth, because it tends to lead people down the path towards trying to establish 'truth'. 'Facts' is just a bad, misleading word, and I'd just as soon get rid of it. --Ludwigs2 07:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

You are clearly against ASF. I think you want to undermine facts by adding weasel words like "According to" instead of asserting the text. ASF is for stopping editors like who? QuackGuru (talk) 07:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Ludwig that "assert facts" is not workable. The point of the section is to provide a simple formulation of the policy, and "assert facts" is not it. In fact, it is counter to NPOV, as every POV pushing troll I've ever met insisted s/he was simply "asserting facts" or "telling the truth." I suggest more discussion may be needed to fine tune the precise verbiage in that section; blanket accusations of bad faith are unlikely to prove productive. But changing the section title to "assert facts" is a non-starter. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

But changing it back to "a simple formulation" is not workable either, since as we've argued ad nauseam, it is neither simple, nor a formulation. Let's leave it without a title - it fits well enough under the higher-level title section title of "Explaining the neutral point of view". And if you think "assert facts" is wrong (and in principle I agree with you, though people seem to like the slogan), then you'd better find some way of rewording the main topic sentence of that paragraph, which says exactly that.--Kotniski (talk) 14:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

And ignoring the arguments and just changing it back to something on the grounds that it's "always been like that" is highly damaging to the effort to make this page satisfactory.--Kotniski (talk) 14:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Kotniski, I do recognize some of your assertions have logical merit. However, there is unquestionably not, at present, a broad consensus for changing the long-standing section title at all, let alone to something like "Assert facts". It's been "A simple formulation" (WP:ASF) for four years now, and before that, since the very beginning of the wiki, it was "An alternative formulation". All the while, countless seasoned editors and administrators on the wiki have regarded it as at least reasonable, even if imperfect. Recently a new shortcut (WP:ASSERT) was created without any vociferous objections, AFAICT. But now, making "assert facts" a centerpiece of the policy would change it from an alternative or "simplified" explanation to something that flies right in the face of the very reason the words "neutral point of view" were chosen rather than something like "state facts" or "be objective", because one person's "facts" and "objectivity" commonly are at great variance with another person's "facts" or "objective statements".
..... Kindly propose any substantial changes at WP:VPP so it can get the attention of the broader community. ... Kenosis (talk) 15:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I"m not insisting that it be titled "assert facts" (in fact I'm happier with no section title at all). But since no-one's come up with the slightest justification for its being called "simple" or a "formulation of the policy" (and changing a section title doesn't represent a substantial change to policy, just improves presentation, so it doesn't need the whole community's attention), it's simply damaging to keep putting it back like that. --Kotniski (talk) 15:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

This is where you're wrong. A substantial change to the policy does need the attention of the community if you're going to claim it has consensus. Not only that, getting consensus at, say, WP:VPP, has the potential to draw broader criticism after it gets implemented. WP:ATT is the poster child for this phenomenon. But at least bring up this issue, of what you and several others consider to be an objectionable section title, at VPP so a slightly broader set of experienced editors can try to assess its implications and see if a clear consensus can be reached. ... Kenosis (talk) 15:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

How is a section title "substantial"? It doesn't change the substance of the policy at all. It's just correcting an obvious error - we shouldn't be wasting any time on it. If you think it's not an error, please respond to the fairly clear arguments that have been made showing that it's an error. If not, let's be pleased that we've made this tiny bit of progress, and move on to making more important progress.--Kotniski (talk) 15:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

It's substantial because what once was an alternative or simple explanation has become a rewrite of NPOV. You're trying to define NPOV as "assert facts" and POV as "opinion". Fair enough as an alternative explanation for the newbie. When you try to put it up as a per se policy provision under the rubrick of "Assert facts", it's a substantial change in approach. ... Kenosis (talk) 00:46, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

More substantially, the lead sentence is still "Assert facts - including facts about opinions - but don't assert the opinions themselves". If people don't like the "assert facts" wording, then what do they propose instead? Remember, what we actually mean is that we can state something with no inline attribution if both of the following conditions are met: (1) it's a "factual type of statement" rather than an opinion/value/judgement; AND (2) it is "supported by a consensus of reliable sources"/"not seriously disputed among reliable sources". Find a way of wording that. --Kotniski (talk) 15:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The lead sentence is as it always has been in the "alternative formulation". More recently it's been expanded to include a summary explanation of other policy provisions such as WEIGHT, which is also in bold font. Yet more importantly for our purposes, a change to "Assert facts" doesn't have anything remotely resembling consensus even here on this talk page. But if there's something compelling to the logic you assert, something that's somehow been missed for all these years, then it should be possible to gain some kind of consensus for what you propose at WP:VPP I would certainly think. ... Kenosis (talk) 00:46, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it would be better to figure out how to change the content first before getting tangled up in a debate over the headers? just a thought... --Ludwigs2 15:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it would be better to restore the original meaning of ASF and leave the title of "A simple formulation" alone. QuackGuru (talk) 19:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

No. as has been said a number of times the original form was not very useful, and was confusing. --Ludwigs2 19:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

You think asserting a fact without in-text attribution is confusing and is implying truth. When there is no serious dispute there is no need to add an inline qualifier for a statement. Adding an inline qualifier implies the the text is controversial. QuackGuru (talk) 19:25, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

No, it seems to be you who thinks that inline attribution implies that the text is controversial. There is no reason to think that, it is simply the courteous thing to do for the reader - informing them of where such information derived. Unomi (talk) 20:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

You position conflicts with the original meaning of ASF and is against NPOV. QuackGuru (talk) 20:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

don't care, and not true. sorry. --Ludwigs2 21:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Sad that you don't care. Your proposal is incoherent and is not an improvement on the original simple formulation. . . dave souza, talk 21:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

A, geez, you guys take the cake. your response is incoherent - try discussing the matter rather than pontificating. --Ludwigs2 23:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but the way some editors are behaving and the apparent misunderstanding of this section by just about everyone makes me feel that this is all just a joke to wind people like me up. We've spent hours talking about this and gradually making progress towards writing something that makes sense, and then people come along and just revert everything with no explanation or justification. If you've got counter-arguments to the arguments that have been made as to why the changes have been improvements, then please present them. If you're not intelligent or interested enough to understand, then go and find some other page to edit. But this section is saying something very concrete and I think largely undisputable - if someone once thought that it was a "simple formulation of the whole policy" then they were simply wrong, it isn't particularly simple, and it isn't the whole policy or even the main point of the policy. It's about the very specific question (which to me doesn't even belong on this page, it should be at WP:V, but anyway) of when to use in-text attribution. We could title it that in fact. Well that's the first paragraph; the second paragraph does belong on this page I suppose, if you insist on keeping V and NPOV separate, and is perhaps closer to being the main point of the policy (we are not really neutral as some people might understand it; we reflect what the "reliable" sources say in more or less the proportion that they say it). Can anyone formulate specific objections to the way the section is now written (i.e. not the version QG keeps going back to, but the improved version that I've just gone back to). I understand some people object to "Assert facts" as a slogan - are we proposing a better one?--Kotniski (talk) 14:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

you're referring to this version? Yes, I actually have several reasoned objections to this:

• the whole 'Assert facts' things is factually wrong, misleading, and does not even work well as a slogan. We shouldn't be encouraging editors to assert anything on wikipedia; they should only be summarizing what sources say.
• for a similar reason, we should not be talking about "Wikipedia's voice". Wikipedia does not and should not have a voice. if we say something like "Mars is a planet" without a citation, we do so because it is such a conventional statement that no one would debate it, not unless they were simply being contrary. If anything, we say such things in a 'common voice' that has nothing to do with wikipedia - it's just an appeal to basic cultural language conventions. "Mars is a planet" works because the society at large has defined Mars to be a planet, and burden of proof is on anyone who wants to redefine it (think Pluto).
• There is an extensive amount of redundancy in this version of the section: at least half of the material is variations on wp:undue for instance. most of this material should probably be in the preceding 'explanation' section, not here in the 'simple formulation' section.

Now, it seems to me that if we want to do a simple formulation, it needs to cover three main points:

1. Editors should make reasonable statements about the topic, based in the positions and opinions of reliable sources.
2. Editors should not themselves give or advocate for opinions or positions
3. Editors should weigh and balance sources with respect to the topic as a whole, so as not to overstate or understate any particular opinion or position

No need to discuss facts at all: Just instruct people to keep their statements reasonable and avoid advocacy, and the rest will fall into line via consensus. (e.g. anyone who wants to argue that the phrase "Mars is a planet" constitutes advocacy is welcome to try, and will fail - it's much easier to demonstrate that "Mars is a planet" is not advocacy than it is to show that "Mars is a planet" is a fact)--Ludwigs2 16:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

That sounds quite reasonable (though remember this isn't about citations, i.e. refs; it's specifically about in-line attribitution). Can you draft a possible wording for the policy?--Kotniski (talk) 16:21, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok. If I were going to redraft the entire 'explanations' section to the way I see it, I would do it like the following (not a perfect draft, but I think it covers the main points):

Neutral point of view is an approach Wikipedia editors should take in constructing or revising articles. In its simplest form, NPOV asks that editors remain neutral in their presentation of material, even (or perhaps particularly) where sources on the topic are not neutral. In brief:

• Editors should make reasonable statements about the topic, based on the positions and opinions of reliable sources.
• Editors should avoid giving their own opinions, or advocating for the opinions or positions given in sources.
• Editors should weigh and balance sources with respect to the topic as a whole, so as not to overstate or understate any particular opinion or position.

This does not mean that editors should not have opinions or positions on the topic, but rather that editors should only add material to the encyclopedia as it can be attributed to reliable sources, and should evaluate all material in the article only in terms of the reliability and prominence of its sources, not in terms of its meaning or implications.

Many editors have difficulty with the concept of NPOV, because they confuse it with the idea that Wikipedia should present information that is 'correct', 'true' or 'factual'. However, the correctness or truth of material is something that should be debated in or determined by sources; Wikipedia should only present the conclusions that sources reach, or present the debates that sources have if they have not reached a conclusion. Wikipedia editors should merely present what sources say, attributing as necessary, so that readers of the encyclopedia can clearly understand the nature and dimensions of the subject.

NPOV requires some care when using attributions. Sometimes editors will make unreasonable demand for attribution, or use attribution inappropriately, in order to argue for or against a particular position. In general, commonly known material does not need attribution: statements such as "Mars is a planet" or "Mr. <...> was a president of the United States" do not need to be attributed to any particular source since any reasonable editor will recognize the plethora of sources in which such information could be found. Editors will sometimes make arguments of this type because they do not believe that Mars should be a planet or that Mr. <...> was a legitimate president, but such editors are clearly engaged in advocacy, and should be reminded of this policy. More difficult issues arise with positions or opinions that are prominent but not wholly (or even widely) accepted. Restrictive attribution can make a position look as though it has less credibility than it actually has; Loose or excessive attribution can make a position seems as though it has more support than it actually has. Attributions should usually be treated as exemplars - i.e. as examples of arguments that are made in scholarly discussions. Attributions should not be presented as the specific opinion of a particular source or scholar except where it is clear that this source or scholar is the only (or one of very few) who hold that position. Nor should attributions be used to try to demonstrate that a position is an established and accepted 'fact'; Attributions may be used to show that a particular position is a dominant or broadly-held position within a particular context, but attempts to establish that it is the 'correct' position are, again, advocacy. As a rule, editors should limit themselves to one or two 'best sources' to which a particular statement can be attributed, and should avoid excessive numbers of sources or sources with excessively extreme views, to avoid over-burdening the page with references or giving the impression that extreme views are the norm.

--Ludwigs2 03:43, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

That looks quite good on the whole; what do people think? Though as written, I think there are too many words and too little by way of concrete examples that explain what it's getting at. In particular, we need to make it clear what kind of "attributions" we're talking about (because many people will assume it means footnoted references). Also I think there's perhaps too much emphasis on the actions and motivations of editors, rather than description of what kind of article we are striving for (this page is advertised as a core content policy, after all). --Kotniski (talk) 05:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Just as an FYI: the emphasis on the actions and motivations of editors is intentional. NPOV as a policy has nothing to do with sources - sources do not, and are not expected to, abide by the principles of NPOV. NPOV is a policy about the behavior of editors with respect to sources. Attempting to talk about NPOV from the perspective of sources is how we end up in the quagmire of 'asserting facts' (as though there were no difference between what a source says and what an editor does with what a source says).

As far as my being wordy, well... please read this article. --Ludwigs2 15:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Just passing through quickly at the moment. I for one would probably support jettisoning the whole "alternative formulation" at this stage of the wiki's growth, perhaps to be replaced by a "simplified summary of the policy" or some such approach. The "assert facts" approach has proven in recent months to be very contentious with no foreseeable end to the controversy. A certain portion of folks seem to take the "facts" thing a bit too literally and as has already been pointed out, countless POV pushers see the words "assert facts" and seem to think something to the effect that "all I'm doing is asserting facts"--indeed they often say things just like this to justify their POV pushing. Regarding Ludwig's proposal, at first glance it seems to me to have some potential. (Incidentally, I'd immediately recommend replacing the word "should" with "are expected to" or "must", since it's a policy not a guideline; and maybe replace the word "reasonable" with "unbiased" or similar wording--but this is just a quick reaction of course.)
.....I really think it's time to bring this whole ASF matter up at WP:VPP and get a sense of what the broader community might think here. As far as my time presently permits, I'd back up the idea that it's worth having a try at getting a truly simplified alternative explanation into this policy page, one which doesn't fall into the inherent trap of relying on the word "fact" to make its point. In Wikispeak today, nine years after the "alternative formulation" was first added by The Cunctator, as a community we've come to tend to think of "fact" as being related to verification or attribution, in roughly the sense it's used in the "citation-needed" template, and generally do not think of "fact" as "having consensus of RSs" or "an assertion about which there is no dispute among RSs". In large part because it is a consensus-based online community project, this core policy uses the concept of the "neutral point of view", not "state facts", "assert facts", "be objective", or other such characterization. That's my current take on it, and I look forward to maybe seeing a proposal up for discussion at VPP. Good luck with it. ... Kenosis (talk) 15:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I neither support nor oppose the proposal, but would note that at the very least, there should a RfC and a posting at Wikipedia:Village pump before such a major change is implemented. LK (talk) 00:14, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes LKH, WP:VPP is the "Village Pump (Policy)" page to which i was referring. And thanks, of course, for referring to the main WP:VP page which outlines the basics for those that might be as yet unfamiliar with this aspect of WP procedure. ... Kenosis (talk) 04:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

well, I could RfC is here an post it at the pump for broad comment, but I think it's better to see if it passes the wp:snowball test here, first. let's get some feedback, do some revisions (if the feedback is positive), and then try the VPP. (adding forgotten sig)--Ludwigs2 16:24, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Where does it explain in this proposal when to use an inline qualifier or when to assert the text. QuackGuru (talk) 18:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

third paragraph. --Ludwigs2 22:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

"Wikipedia editors should merely present what sources say, attributing as necessary, so that readers of the encyclopedia can clearly understand the nature and dimensions of the subject."

This sentence is not clear when to use an inline qualifier or when to assert the text. Are you of the opinion editors should make there own decision how to present the verfied text or there should be a clear explanation on how to do this. QuackGuru (talk) 17:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that Wikipedia editors can think, yes. trying to specify in detail when inline qualifiers are needed is merely instruction creep. --Ludwigs2 19:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

So you are against making ASF clearer. QuackGuru (talk) 01:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm against making NPOV muddier. QG, if you have a point to make, make it. you should know by now that you cannot win a spin-doctoring war with me (I won't let you), so we might as well get down to proper discussion. --Ludwigs2 07:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

"Wikipedia editors should merely present what sources say, attributing as necessary, so that readers of the encyclopedia can clearly understand the nature and dimensions of the subject."

This sentence does not indicate when to attribute as necessary and when not to attribute in the text. It is confusing. Explaining when to use an inline qualifier such as when there is a serious dispute is clearly. We have policy because editors are not supposed to think for themselves. Your proposal does not explain when to use in-text attribution and when to assert the text as fact. For example, when there is no serious dispute we can assert the text without an inline qualifier. QuackGuru (talk) 19:19, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

(Stepping back into the breach:) I agree with the thrust of Ludwig's rewrite as policy, however I think it's a poorer fit with how policy is documented elsewhere. In particular, I think we need to try to tease out the differences between WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV, and try to help the reader navigate between these policies. I admit that this was never done terribly well here, but the rewrite seems to blur the lines still more with a fair amount of material more applicable to the other two policies. The main point I'd like to see this article express is that it's possible to use verifiable information from reliable sources to push a POV, so an orthogonal policy does exist. I know that's a nebulous criticism; I will try to draft my own version today in the hopes it will provide a more concrete basis for further discussion. Rvcx (talk) 09:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

A similar proposal was previously rejected. It is important not to blurr the lines and confound different policies. ASF is about how to present the verified text for what are contrued as wikifacts or wikiopinions according to Wikipedia's defintion of a fact or opinion. QuackGuru (talk) 19:19, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

took a bit of a break from this thread, sorry. since the only objection to this revision seems to be QG, I think it might be worth editing it in to see what response it gets from a broader audience. you're right, though - it is important to set the correct boundaries between policies. Unless you have a draft ready, I'll put some thought into that before I make any revisions. --Ludwigs2 06:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

"Wikipedia editors should merely present what sources say, attributing as necessary, so that readers of the encyclopedia can clearly understand the nature and dimensions of the subject."

This sentence does not indicate when to attribute as necessary and when not to attribute in the text. It is confusing. Explaining when to use an inline qualifier such as when there is a serious dispute is clearly. We have policy because editors are not supposed to think for themselves. Your proposal does not explain when to use in-text attribution and when to assert the text as fact. For example, when there is no serious dispute we can assert the text without an inline qualifier.

Ludwigs2, you did not respond to this previous argument. Is Ludwigs2 also against his own proposal when he can't respond to QuackGuru's argument. QuackGuru (talk) 00:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

err... "We have policy because editors are not supposed to think for themselves"? did you really mean to say that, or was that a mistype. policy is not, never has been, never will be, and never could be a substitute for having editors use reason and common sense. I don't see any particular reason why we would have to tell editors whether they have use attribution. I mean, what value does a phrase like "You do not have to give attributions for statements like 'Plato was a philosopher'" have? First, no one with common sense would ever question that statement in any normal case (unless they just didn't know about Plato, and then a quick glance at any dictionary will verify it). second, there might be special cases where we do want people to attribute it (e.g. in some article about someone who questions whether Plato could really be called a philosopher). You cannot make a blanket rule that will substitute for editors considering the needs of the article in context.

Or am I misunderstanding the argument you are making? --Ludwigs2 00:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Some editors are not about using common sense. They are about ignoring ASF. That is one of the reasons for having ASF. We have policy because editors are not supposed to think for themselves all the time. If editors think for themselves they will end up turning articles like homeopathy into an advertisement. Ludwigs2 thinks "I don't see any particular reason why we would have to tell editors whether they have use attribution." We should tell editors when to use attribution and when not to use attribution. For example, without ASF editors will add attribution when there is no serious dispute for a fact. There are routine cases when attribution is appropriate such as a serious dispute between sources or for a value judgement statement. If it is your intention to eliminate when to explain to editors when attribution may be required or not required you are against the original meaning of ASF. I think you should take a wikibreak from editing on Wikipedia if you are against NPOV and think long and hard about what you are doing here. I don't see any valid reason given by Ludwigs2 why we should eliminate ASF if that is the case. Ludwigs2's motivation is not to improve ASF. Ludwigs2 seems to want to rewrite ASF to eliminate its core meaning. Ludwigs2 did not tell what the rewrite would accomplish other than eliminating when telling editors to attribute in the text or asserting a fact. Ludwigs2 rough drafts seem more like soapboxing and wikilawyering nonsense. The rough drafts does not explain any measurable criteria for discerning the differences between facts (no serious dispute) and opinions (serious dispute or value statment).

"Editors who find themselves asserting a position without reference to a source should stop immediately and find a source."

This sentence is confounding V into ASF. ASF is about how to present the text. It is not specifically about V.

"In general, commonly known material does not need attribution: statements such as "Mars is a planet" or "Mr. <...> was a president of the United States" do not need to be attributed to any particular source since any reasonable editor will recognize the plethora of sources in which such information could be found."

If the text has no serious dispute and is not commonly known material according to Ludwigs2's draft any editor can add attribution. This allows attribution in the text to imply the material is controversial. This can cause a potential BLP violation. The rough drafts conflicts with other policies. Ludwigs2 is of the opinion that Wikipedia editors can think for themselves and trying to specify in detail when inline qualifiers are needed is merely instruction creep. Ludwigs thinks making NPOV clearer by specifying when inline qualifiers are needed makes NPOV muddier. If making ASF clearer is muddier to you then I want mud. There is no problem with editors getting there hands a little muddy and spending a little time reading NPOV policy. NPOV is very short compared to a typical book a kid reads. I don't see any reason why Ludwigs2 should continue. QuackGuru (talk) 16:52, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

So it is clear it is not only QuackGuru who is finding this proposed wording not to be an improvement. I too do not think it an improvement. Take for example the question of whether the Provisional IRA was a terrorist organisation or not. I do not see how this proposed wording would help solve the POV issues surrounding such issues. The current wording does. -- PBS (talk) 11:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

• I believe the issue is best framed as stressing the importance to distinguish between "talk about talk" and "talk about the world". --87.79.53.65 (talk) 15:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Mass attribution

this edit removed a recently reintroduced paragraph:

It is not sufficient to discuss an opinion as fact merely by stating "some people believe...", a practice referred to as "mass attribution". For instance, if the source says "a majority" that should not be used to say "most", or if the survey says "90% in favor" that does not become "an overwhelming majority". A reliable source supporting a statement that a group holds an opinion should accurately describe what the group is saying.

With the comment "Rmg reinserted guideline-not-policy material. We do mass attribution all the time by attributing to groups, orgs, etc. This parag is for e.g. WP:WTA, WP:WEASEL, etc.)"

Yet further down the page we have:

There is a temptation to rephrase biased or opinion statements with weasel words: "Many people think John Doe is the best baseball player." But statements of this form are subject to obvious attacks: "Yes, many people think so, but only ignorant people"; and "Just how many is 'many'? I think it's only 'a few' who think that!" By attributing the claim to a known authority, or substantiating the facts behind it, you can avoid these problems.

Which seems to me to be for more the wording suitable for a guideline, as the second block of text does not say do not do it. Clearly there is general agreement that "mass attribution" in the form of "some people believe..." should not be used. It seems to me that the wording in the first block is closer to what should appear in this policy than the text in the second block, because the second block does not state policy it gives guidance.

What we should say is this policy is something along the lines of "Mass attribution without a source to back up the wording of the mass attribution should not be used. [suggest and examples of alternative formats]". As to why that is the details can go into the guidelines. -- PBS (talk) 02:53, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

As I happen to be online at the moment: PBS, I think your last paragraph cuts right to the chase, so to speak here. Mass attribution, a term basically invented by Wikipedians and little used elsewhere, is done all the time in WP. I think the key, which is guideline material, is to try to avoid weasel words and such. But often, words or phrases like "some scientists theorize ... " or "many orthodontists assert ...", or [one for QuackGuru here] "studies by several chiropractic-medicine researchers have indicated that ...", etc. etc., are perfectly appropriate within the NPOV, and are legitimate if the use of the words is backed up by the sources consistently with WP:V and WP:NOR, and if it also meets the core procedural policy WP:CON as well. Therefore the matter of "mass attribution" is inherently guideline material, and even if it's arguably policy material it has little to do with NPOV. Moreover, even the current guidelines don't deal with "mass attribution", but rather in WP:Words to watch, which has now subsumed WP:WEASEL. But the NPOV policy, at least since I recently clarified in-brief in ASF the notion of attributing to "a person, organization, group of persons, or percentage of persons" (here), already accounts for this issue without needing to deal with the vague notion of "mass attribution".
..... Additionally, as I said two sections above, given the ongoing seemingly endless controversy over WP:ASF, I personally have begun to think the whole notion of ASF might need to be revisited by the broader community due to its over-reliance on a "fact vs. opinion" distinction, when, [pardon me here] in fact the well accepted policy is "neutral point of view", not what is "fact" vs. what is "opinion". ... Kenosis (talk) 03:17, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

We could certainly use better words, but this is a basic concept - something that people actually understand and do. If they see an "opinion" stated directly in an article, they remove it or attribute it or reword it in more "factual" terms, and they seem to understand this as being part of NPOV. I mean, there are so many empty words on this policy page that are too vague to actually ever resolve anything, but this fact vs. opinion thing is actually concrete and implementable, even if no-one can define with philosophical rigour how they distinguish one from the other.--Kotniski (talk) 06:14, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Mass attribution is a common problem on Wikipedia. Attributing to "a person, organization, group of persons, or percentage of persons" does not cover this problem. "Studies by several chiropractic-medicine researchers have indicated that..." is a mass attribution problem if the source does not say "several". Mass attribution is about how to present the fact or opinion neutrally. Therefore, "mass attribution" is inherently a NPOV issue. QuackGuru (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the source has to say "several" - if we have several papers, then we can say that there are several papers (though it may not be the best phrasing). (It's like if we say that "A says B" - we don't need to find a source that says that A says B; it's enough to find a source written by A that says B.)--Kotniski (talk) 08:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Mass attribution is not a policy issue. The policy issue here is that editors should not be trying to shade their presentation of source material to make it appear to be more (or less) prominent in the literature than it is. Mass attribution (as well as weasel wording) is a specific application of that principle that ought to be limited to guidelines (or at least relegated to examples on this page, with a link to the guidelines that cover it). we should probably remove the second quote (given above) as well. --Ludwigs2 16:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I think mass attribution is a specific problem that should be addressed here. Without a reliable source to back it up it is a form of OR (and more specifically WP:SYN) used to present a specific POV (and because it presents a POV it should be presented here). -- PBS (talk) 07:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. This page is already the longest of the three main content policy pages, so let's try not to overburden it. You have just argued that mass attribution is an WP:OR, or more specifically a WP:SYN problem. So, let's address the issue there. If necessary, a short note can be included on this page (with a link to the discussion on the WP:OR page). LK (talk) 09:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Lawrencekhoo, you wrote "I disagree". You believe it is not a SYN problem? So you beleive what then. There is no problem. Editors deleted mass attribution first before discussion and then argue against it. Mass attribution is about how to present a fact or opinion neutrally. Therefore, "mass attribution" is also inherently a NPOV issue. We should wriute something here first and then include it in a lot more detail on another page. NPOV is a very short page. I think there is room for mass attribution. If we have several papers, then we can't say that there are several papers. The text would fail V and NPOV. QuackGuru (talk) 17:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

In answer to QG's question, I disagree that mass attribution should be addressed here. IMO, it fits best at WP:V, or WP:IRS where there's already some discussion of this issue (see WP:RS/AC). --LK (talk) 07:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Lawrencekhoo previously wrote in part "If necessary, a short note can be included on this page (with a link to the discussion on the WP:OR page)."

I think it is necessary to include mass attribution on this page. Lawrencekhoo, are you working on another policy page to include mass attribution there. Where exactly there is already some discussion specifically about mass attribution. We can include a link to that specific section here. QuackGuru (talk) 17:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

QuackGuru I don't think LK is disagreeing that it is SYN, LK is disagreeing that it should be presented on this policy page. I on the other hand think it is an NPOV issue, and that we should explicitly highlight it here by saying don't mass attribute unless the sources explicitly back up the usage, because AFAICT it has been part of the policy on this page for a long time and it is specifically a NPOV presentational problem. I think the current wording "There is a temptation..." is far to much like guideline advise and not a policy rule. -- PBS (talk) 21:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The reason I'd argue against having it on the main policy page is that it's too concrete. Mass attribution is a particular example of one type of misrepresentation of sources, where misrepresentation of sources is violation of NPOV. This article should talk about misrepresentation of sources, but all the particular concrete ways in which sources can be misrepresented should really go to particular sections of guidelines (which is where editors look for concrete solutions to specific problems). delegation: you cannot stuff every specific thing that might ultimately be rooted in an NPOV problem onto the NPOV policy, per wp:CREEP if nothing else.--Ludwigs2 22:35, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I hope you are not implying there is no room for mass attribution on this page for such a common problem. QuackGuru (talk) 17:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Here's a very quick history of WP's use of "mass attribution". See Wikipedia:Be cautious with compliments and mass attribution. Started in 2005 by User:Doom here, it never went anywhere as a proposed replacement for disputed aspects of WP:PEACOCK and WP:WEASEL. Here's its entire page history, which shows that by the end of 2005 the proposal was dead even as a proposed guideline.
..... How it got into NPOV is that it was added 4 July 2007 by TimVickers in a mass edit of ASF which included the insertion of a footnote saying "This is often referred to as "mass attribution". (See e.g., Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms)". Much of TimVickers' edit was reverted but the footnote remained.
..... Sometime in 2008 the words "mass attribution" were brought from the footnote into the body text, saying "... a practice referred to as "mass attribution". In the meantime, the phrase "mass attribution" never even gained currency as a guideline. See, e.g., This proposal to replace WP:WEASEL by User:Doom, and this talk section. this list of proposed non-pejorative terms] for what we still call "weasel words".
..... We can't even seem to agree here on what is the range of things the term "mass attribution" covers, but its very limited usage in WP as a whole appears to be as merely one of many proposed alternatives to "weasel words", the page for which (WP:WEASEL) has recently been merged into WP:Words to watch, as part of the Manual of style. ... Kenosis (talk) 07:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Including one sentence here and the rest in a footnote could be a compromise. Kenosis, if you think mass attribution is guideline material then I suggest you add it to a guideline page. QuackGuru (talk) 17:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Kenosis, I think it is a NPOV presentational problem and it is more appropriate to mention it here rather than on WP:V as you suggested above. -- PBS (talk) 02:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

ugh, reading over Kenosis' short history confirms what I've always worried about with wikipedia - policy drift. A policy starts out saying X, which is supported by consensus, and then gets hit by a long, slow series of changes by people worried about overly specific issues until what it originally said - X - gets lost behind a pile of gibberish. bit like that old game we used to play as kids where you whisper a phrase from ear to ear around a circle and laugh at how badly mangled it is when it gets back to the starting point. I think it's time that we filed strip this policy, clean it up, and put it back together without all the fluff, and I really think that this mass attribution stuff constitutes discardable fluff. --Ludwigs2 07:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Hear hear. (Indeed this was done with this page some time ago; but there's always one or two change-fearing editors who insist on "reverting to long-standing version", so such work is often wasted, which I suppose discourages people from doing it.)--Kotniski (talk) 07:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I see consensus for including mass attribution. No even one editor was able support text that was not in the source presented. The arguments for including mass attribution surpass the arguments for not including it. QuackGuru (talk) 22:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

From Aspartame. Some claim that aspartame leaves an odd after-taste, while others describe it as a non-flavor or watery after-taste.[25]

This text uses the word some. Is this a mass attribution problem. QuackGuru (talk) 18:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

It's problematic on a number of fronts (among other things, it's completely unsupported by the reference given). "Mass attribution" is almost always poor style and very often poor sourcing, but it's only really relevant to NPOV if mass attribution is used as camouflage for undue weight. Rvcx (talk) 18:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

At least for alternative medicine articles it is a serious neutrality problem. QuackGuru (talk) 18:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

From homeopathy. While some individual studies have positive results... seems like mass attribution. Editors do mass attribution all the time but it should be neutral and not unsourced. QuackGuru (talk) 18:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

That example is clearly not mass attribution if the individual studies are individually cited (as the tag added in your diff requests); there's no need to name the individual studies in the text if the only purpose is to set up the fact that meta-analysis puts such individual studies into context. But I agree with your point here: mass attribution is more applicable to verifiability and reliable sources than to NPOV. Rvcx (talk) 18:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The example is clearly an example of mass attribution. While some individual studies have positive results is mass attribution. When the text is not neutrally written it is also applicable to NPOV. QuackGuru (talk) 18:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Mass attribution is a common problem.[1][2][3] This should remain part of NPOV policy. This will reduce the amount of future content disputes. QuackGuru (talk) 19:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Mass attribution rewrite

It is not sufficient to discuss an opinion as fact merely by stating "some people believe...", a practice referred to as "mass attribution". For instance, if the source says "a majority" that should not be used to say "most", or if the survey says "90% in favor" that does not become "an overwhelming majority". A reliable source supporting a statement that a group holds an opinion should accurately describe what the group is saying. Mass attribution without a source to back up the wording of the mass attribution should not be used.

Comments on mass attribution rewrite

Here is text editors can work on to improve NPOV. This text can go in ASF. QuackGuru (talk) 22:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it is clear from discussion above that there is no consensus for this form of wording. I would suggest something briefer that avoids the term "mass attribution". How about:

Attribution in the text must accurately reflect the sources. Do not use terms like "most experts" unless a source can be found to substantiate such a claim (See WP:SYN and WP:WEASEL).

--PBS (talk) 04:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Editorial bias ... should be removed or repaired.

Hello. The guide currently includes this sentence: "Editorial bias toward one particular point of view should be removed or repaired." [4]. Please can this be changed to "Editorial bias toward one particular point of view should be repaired, or carefully removed. Concerning removal: this only relates to a removal of certain select parts of the text, which push certain views in a way that makes them verifiably overrepresented and gives them more weight, than is reflected by a neutral point of view. Removal may not be abused, to eliminate a particular verifiable point of view itself." Thank you. (As a quick fix for now, I suggest simply removing the word "removed" - since "removing" carries with it the problem of destruction, and lack of progress in articles - progress which can often be generated by getting people (who focus only one point of view) to make it more neutral by providing other views as well!) Zielvorhaltt (talk) 05:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The text only says that the bias should be removed; it doesn't suggest removing content. I appreciate the concern, but attempts to turn broad statements of policy into a detailed formula for micro-managing the editorial process is how the policy has evolved into a bloated and sometimes confusing mess. Delving into all the caveats just seems to be inviting more wikilawyering, not less. Rvcx (talk) 18:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Segmented article titles

Usually changes to a page should be discussed on the talk page of the policy, but in this case the discussion is on the Article titles talk page rather than here. So this edit is by way of an explanation.

There has been a debate over at Wikipedia talk:Article titles over the use of segmented in the section of this page called Article titles. It became clear from the debate that the wording did not convey clearly the meaning which most editors understood it to mean and this edit is intended to address. -- PBS (talk) 21:18, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

How do you / should this policy deal with obsoleted points of view

(I made up this example to distill the question) Let's say that there was an open scientific question 5 years ago, is "A" correct or is "B" correct, and there are a huge amount of 5 year old reliable sources saying both assertions. Then, 2 years ago there was a huge experiment or observation to where now 99.99% of everybody believes "A". Since there is a huge amount of RS material asserting "B", this policy as written seems to allow (and possibly mandate) substantial coverage of viewpoint "B". Is that true? North8000 (talk) 14:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you should discuss viewpoint "B", and in some detail... however, that discussion should be in the form of historical context, and the article should note that the experiment that took place two years ago has now settled the issue on viewpoint "A". Blueboar (talk) 14:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Of course that's the correct thing to do. But what if a person who still believes "B" quotes a chunk of wp:npov, and says that due to the large amount of RS that says "B", puts a lot of "Here's why B is right" material from those sources in the article? The policy wording seems to support him doing that. North8000 (talk) 15:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the policy supports that... unless the question of "A or B" is less settled than you are implying. Assuming it that it is settled, I would think discussing B beyond historical context would be WP:UNDUE. Blueboar (talk) 21:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

For medical topics, WP:MEDRS contains advice on using up-to-date sources which was intended to cover exactly this sort of scenario. I'm not sure whether there's anything comparable outside the scope of medical articles. Common sense and the desire to produce an accurate summation of the current state of human knowledge should be sufficient to resolve the problem in favor of viewpoint A, but I think we all know it doesn't always work that way here. MastCell ^Talk 21:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. As always, real world situation are more complex and my only intent with my simplified example is to learn rather that trying to get an answer for a mystery real world situation. Thanks again. North8000 (talk) 21:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

BTW even if the issue is 99.9 % decided, the people in the other 1/10% would say that it is not decided, and so if one of them is involved it is "not settled" North8000 (talk) 21:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Correct... unless there is 100%, it isn't settled... B should be discussed... however, WP:UNDUE tells us that A should be given 99.9% of the weight in the article, and B should get 0.1% of the weight. Blueboar (talk) 21:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I would say that 0.1% is WP:FRINGE and shouldn't be included at all, except for some form of historical context. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

You want to know how to deal with fringe points of view? Unless it has some form of historical context this is the wrong place to promote obsolete ideas. QuackGuru (talk) 23:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that wp:npov sort of gives mixed signals in this area. The text at the core of it basically says everything is based on preponderance in sourcing, with no consideration for obsoleteness or anything else. But then it has the "flat earth" section in which it makes such considerations. In the "fog of war" people just pick and quote whichever part serves their purpose. North8000 (talk) 23:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

a simple formulation (but a not-quite-perfect example)

I am a bit troubled by a sentence in the second paragraph: "That stealing is wrong is a value or opinion". That is roughly true, but only roughly. The term "stealing" denotes a crime. A crime is, by definition, something that is wrong. Whether "taking something that does not belong to you" is wrong may well be a matter of opinion, but "stealing" is a legal term. (Compare "killing is wrong" with "murder is wrong". Killing (e.g. in war) may or may not be wrong; "murder" is, by definition, a criminal act, and therefore wrong.)

We could, of course, have a semantic debate about "can it ever be right to commit a crime, eg civil disobedience" Or "just because society says it is wrong via its laws does not mean it is inherently wrong in the sense that 1+1 = 3 is wrong." But, I would suggest that such objections are getting rather too philosophical for the sake of keeping this example.

If the point of the paragraph is to clarify the difference between fact and opinion on a rather basic (rather than philosophical) level, then I suggest this example be either simply cut, or else replaced with a less problematic example.

I am sorry to trouble the talk page with what seems to me to be such a trivial issue, but my edit of cutting that example was reverted because I had not followed what I have since been told is the policy with editing this page -- namely, that you get consensus here first, even if the edit does not have any apparent policy implications. Boxter1977 (talk) 02:16, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the example is not optimal. Would you prefer adultery or lying? These too are challenging examples of opinion because prohibitions against them are so widely shared and deeply rooted in the cultures and religions of many different people (perhaps their psyches as well). It might be easier, as you suggest, to shy away from 'moral' behaviors, since a large group of people do not think that there is any question as to their rightness. Ocaasi (talk) 22:02, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The simplest solution, I think, is to simply cut the example out. But if it were helpful to clarify moral opinion vs fact, then a good example might be "That killing animals is wrong is a value or opinion." That is fairly clearcut, because most people are aware that there are both vegetarians and omnivores in society. The problem with the stealing example is that the word "wrong" is ambiguous. Stealing, by definition, is *legally* wrong. However, some may feel it is *morally* right in certain circumstances. It is this ambiguity that makes this example a poor one in my opinion. Boxter1977 (talk) 23:43, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The vegeterian example also crossed my mind. It is a behavior which can be understood as a personal or cultural choice that can vary amongst different well-meaning people. I think it's much better suited to representing opinion than the jarring though perhaps technically or post-modernistically correct argument that stealing is only 'conditionally' or 'subjectively' wrong. Can we change it? Ocaasi (talk) 04:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I would have preferred more people agreeing first, but bearing in mind that the editor who did the original reversion did not him/herself disagree with the edit, and bearing in mind that this edit in no way affects wikipedia policy, and bearing in mind the wikipedia policies of "Be Bold" WP:BB, and "Don't revert due to no consensus" WP:DRNC, as well as the fact that our proposed change can always be edited (this is wikipedia, after all!), then I think the answer to your question is: yes! :) I will do it now. Boxter1977 (talk) 00:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Using the first-person plural in policy writing?

Is it customary, or problematic, to use '"we" (or "you") when writing policy? Ocaasi (talk) 11:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

They're not part of the encyclopaedia and their content is decided by consensus. Don't you like it or what's the problem? Dmcq (talk) 14:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

It's a little awkward in the pillar policies, because they are so significant. It's more an issue of consistency. It shifts from using it in some circumstances and sections but not in others. Most sections don't use it, so the ones that do stand out. I was wondering if there had been prior discussion about it. Certainly no big problem, it's just pronouns; at worst it's just a tone issue.Ocaasi (talk) 14:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

A fact?

This policy tells: "A fact is a statement about which there is no serious dispute among reliable sources.". But there are lots of statements made in only one reliable source, simply because no one else commented (e.g. privately owned nuclear weapons [5]). Does it make the statement a fact? This should be fixed. Biophys (talk) 01:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course, the true definition of a fact (something that is objectively true), and the wikipedia definition (something that can be shown as very likely to be true, since reliable sources are in agreement), are different. The Wikipedia definition at least has the virtue of simplicity and clarity, though as you point out, it has the potential for abuse. What would you suggest as an alternative? Boxter1977 (talk) 03:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

As I read it, the example offered would be the assertion supported by this cited source (a book by Pete Earley) that Soviet businessman Vladimir K. Dmitriev (President of the International Chetek Corporation, about which see this) told Sergei Tretyakov that he (Dmitriev) keeps his own nuclear bomb at his dacha outside Moscow. The example offered makes no assertion regarding the truth or falsity of this claim by Dmitriev. I don't see a problem with this. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

All right. It tells: Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. A fact is a statement about which there is no serious dispute among reliable sources. and so on. I suggest something like this:Focus on the factual information rather than on personal opinions, although notable opinions should also be described. A fact is a verifiable and reproducible observation. Biophys (talk) 13:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I have a problem with "A fact is a verifiable and reproducible observation." This definition does not really work outside of the sciences... and it bumps up against WP:NOR. Wikipedia does not allow us to add our own observations... even if they can be reproduced (I suspect that is why you say "verifiable and reproducible"... but it isn't clear).

I think we are approaching this in the wrong way. NPOV is not really about what we write... it is about how we write about it. What the "Accert facts" paragraph is trying (poorly) to address is the following question: When should you phrase something as a "statement of fact" and hen should you phrase it as a "statement of opinion"? Blueboar (talk) 15:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I mean observations described in reliable sources. Then I am not sure how to improve the text of the policy. Of course it's tempting to adopt the wikipedia's definition of fact as a statement about which there is no serious dispute among reliable sources. But this is wrong. Here is another claim from the same book by the same author, which was removed, even though the claim was never specifically disputed in reliable sources prior to the edit: [6]. Should it stay in the article as fact per NPOV because it was never disputed? I am giving this simply as a policy example.Biophys (talk) 19:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I too have a problem with "A fact is a verifiable and reproducible observation." This definition does not really work inside the sciences. Take for example the statement "The moon slowly orbits the earth". This is clearly a verifiable and reproducible observation, but it ignores the fact that what we observe is not the whole truth. I agree with Biophys: asserting "facts" as if they are "truth" is the wrong approach. We cite facts and opinions, but we don't assert them to be the truth. A fact or an opinion is a statement about which there can be a serious dispute, which is why we have WP:UNDUE.Wikipedia does not take sides in determining what is a fact, an opinion, the truth or a lie. Editors must refer to WP:UNDUE when they decide what content should be in article. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:05, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, it seems we are hung up on the term "fact"... which, like "truth" can be problematic. Perhaps we can explain this without using that term? What we are trying to say is that if the reliable sources overwhelmingly agree that X happens, then we may state (bluntly) "X happens". Otherwise, we should attribute, stating "According to so-and-so, X happens". Blueboar (talk) 14:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

That sounds logical. Than any claim mentioned in a single RS and never disputed in other RS should be treated as something highly reliable and simply asserted. I personally have no problems with that.Biophys (talk) 18:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Um... We are not supposed to judge whether claims are reliable... we determine whether the source is reliable (and how reliable that source is compared to other sources). That said, if only one source states X happens and no other source mentions it, I don't think we can say that there is "overwhelming agreement" among reliable sources. I would say that this would be a case where we would have to attribute (And let us not forget that WP:UNDUE will probably come into play if only one source says something). Blueboar (talk) 18:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I guess it gets really complicated when you try to get precise. Once you are saying it in a venue, it implicitly means that by some method the venue accepts it as fact. And so it is relative to the group's standards. If, in talking with my friend I say that I have a 6.93" long pencil in my desk drawer, if it sounds plausible and he trusts my carefulness in measuring and speaking, and the meaning is taken to be the "everyday parlance" definition , then it is a fact in that venue. The same peson, if a machinist, would call it ambiguous. In Wikipedia such a statement (a sourcelss, uncheckable statement by one unknown person) would not be a fact. And since it refers to a statement(as it should) not a "reality" we are also talking about a statement as worded. So then the wording of the statement comes into play.....is it written in a simple, precise manner, does it have other implicit meanings, etc. North8000 (talk) 13:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

If that is so, are you suggesting that we drop the statement that "A fact is a statement about which there is no serious dispute among reliable sources"? If you are, I would agree, because this phrase seems to be trying to define "truth", whereas Wikipedia is about verifiability. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't think that far (to proposed policy changes)North8000 (talk) 22:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

"Depopulation"

An entire category containing a "List of Palestinian Villages DEPOPULATED" by Jews is certainly POV. The list contains article after article of the most ridiculously antisemitic allegations with the flimsiest of "sources".

This is propaganda.

I suggest, in order to make it NPOV, while still retaining the articles is to simply rename the category: Villages in the British Mandate of Palestine.

Once this is done, each individual nauseatingly repetititive account of Jews acting like monsters, rounding up civilians and executing them should be attended to. 65.92.134.250 (talk) 06:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I and others (you can be assured) will look into this. However, in the future please post such concerns at wp:NPOV/N, the NPOV noticeboard. The noticeboard is where people looking to maintain neutrality on wikipedia congregate. --Ludwigs2 08:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

P.s. I can't find the list or category you are talking about. can you provide a link? --Ludwigs2 08:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Unless I'm horribly mistaken, there is no such category. There is List of Arab towns and villages depopulated during the 1948 Palestinian exodus, this list of similar lists, and the associated categories. I see lists of Arab towns depopulated, and lists of towns "depopulated of Jews", but no list or category of towns depopulated by Jews. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

It is fairly obvious this is a sock of AbdulHornochsmannn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), but to answer the questions raised. The main source for the cause of depopulation of Palestinian Arabs from villages in Palestine is Benny Morris, a Zionist Jewish professor of history at Ben-Gurion University in Israel, and his book The birth of the Palestinian refugee problem revisited, published by Cambridge University Press. Morris gives detailed accounts of how the villages were depopulated of their Arab residents. He also provides a list of the villages and the cause of their depopulation. One of those causes was, in his words, "Expulsion by Jewish forces". See here. It is a matter of historical fact that a large number of Palestinian Arab villages were forcefully depopulated of its residents by Jewish forces. I say "Jewish" here and not "Israeli" because a number of these villages were attacked and depopulated prior to the establishment of a state called "Israel". A number of paramilitary and, dare I say, "terrorist" organizations, such as the Haganah and the Lehi, were responsible for these expulsions. It is neither an "allegation" nor is it "antisemitic" to include these documented facts in articles. A few accounts, I dont say users as many of them were socks of AbdulHornochsmannn, have repeatedly attempted to remove any mention of the documented fact that these villages were Palestinian Arab and that they were depopulated by Jewish forces. This is something of an annoyance, but not a NPOV dispute. nableezy - 15:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Biased statements?

The policy states, A biased statement violates this policy when it is presented as a fact or the truth. It does not necessarily violate this policy when it is presented as an identifiable point of view. What is the mechanism for determining whether a statement is biased? This part of policy seems unclear. I wonder whether replacing "biased" with "challenged or likely to be challenged" would give editors better guidance. It occurs to me that the policy on the weight of fringe views may be relevant to this question as well, so perhaps a different wording than I suggest is more appropriate. Thank you. Blackworm (talk) 08:41, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree - this seems to be just repeating things that have been said elsewhere in the policy, and not in a particularly clear fashion. I don't know if anyone actually reads or takes seriously everything that's written on this page, but it remains in a generally sorry state, badly in need of tightening. Retaining text that half looks as if it might mean something isn't helping anyone.--Kotniski (talk) 09:32, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

My answer to your question, "What is the mechanism for determining whether a statement is biased?", is: identifying that there are conflicting views among WP:RSs. For Wikipedia to present one of those as a statement of fact would be for Wikipedia to make a biased statement. Therefore we should instead make the statement that "according to x, y is the case". So it's a separate point from sourcing statements which (though we assert them as fact, because there are no conflicting views among WP:RSs) are "challenged or likely to be challenged". PL290 (talk) 09:53, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's true. In which case, isn't this section simply repeating the same as is said in WP:ASF?--Kotniski (talk) 10:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, it is at present. The subsection Attributing and specifying biased statements goes off the point and the subject matter of its current content is anyway addressed elsewhere, as you say. PL290 (talk) 10:19, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The current wording is correct: the policy says statements must be neutral (i.e. unbiased); the section in question is saying that an article can include a biased statement, but only if it is attributed (and the attribution is verifiable). The wording in this section should not be changed (except if necessary for clarity along the lines of what I have just asserted). If there is a need to explain what "biased" means, it should be elsewhere. There is no rule that will always work. While changing "biased" to "challenged or likely to be challenged" sounds noble, how would that work in articles on evolution, for example, where literally every sentence would be challenged by creationists. Even articles like Age of the Earth would be under constant attack from a change like this. Of course a statement such as "The age of the Earth is around 4.54 billion years" needs a good source, but the young earth creationists would challenge virtually every clause of every sentence in many science-based articles, something which can be handled currently by a few suitable references to cover each paragraph. I think that any change to an important policy like this should be based on an actual need, with examples of how the current wording is deficient in practice. Johnuniq (talk) 10:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I generally agree with that, but don't you see that what is said here is just repeating what's already said in the section WP:ASF, which (unlike thiks section) does attempt to explain what we mean by a "biased statement" (or "opinion", as it's called there)?--Kotniski (talk) 10:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing me to WP:ASF. It states the threshold for prose attribution is whether a statement has "no serious dispute among reliable sources" about it. I generally agree with that, and with all comments made thus far, but it seems some sources apparently pose an ambiguity, and are disputed as to whether they are reliable sources for the statements made.

The example that prompted my coming here is Talk:Circumcision_and_law#The Bible for Historical Citations. The arguments made by the two experienced administrators seem odd and inappropriate to me for several reasons, but more pressingly, the statement in dispute is defended by them unattributed; when it seems sources indicate we should attribute the statement (in words) to the religious text cited inline. Otherwise we seem to be dismissing as fringe the view presented in the reliable source brought, which disputes that religious texts are reliable historical sources. Blackworm (talk) 12:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

That sounds more like a reliable sources issue (WP:RSN), or are you saying that it violates NPOV to assert as a fact (with the Bible as source) that a king "outlawed circumcision on penalty of death" in 170 BC. My reading of Avi's reply is that the statement is almost certainly verifiable from other sources, which is exactly what WP:V requires. Johnuniq (talk) 08:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm asking you whether we can use ancient religious texts to make historical statements of fact without attribution, and without any modern sources cited verifying the historical accuracy of the statements. I do not read WP:V as requiring statements to be asserted as being verifiable by other sources by editors, so I'm not sure what you are suggesting. Blackworm (talk) 11:02, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... See [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], etc., etc. Also see WP:V, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I invite you to source the statement I referred to however you wish, but that was not the question. The more general question is whether statements asserting events made in ancient religious texts, absent other sources being brought, require attribution in the prose, in the meaning of WP:ASF. No one has yet answered this. Blackworm (talk) 01:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Generally speaking I would not assert religious texts as fact, they are, after all, objects of faith. Regardless, attribution should be sufficient in any event for whatever is stated. If there is confirmation of certain events independent of the religious text, that can be noted and attributed as corroborating information. Does this answer appear to understand the intent of your question? (Apart from whether others agree with it...) PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 17:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The answer is: "Yes... religious texts do require attribution", as the fact that the text says what it says is verifiable, but the historical accuracy of what it says is not verifiable . However, this assumes that mentioning what the text says will pass WP:UNDUE. Blueboar (talk) 18:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Blueboar and Vecrumba, thank you for your answers. I agree. Blackworm (talk) 08:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Religion

I've added a short and hopefully uncontroversial--as I stick to the concept and not examples--section on the need to be consistent in terminology across articles. To not do so leaves inconsistent terms open to accusations of agenda pushing and inappropriate value judgements. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 18:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I oppose... I find two flaws with your edit... The first the idea that there is a "correct" terminology to use across articles. I don't think it is. Appropriate terminology is often determined by context... especially when it comes to the topic of religion. The other is that determining a consistent "correct" terminology will be less prone to POV agenda pushing and value judgments. Your intent is good, but I don't think you thought this through. Blueboar (talk) 18:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Blueboar! Let me look at better wording, the intent is to foster consistency favoring predominant usage per scholarly WP:RS terminology to avoid contentiousness. I'm correct in thinking that didn't come across and needs better wording (perhaps tonight, or feel free...), yes? PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 19:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I object to this because there are times when "consistency" is not reflected in reliable sources. I'm thinking here exactly of the situation which has brought Peters here -- see Talk:Genesis creation narrative. We already have adequate policies in place that say we should use the terminology favored by reliable sources. I agree with Blueboar that individual contexts should be vetted vis-a-vis reliable sources on their own.Griswaldo (talk) 02:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Well said. I (boldly? humbly?) suggest, Article-space material should adopt a terminology and usage generally reflective of the recent usage and terminology of reliable sources discussing the topic and related topics. Where terminology or usage itself is challenged as non-neutral and no wide consensus supporting a consistent preference is found, articles should strive to use all terminology and usage in use by significant numbers of reliable sources, in rough proportion to their prevalence in the sources. Might be clumsy, or too long, or perhaps I have missed the point entirely.

In my opinion, where sources differ in terminology, and especially where the difference in terminology used seems divided among opposed points of view, attempts should be made to gain wide consensus on neutral terminology to be used throughout; or failing that, we should probably assume that the terminology and usage is part and parcel of the differing views surrounding the topic. In those cases, a neutral reflection of the sources seems to demand that we attempt to broadly use the terminology found in the sources, loosely in proportion to the overall prevalence in sources (especially for the article as a whole) and the specific context of particular statements and topics. Consistency thus does not seem to override neutrality. If the controversy regarding the terminology or language usage itself is sourced, it seems it should additionally be covered somewhere in the article, possibly even the lead paragraph if highly controversial. Is that too complicated, or... A misinterpretation of WP:NPOV? For disclosure, I'm currently involved in several content disputes where I'm arguing the above. Blackworm (talk) 05:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't get why "religion" needs to be subject to any different principles than any other subject. Whatever we mean (and I don't think anyone has yet succeeded in putting it accurately into words) by "neutral" treatment of a subject, it must obviously be the same treatment for all subjects. Otherwise we will have some subjects being treated "more neutrally", or differently neutrally, than others. --Kotniski (talk) 07:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, if no-one has anything to say about this, can we remove the "religion" section from the policy?--Kotniski (talk) 08:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have a point. PL290 (talk) 13:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Search box

I want to request that an archive search box be installed on this talk page so that it might be easier to sift through archives. Thanks.-Civilizededucation^talk 08:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I second that - such a search box would be very useful--Cailil ^talk 13:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Video

I missed the fact that the video was restored (diff) (has a recent discussion occurred?). It was previously discussed here at archive 41, but most discussion was at WP:V in archive 38. Here is a repeat of my primary concern: I support removing the video, regardless of its accuracy. I appreciate the idea of providing a gentle overview, but having such media in a vital policy is a minefield: Do I have to watch the video to understand the policy? If I watch the video, can I ignore the text? What if the video appears to conflict with the text? What if wikilawyers argue using points made in the video? Further, it is too hard to maintain a video. Johnuniq (talk) 10:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

What happened to YESPOV?

Just noticed that YESPOV got lost as a section link, any particular reason? un☯mi 13:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Repaired (but it seems an entirely pointless shortcut to me - whyever would anyone think of using it?)--Kotniski (talk) 13:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

It can be handy in discussions that often also include invocations of WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE, WP:MNA and WP:ASF, indeed, it strikes me that the text with the heading of "Don't misrepresent the relative prominence of opposing views" might be a better target for WP:YESPOV, what do you think? un☯mi 14:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what "YESPOV" is supposed to mean - does it mean "yes, we do report points of view (but with appropriate balance and making it clear that they are points of view)", or does it mean "yes, we do have a point of view (that of the sources which we consider reliable)". Both are valid points, although the second one isn't stated explicitly in the policy, I think.--Kotniski (talk) 07:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Good question. I've seen cases which appear to me to be POV-pushing by groups of editors having taken effective ownership of articles basing perceived source RS-ness acceptability criteria screening seemingly largely considering the POV of the sources -- if the POV of a source offends the POV of the group, it's not an RS; if the source has a POV in line with the group's POV, it is an RS. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Given where it is placed (Explanation of the neutral point of view) I suspect the short cut would be used in situations where you want to say: "Yes, that definitely is POV." (or "read the damned policy... what you have added to the article in question is not neutral"). But I could be wrong. Blueboar (talk) 23:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

No, the idea of YESPOV, and the text where it was previously attached, was basically that while wikipedia is editorially neutral, the POV of the majority of sources should be respected and represented. un☯mi 23:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah... so it sounds like we replaced it in the wrong location... where should it be placed? Blueboar (talk) 23:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Looking back at a previous version it seems that I may be misremembering, though I can see that the YESPOV was attached to a specific paragraph in the same section where it currently points to. It seems to relate to the line that goes 'Therefore, material should not be removed solely on the grounds that it is "POV"'. un☯mi 23:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, so it is in the right place... next question... how do we get from "Therefore, material should not be removed solely on the grounds that it is "POV"..." etc. to the shortcut "YESPOV"? Most short cuts are either acronyms or self-explanatory one word summations of the policy... What are we saying "YES" to? (in other words, I don't understand the logic that went into choosing this particular shortcut) Blueboar (talk) 02:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Presumably to POV (Kotniski's first definition thereof) as opposed to saying no to it and removing it. PL290 (talk) 08:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed addition to ASF

Avoid under-attribution, asserting as fact what is controversial or a value judgment, or over-attribution, suggesting that support is limited to a particular person or group when it is widely shared or generally undisputed. Attribution should be used to inform readers, to accurately reflect and clarify debates, not to improperly assert or to undermine a position.

Ocaasi (talk) 15:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Not particularly keen: "Avoid misusing this policy" is axiomatic (and also explicated at WP:GAME); the rest seems undesirable per WP:BEANS. PL290 (talk) 17:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Removed the axiomatic part. BEANS is more for 'unlikely' violations of rules and common sense, whereas these issues are chronic, not only in articles but in the discussions about ASF policy. This reinforces proper use of policy and addresses the most common problems; isn't that useful? Ocaasi (talk) 18:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Report of biased article

I would like to report an extremely biased article - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution or Evolution. It is written from the perspective that it is the one and only truth, which is NOT neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ork rule1 (talk • contribs) 15:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Alternative viewpoints do not always need to be presented... See WP:UNDUE. Blueboar (talk) 15:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Clarification of WP:UNDUE for individual sources

I was talking with a new editor who had expressed concern about a film review being presented in an unbalanced way (the review was overwhelmingly positive, but in the Wikipedia article text the negative part of the review was given equal weighting with the positive parts). He didn't know the words for the problem he was describing, but seemed to be talking about "undue weight" given to the negative aspects. So I was about to point him to WP:UNDUE, which I for some reason remembered having something about how to give a balanced representation of the views of a particular source (as opposed to how the article, overall, should proportionally represent the views of all sources), but then noticed that nothing like this is here.

I'd like to add something to WP:UNDUE, along the lines of: When describing the views expressed in a particular source, discuss them in proportion to their prominence within that source. I don't know where this should be included, or how it should ultimately be written, but I think this is important. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 16:34, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

There is something similar at WP:Coatrack#Fact picking. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Good idea to include the statement in the article... ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 11:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

She or it

I am party to a dispute on what Undue means [[21]]. I may have mis-understood Undue. The basics are that I bleive a soures to be being used in way that gives its views undue attention, based mainly on the fact that its a recomendation of a science blog based (if latter ceaveats are accepted) on non scientific reasons (and the person is n ot a scientist anyway). Hta the recomendatiuon is not in fact relevant to the articel, and thqats its a trivial mention anyway. The other side of the deabte says its not undue becasue I amalkking about the person who holds the view itslef. I am in fact mistaken?Slatersteven (talk) 19:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you are mistaken. This is not a question about WP:NPOV, but about WP:RS. You cannot use blogs as WP:RS. The question of due or undue weight would come only after that. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 18:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I should explain. I have said on the talk page that this is undue as its diffilcult to see why her views are notable on a this blog. I am asking is that view mistaken and that any one who is published iin a newpaper (as a columnist) can be used as a source regardless of any qulification they may not hold (this is not just about this source I am using it as an example). To word it another way does the rule exclude Joe Blogs who writes a column for the Big newspaper of the world from being used as a source for opinions he is not actualy an expert on?Slatersteven (talk) 12:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Allow me to explain Slater's question in a more coherent manner. An article is about "X". A NYT review says "I like X". Slater makes the argument that the review shouldn't be listed in X's entry, because it gives undue weight to the NYTimes. But WP:UNDUE doesn't work that way -- it is the opinion about X itself (i.e. the fact that X is liked) that can be given undue weight, if for instance many other reviewers say "I don't like X", then presenting only positive opinions (regardless of their source) is an undue weight issue.

Undue weight is about the statements/view/opinions/whatever of the sources as they relate to the article subject, not about the sources themselves. A source can of course present reliability or notability issues, but by itself, not undue weight. Fell Gleaming^talk 15:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

PLease do not misrepresnt what I say. I have not said it gives undue weight to the NYT (and indead have made it clear its not the HYT I object to) but to the views of one columnist. Moreover the artciel is not about 'X', the artciel is about x and the commentator its not a review its about a problom) says I like 'Y' (and that is the limit of the 'review' a one line comment at the end of an in a four or five paragraph articel).Slatersteven (talk) 16:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Slatersteven: it would really help me out if you took a little more time writing your posts. the spelling and grammar errors make it difficult to understand what you're after, and this is not an easy topic to begin with.

That being said, UNDUE refers to representation of a theory or opinion on wikipedia. It does not refer to sources, but rather to how the statements that sources make should appear on the article. Ms. whateverhername made a statement, that statement was printed in the NYT, the NYT is a reliable source for many kinds of statements, all is good to that point. Now we have to ask "How much weight does that statement carry in the discussion about the topic"? A NYT op-ed piece would not carry much weight at all in terms of the science of global warming, but it might carry more weight in terms of the popularity of a blog. It's a question of how the opinion is being used and what its purpose is in the article. --Ludwigs2 18:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Thats what I thought (more or less). As to the specific case its dfficult to tell what the statement is being used for. it seems to be used to demonstrate an endorsment of the blog, but its difficult to see why this view is significant to the blog.Slatersteven (talk) 11:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Some minor edits for clarity

Just tidyied the syntax a little. As far as I can tell, did not change the meaning Nucleophilic (talk) 16:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Serious NPOV/SYNTH problem with List of films considered the worst and best

I've started a talk page discussion here. If anyone here is well-versed in the NPOV policy, please participate if you can, because I think these articles' problems need to be hammered out, possibly with deletion. Nightscream (talk) 02:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

NPOV Mondragon Corporation

[[22]]

A lot of the prose in this article comes across as glowingly approving, with a lot of canned platitudes and essentially no acknowledgement of the potential negatives of the approach.I think this article is propaganda. just a copy and paste from the group web page,With out NPOV all or most of the links go back to a self published Websites and is against Wiki NPOV --Kimmy (talk) 13:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

First off, this should be posted on the article's talk page or (if you run into a wall there) at WP:NPOVN, not here. Second, when if do post it at WP:NPOVN, please read the instructions at the top; you need to provide specifics on why it is not neutral (i.e. specifically how does it violate WP:NPOV), rather than just saying "It's propaganda". Also keep in mind WP:BOLD. If you've got a problem with an article, just go ahead and fix it. You don't have to complain and get permission first. - Jrtayloriv (talk) 14:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• I should have put this in a Question form - - - Self Published Websites Can they be used to build an Article ??

Like I stated above, most Citations come from their own Website and or Blogs - It is my understanding Blogs are not NPOV or RS  ???I thought this page was to ask Questions about NPOV... Thank YOU ! ?--Kimmy (talk) 15:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

See WP:SPS and WP:PRIMARY. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 15:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Definition of fact

The present formulation of WP:ASSERT gives two obvious examples of well-known facts, "Mars is a planet" and "Plato was a philosopher". However, it fails to give any example of the policy concerning less well-known facts. The issue frequently arises of how to present the findings of one or more reliable secondary sources that are not disputed by other reliable secondary sources. I found it disappointing that an editor removed the recently-introduced sentence "For instance, that a survey produced a certain published result would be a fact if there is no dispute." In terms of policy, I have no doubt that ASSERT's intention is for us to treat such results as "facts". We already have guidance requiring us to attribute sources when describing a dispute, and not to use primary sources to refute the conclusions of secondary sources. Unless someone can produce a compelling argument to the contrary, I intend to re-introduce a statement to the text along the lines of:

• For example, the published findings of a reliable literature review are "facts", unless they are disputed by other secondary sources

This would be much more useful than having both Mars and Plato examples. One of these would be sufficient, since they both make the same point. --RexxS (talk) 12:53, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The confusing version of ASF was misleading. The intent of ASF is when there no serious dispute we can assert the text. The updated version clarifies the issues. QuackGuru (talk) 16:40, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have problems with the text you have added:

• For instance, that a survey produced a certain published result would be a fact if there is no dispute. That the published findings of a reliable literature review is a fact, unless it is disputed by another source.

The first sentence defines the fact as 'a survey produced a result', unless disputed. Did you mean to say the 'result of the survey' is a fact, unless disputed? In that case, I'd caution against the example, since a 'survey' can mean different things. 'A survey found that 9 out of 10 cats preferred Kat-O-Meat' - does that make it a fact once published? 'A Gallop poll survey concluded that David Milliband would be elected leader of the Labour Party' - turned out not to be the case; and so on. If you mean 'meta-analysis' or 'systematic review', you need to say so; they don't carry the ambiguity of 'survey'.

The second sentence doesn't parse grammatically. Did you mean "The published findings of a reliable literature review are "facts", unless they are disputed by other secondary sources"? --RexxS (talk) 17:10, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

"For instance, that a study produced a certain published result would be a fact if there is no dispute. The published finding of a reliable literature review is a fact, unless it is disputed by another secondary source."

Here is the rewrite. I thought it is better to have two examples. I prefer to keep the word "fact" singular instead of plural with "facts". QuackGuru (talk)

I have a problem with the "if there is no dispute"... that a study produced a certain published result is a fact. We can verify this fact by reading the study and seeing that, yes, that is the result the study. A different study may produce different results... and that is also a fact. Yes there is dispute (ie difference of opinion) over which result is accurate (and that dispute will impact opinions on what the results mean) ... but that dispute does not change the fact that each study reached the results they did.

What we want to say here is simple: 1) Distinguish fact from opinion... and 2) Present opinion as being opinion... by attributing it. Blueboar (talk) 19:24, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

That the result is accurate is an opinion.? I don't understand what this edit was trying to explain. The result of a study is a fact (unless there is a serious dispute by another reliable source). QuackGuru (talk) 19:36, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The result is a fact even if there is dispute. What is disputed is not the result... but the conclusions that can be drawn from the result. I have tried to clarify. Blueboar (talk) 19:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The result and the conclusion mean pretty much the same thing. The wording That the result of the survey leads to certain conclusions would not be a fact. is vague and undermines what is the intent of ASF. The result of a study is considered an opinion when there is a serious dispute. QuackGuru (talk) 19:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The certain circumstances when it would not be a fact is explained in the next paragraph: "An "opinion" on the other hand, is a statement which expresses a value judgement,[1] or a statement construed as factual that is "a matter subject to dispute"." QuackGuru (talk) 19:55, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

No, result is not the same as conclusion... To give an example... if I do a study and ask 100 dentists which brand of chewing gum they prefer for their patients who chew gum... and 80 say "Trident"... the result: "4 our of 5 Dentists say they prefer Trident" is a fact. What is not a fact is the conclusion to be reached from this fact... the conclusion that "Trident is better', or 'You should chew Trident'. Those conclusions are opinions.

The fact of the result of my study does not change if some other study of 100 different dentists reaches a different result (say 75 say they prefer Dentine)... the first study still has the result of 4 out of 5 prefer Trident. However, because there is a second study with a different result, we need to note the facts about the second study as well. We have conflicting facts, and neutrality requires us to mention this. Blueboar (talk) 20:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The fact of the result of a study does change if a different study had a competing result. We need to convert the opinion about the second study as well with attribution in the text when there is a serious dispute. When there is a serious dipsute the result of the study changes with an inline qualifier. QuackGuru (talk) 20:10, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

No... the result of the first study is still 4 out of 5. I suppose if 80 out of 100 dentists said Trident, and I wrote the result as "75% prefer Trident"... someone could dispute my results... but as long as my math is correct the results I state are a fact. That said...

I think we would actually be better off re-working the whole ASF section. The simple point the ASF section is trying to make is this: It is OK (ie neutral) to state the fact that someone holds an opinion ... it is not OK to state the person's opinion as if it were fact. Somehow we get away from that simple statement in all our examples. At minimum we should remove the entire "study" or "survey" example ... because discussing studies and surveys appropriately in an article is never "simple" (they are easily abused, even unintentionally, to support OR and POV). Blueboar (talk) 20:20, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

You miss the real point here. The whole point of ASF is that we define "fact" as an undisputed published finding of a reliable source. Your survey example probably fails both the undisputed, published and reliable parts. There's no "fact" there to discuss. On the other hand, if a meta-analysis of numerous surveys of dentist's preferences were to be accepted and published in a quality scholarly journal, then we would treat the findings of that meta-analysis (perhaps "around 80% of dentists prefer X") as a "fact" and state it without attribution. That is our stance until and unless another reliable source produced different findings, when we would relegate the finding to an opinion, then describe the dispute and attribute each finding. --RexxS (talk) 20:54, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

It is OK to state the person's opinion from a reliable study as if it were fact when there is no serious dispute because the person's opinion is not an opinion when there is no serious dispute. QuackGuru (talk) 22:25, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

@QuackGuru: I've reluctantly removed the example about the survey, as it muddles the focus of that paragraph, which should be "what are facts". The question of disputed findings, of opinion vs fact, and attribution is discussed in the following paragraphs of that section. --RexxS (talk) 21:06, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the paragraph is much clearer now. Blueboar (talk) 21:36, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I still think we need another example of what is a fact other than the most obvious facts like "That there is a planet called Mars is a fact." Editors could argue the example of a fact is Mars is a planet. QuackGuru (talk) 22:25, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

We would do much better if we abandoned the attempt to do the philosophically impossible and define the difference between "fact" and "opinion", and simply say that certain types of statements need inline attribution (and give examples of those). The whole section remains the very antithesis of "A simple formulation" - are we retaining that section title as some kind of joke? Or just because one editor insists on it?--Kotniski (talk) 06:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I've tried to repair the problems, by simplifying the section significantly. Do people think it conveys the message better now?--Kotniski (talk) 08:51, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I think Kotniski's revision is good. I suggest one additional change... instead of:

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

(which begs the question... what are "facts about opinions"). I would change it to:

• Assert facts, including facts about opinions (such as who holds the opinion and what that opinion is) but do not assert the opinions themselves.

(my suggested text in bold) Blueboar (talk) 12:51, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I suppose it would be an improvement, although even better would be to drop that introductory sentence altogether - it doesn't add anything, although past discussions have shown that certain people insist on retaining it as a slogan to use in arguments.--Kotniski (talk) 13:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I cannot see how you think removing the simple statement A "fact" is a statement about which there is no serious dispute between reliable sources improves the policy. That is the policy, stated in its simplest and most direct terms. The version you've created, without consensus, simply gives a tool to POV-pushers to claim that their pet fringe theory disputes the mainstream view and insist that every sentence starts with "A 2009 review found that ...", rather than simply asserting the "fact", as we define it. Your bold edit has been reverted to the previous version of that section, while this is being discussed here. --RexxS (talk) 15:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The version you objected to said "Factual statements that can be verified in reliable sources can be stated "as fact" in Wikipedia articles." Isn't this enough? --Kotniski (talk) 16:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not enough. Plenty of things can be verified by reliable sources, but are disputed by other reliable sources. Those are not facts in the wikipedia sense, and we need to make that clear. Adding subclauses below is not "a simple formulation". --RexxS (talk) 20:00, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Why do we define "fact" and "opinion" in this policy?

I would like to focus on the broader picture for a moment ... I want to ask why we go into all this detail about facts vs. opinion in this policy. What do these definitions have to do with maintaining a Neutral Point of View? Our discussions so far have ignored these fundamental questions. By exploring them, we may be able to reach consensus on whether there is a better way to make the same point. Blueboar (talk) 15:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Well exactly. I don't understand Rexx's point above (and even more fail to understand his wholesale blind revert - could you not have just reverted the specific point you disagreed with?) We have absolutely no business in this policy defining what a "fact" and what an "opinion" are - philosophers can argue about that for centuries to come (hint: there will never be a definitive answer) - all we need to do here is say what the distinction between different types of statement for the purposes of this policy. Any sentence that says "a fact is..." or "an opinion is..." is... well, ridiculous. Why oh why is this page controlled by people who seem to have some fundamental opposition to making things clear and simple?--Kotniski (talk) 15:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I think what we want to say with the ASF section is this: "Stating an opinion as if it were a fact is not neutral." Blueboar (talk) 17:23, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's pretty much it. Though to deal with the fringe-view-pushers we need to make some effort to define what kind of statements we do state as if they were facts.--Kotniski (talk) 17:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

There is no reason not to define the difference between "fact" and "opinion". We need to keep ASF not redefine it. We define a fact and an opinion to determine how to present the text neutrally. QuackGuru (talk) 18:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with this. but I think I understand why the issue becomes complex. We have a number of countermanding themes getting played out in this passage:

• Some editors are worried about opinions (usually sketchy opinions) getting stated as fact ('the holocaust did not exist' should not be stated as a fact, and should be attributed to a source).
• Some editors are worried about (generally specious) claims that all statements are mere opinion and thus must be qualified and attributed ('Mars is a planet' should not really require attribution).
• Some editors are worried about giving 'more-sound' information precedence over 'less-sound' information (usually I see this used to argue that fringe theories should be described from a scientific perspective, rather than merely described).

it's a mess of competing interests. I do think we should get away from the whole misleading 'fact/opinion' thing. If we want to do that and keep to the pithy ASF model, then maybe something along these lines: "Attribution is required where sources disagree, not where editors disagree." At least, I can't think of a case where this problem occurs that isn't rooted in some editor pedantically trying to push a POV beyond what sources allow. --Ludwigs2 18:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

@Kotniski: I really disliked doing a wholescale revert, and thought twice about it. But when you boldly make major changes to policy, ignoring the advice at WP:PG#Substantive changes, particularly while there is already discussion on the talk page on that very topic, you should expect to be reverted while discussion continues. I don't want to personalise this, and I have always valued your contributions. Your changes are in the edit history and can be resurrected if consensus goes that way.

@Blueboar: It is very useful to have yardstick clearly stating the circumstances when a statement may be made without attribution. Unless you want articles to start every sentence with "According to X ..." or "A Y year review by Z found that ...", you should not be kicking away the only place on the 'pedia where it is clearly documented that we assert facts, and define what we mean by "facts" – undisputed findings of reliable sources.

@Ludwigs: This editor's concern is editors pushing a fringe opinion. They want to cast aspersions on the findings of reliable secondary sources that are not seriously disputed in other reliable secondary sources. Without this section, they can keep qualifying "facts" and calling for them to have multiple attributions as if they were no more than opinions, although they are the only ones disputing them. If you want to open up hundreds of contentious articles to this sort of debasement, simply because an SPA doesn't like the mainstream view, well, go ahead with undermining this section – there's no quicker way to achieve your goal. --RexxS (talk) 20:00, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Apologies to Ludwigs, the bulk of my last comments were not directed at you (and I've struck the @). I agree in large part with what you say above. For example, the lead of the Abortion article contains this statement, "Worldwide 42 million abortions are estimated to take place annually." I don't want to see that changed to "According to a 2009 article by Shah and Ahman, using 2005 data from the World Health Organisation (who are well-known for a pro-choice bias), 42 million abortions are estimated to take place annually worldwide." Check the archives if anybody doesn't think that sort of nonsense doesn't go on. --RexxS (talk) 21:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Section name

I restored the section name Different points of view. It was abnormal behaviour to remove it. QuackGuru (talk) 16:49, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you perhaps say why you think it's a good section title? For me, all these subsection titles in the first section of the policy are just making the (already very unclearly written) text even harder to follow.--Kotniski (talk) 06:19, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I've reorganized those sections a bit, so perhaps that title makes more sense now.--Kotniski (talk) 09:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you explain why you removed the section name in the first place when it was obvious there needed to be a section name. A section name does not make text harder to read. I don't agree with moving around the sections. QuackGuru (talk) 18:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I did, however, move "Don't misrepresent the relative prominence of opposing views." to Different points of view and included a link to A simple formulation. QuackGuru (talk) 19:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

'equal validity' section

I've removed this section - [23] - since it seems to have been added to the policy with very little discussion. since it's a major shift in policy, it needs more investigation. my specific objections are as follows:

1. it is specifically geared towards pseudoscience, meaning this should really be in the wp:FRINGE guideline, not in policy.
2. It shifts the nature of NPOV, implying that editors can and should take a stand on issues above and beyond what is presented in reliable sources, which is a major departure from the principles of NPOV.
3. It encourages editorial synthesis, since it explicitly suggests that editors should go out of their way to present strongly disapproving opinions.

I'm not averse to the basic idea (particularly as part of the FRINGE guideline), but the phrasing here is poor, and as written tends to contradict some of wikipedia's core principles. at very best it needs a significant revision. --Ludwigs2 02:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The section you are removing is essentially a restatement and a clarification of WP:UNDUE. I don't see any problem with it. Blueboar (talk) 03:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

It actually does not appear to do anything except 1), which can be remedied by some simply rewording. The section you remove advocates the OPPOSITE of 2 & 3, since it makes pretty clear that Wikipedia articles should reflect existing views in reliable sources, reflecting the predominant, mainstream, and majority viewpoints on a topic. I don't see where the removed section is in conflict with anything, at least in spirit. --Jayron32 05:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Right, I don't see any objection to the removed section except that it's redundant to the rest of the policy (which doesn't seem to be considered a reason for removing anything, since the editors of this policy seem to love redundancy).--Kotniski (talk) 06:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) If this were a simple restatement of UNDUE then I'd probably have no problem with it, but that would also make it entirely redundant (and thus removable anyway). However, it's not. This 'no equal validity' line of argument is intended to expand UNDUE. put roughly: UNDUE allows us to minimize or exclude fringe theories from mainstream articles, and to qualify fringe articles so that they do not give the appearance of having more prominence than they really have in scientific circles; this 'no equal validity' clause seeks to give editor the right to overrepresent and overstate mainstream positions in order to build arguments that refute fringe theories. The first is reasonable, the second is synthesis. Wikipedia is not here to take a position on these matters by promoting theories or by refuting theories.

honestly, the optimal solution in my view would be to shift this section over to wp:FRINGE (since it clearly is intended to be a clarification of UNDUE for fringe topics), and reword it somewhat so that it is not so blatantly permissive of synthesis. something along the lines of "Wikipedia may not itself be used to validate fringe views. Fringe views may be excluded from articles on scholarly topics where they are not a significant part of the mainstream literature, and where they are included may not be depicted as proven, true, valid, or accepted by the scholarly world beyond what independent sources say. Further, Wikipedia may not itself be used to invalidate fringe views. Wikipedia should describe any fringe view clearly, including critical perspectives and the view's relationship to established scholarship, but should avoid giving the appearance of attempting to debunk or disparage the topic." That should cover both ends of the spectrum sufficiently. --Ludwigs2 06:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused, how exactly does the text you deleted encourage your last two points? It seems to me that it explicitly prevents an editor from doing what you says it does. As an aside, a version of "giving equal validity" has been a part of the FAQ portion of NPOV since 2003; and it has been a part of NPOV for 17 months now. To me, that makes it seem like eliminating it would be the "major shift in policy"...Yobol (talk) 14:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

This is the way the argument is used (exclusively, as far as I can see). A typical example is that editors working on a fringe topic article (after removing overt advocacy and misrepresentation, as they should), will go on to remove more-or-less neutral material (claiming that it's advocacy) and to pad in SPOV sources (usually from skeptical books and journals) until the article or section becomes an extended criticism of the topic rather than a neutral description of it. Editors who object that this is not a neutral or fair depiction of the topic are countered with the 'Wikipedia does not give equal validity' line, occasionally even extended to a claim that wikipedia does not need to treat fringe topics fairly - playing off the word ambiguity between giving a fringe topic 'fair representation' on mainstream articles (which is nonsense that violates NPOV) and treating a fringe topic with 'intellectual fairness' (which is precisely what NPOV tries to promote).

it's usually evident that these kinds of editors are either unwilling or incapable of grokking the concept of 'intellectual fairness', at least with respect to these topics. if we're going to have policy on this issue, it should reinforce intellectual fairness as a theme, not give wikilawyers a tool to trash fringe articles in the name of science.

And yes, I know all about the NPOV FAQ thing. Let's not get into the that, because it's shoddy wikipolitics. The FAQ only existed in the first place as an effort to sneak some pseudoscience claims into policy through the back door, when there was no consensus for putting them in policy directly. one can't ethically use that speciousness to leverage new policy additions. --Ludwigs2 16:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

If someone is misinterpreting policy, that is a problem with the editor misinterpreting it, not with the policy itself. Nothing in the text you deleted, as far as I can tell, encourages the behavior of placing too much weight against a fringe topic. Please point to what part of the text you deleted encourages synthesis or encourages taking "a stand above and beyond what is presented in reliable sources," because, frankly, I don't see it.

No idea about "wikipolitics", I only think it's odd to suggest that something that's been in the policy or FAQ of the policy for 7 years is somehow a "major shift in policy". Shrug. Yobol (talk) 17:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The FAQ was not, and was never intended to be, policy in its own right. FAQ are for answers frequently asked questions, not for introducing novel ideas. There was a bit of a kerfluffle over this a few months back when someone tried to promote the FAQ to policy status.

With respect to your question, however, let's take the disputed section line by line.

• The Wikipedia neutrality policy does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views [...] If that were the case, the result would be to legitimize and even promote such claims.
  • What does this phrase mean? Wikipedia does not 'give validity to' or 'legitimize' anything; we're a tertiary source that describes, not a primary or secondary source that validates. Either this is a poorly phrased revision of UNDUE, where 'give equal validity' really means 'include beyond due prominence', or it specifically intended to imply that wikipedia can and should identify 'valid' theories and promote them over 'invalid' theories. it is usually interpreted in the second manner, and whether that is intentional or merely poor phrasing strikes me as irrelevant. If it's consistently being interpreted badly it should be removed.
• Policy states that we must not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers
  • This is true, no argument.
• but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such; from fairly explaining the strong arguments against the pseudoscientific theory; from describing the strong moral repugnance that many people feel toward some morally repugnant views; and so forth.
  • the 'but' here is used to create a loophole in the statement that we "should not take stands as editors". This phrase explicitly suggests that editors should seek out arguments designed to refute, disparage, or demonstrate 'moral repugnance' towards fringe topics, and that such expressions are protected by policy. In other words, if someone can find a reliable source that says (for instance) "UFOs are a mindlessly unscientific idea that is only believed by stupid people", they can argue for its inclusion in the UFO article on the grounds that it's a fair (if strong) expression of the scientific opinion against UFOs and of the moral repugnance some people feel towards that idea. And then they can include six or ten or twenty similar quotes (if they so desire) on the assertion that they are "describing the majority view as such".

There is a line between (1) including scholarly perspectives to prevent editors from legitimizing fringe theories unduly and (2) encouraging editors to actively debunk fringe theories; this phrasing blatantly erases that line. that's the problem with it. do you see what I mean? --Ludwigs2 18:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to belabor the point about the FAQ/policy. I still find it strange that you would argue there is a change in policy when something has been interpreted one way for 7 years (and has been policy for 17 months without any real opposition until now) - obviously you disagree, but that's really besides the point.

To your first point, to give undue prominence to fringe theories would be giving them a perception of legitimacy these theories don't have in the reliable sources. I see no problem with acknowledging this fact, and that fringe advocates use Wikipedia to try to gain legitimacy by promoting their pet theories here.

I do not agree with your interpretation of the "but" as a loophole. That sentence is basically a re-statement of UNDUE. It doesn't encourage people to do anything except report what's in the reliable sources, with due weight placed. You seem to be arguing against the behavior of other editors which are violating policy, not illustrating a problem in the policy. Unless I see more substantial consensus that it violates policy, I would support a return of that section to policy. Yobol (talk)

lol - well, I don't suppose you have to agree, but I suggest you give a better explanation than 'That sentence is basically a re-statement of UNDUE'. I mean, an elephant is basically a restatement of a mouse if you ignore all that stuff about size and trunks and ears; everything looks pretty much like everything else if you're willing to squint hard enough. I've given some thoroughly explained reasons why I think this section expands UNDUE in unpleasant ways. They might be good reasons or bad reasons (currently I think they're good, but I'm in discussion mode here so that could change), but those reasons are not going to go away simply because you choose to poo-poo them without discussion. --Ludwigs2 19:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't mean to "poo-poo" your reasons, just that I don't agree with them. I don't understand how you're interpreting the words you deleted as to what you say they mean. I am most certainly not in a 'discussion mode'; I tried to see where you're coming from, but don't get it, and don't plan on spending a lot of effort trying to when no one else who has commented seems to either. Yobol (talk) 20:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. However, if you really don't see a difference between what this says and what UNDUE says, then I hope you'll do me the grace of allowing me to remove something that you believe is redundant and I happen to dislike. no sense making me suffer something I find disagreeable if it adds nothing that's not said elsewhere. --Ludwigs2 21:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't it going to be moved to WP:FRINGE? --Enric Naval (talk) 22:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

If you find it so disagreeable, I have no strenuous objections to its return to just being in the FAQ, though the shortcuts (WP:GEVAL, etc) should probably be redirected back to the FAQ as it was originally. Yobol (talk) 22:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Based on Ludwigs' edit summary, which referred to a change in April, I went back and looked at what the page said at the beginning of the month: [24]. There was a shorter, simpler version of the section then. Would that version reduce the aspects that Ludwigs dislikes, to a sufficient degree that restoring it would be a reasonable compromise? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

@ Enric: I was under that impression as well, but somehow it ended up here in policy. probably an honest mistake; stuff like that happens sometimes.

@ Yobol: I don't mean to be pedantic here, but you can't honestly expect that we will retain a section over objections without some explicit reason to retain it. Either this section is - as you said above - indistinguishable from and redundant with UNDUE (in which case there's no reason to retain it at all, anywhere), or this section has a meaning and purpose distinct from UNDUE which makes it useful (in which case you should spell out what the meaning and purpose are so that we can compare it against my objections). This isn't interior decorating (or some such) where we might include material just for 'atmosphere'; this is policy, and policy sections should have a definitive use.

@ Tryptofish: That shorter section is really just a condensed version of what I don't like, so it's not really an improvement. My objection to this section is that the wording is designed to encourage/allow editorial synthesis for the purpose of debunking. Policy does state that we should not take a stand on issues as encyclopedia editors, and we should not allow loopholes (as is the intention of this section) that allow some editors to take stands on some issues. look at the alternate suggestion I gave above (my 06:15, 7 October post): notice how I carefully phrase it to avoid the implication that wikipedia editors can make any judgements on the validity of topics, because making assertions about the validity of a topic is always taking a stand on that topic. --Ludwigs2 07:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Ludwigs2, how would you address the following situation without the section in question? A fringe topic gets some attention in the press (say someone claims that staring into the sun is a substitute for food, and a couple of followers die from malnutrition, having been blind the last few years of their lives). But practically nobody really takes it seriously, and so there is no discussion of the fringe claims in mainstream sources. Once the topic has been established as notable, it's almost impossible to avoid having an article on it. The only sources for details about the topic are the publications of proponents, who are making reckless and obviously false claims about science. These claims are obviously noteworthy, so there is no way we can avoid reporting that they have been made. There are no reliable sources saying explicitly that these claims are fringe, pseudoscience or even just false. There are scientific sources that clearly contradict the claims, but we cannot mention them 1. per WP:UNDUE, because the scientific facts have 0 weight in the RS coverage of the fringe belief, and 2. per WP:SYN because Wikipedia would be the first to juxtapose the fringe belief and the actual facts it contradicts. (I don't agree with these arguments, but this is how it is argued in practice, often by editors who don't follow the fringe belief. And it's hard to argue against that for a common-sense application of our rules.) As a result there is a clear danger that Wikipedia knowingly exacerbates a real-life problem by publishing a completely unbalanced account of a fringe theory in an environment in which readers are used to relatively neutral encyclopedic articles. Hans Adler 09:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I see that section as further clarifying policy, which of course is crucial. Sometimes to make policy clear you need to rephrase things in another way (with examples) to make sure everyone is on the same page as far as how to apply policy. Insomuch as you think the section breaks existing policy, I think you are very much incorrect; I do not strenuously object to it going back to the FAQ where it can further illustrate as to how current policy works (though I prefer it back to where it was before you removed it), but I would very much oppose removal of the section completely as it is important to make clear how to properly apply WP:UNDUE.Yobol (talk) 14:37, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Hans: I'd have preferred a statement of the reasons for keeping the section rather than an example of how the section might be useful. examples are fluid, and subject to all sorts of rhetorical problems; statements are far less ambiguous. but I'll work with what you gave me. And incidentally, clarifications of policy for specific topics belong in guidelines, not in policy, so again, maybe we should move the section over to wp:FRINGE and discuss it there...

At any rate, the first thing I would do in this case (frankly) is stop to consider whether I was having an odd dream. This seems like an unlikely scenario. A cult that advocates something as damaging as starting at the sun until you starve, yet only a couple of people have suffered severe physical harm over two years, and no police have gotten involved, and no newspapers or news media have investigated? I'll accept that you've chosen a 'hard case' for emphasis, but I will note the potential straw man argument implicit in choosing hyperbolic cases.

That aside, let's break it down to cases:

1. The topic is only discussed in self-published, pro-group sources. Topic in non-notable, and doesn't belong on wikipedia.
2. The topic is a recent focus of public attention, so journalistic sources exist but are not well-developed. Topic does not belong on wikipedia, per wp:NOTNEWS
3. The topic is commented on extensively, but only in journalistic sources. In cases like this, journalistic sources will usually do their own synthesis from scientific sources to counter the group's pseudoscientific claims (journalists are allowed engage in synthesis; wikipedia editors are not). The best we can say about science directly here is that the scientific community has not specifically addressed any of these claims.
   • Incidentally, skeptical sources are excellent for this purpose - my issue with skepticism on wikipedia is that a lot of editors treat skeptical sources as though they were 'the voice of science' when in fact skeptics are journalists synthesizing scientific understanding on heir own, outside of the scientific community.
4. The topic is subject to some type of governmental action. FDA restrictions, investigations, court cases... These are useful primary sources for establishing particular risks or dangers inherent in the practice.

All of these cases can be handled effectively under policy without this particular section. The problem here (IMO) is that some editors are stuck in the belief that topics like this need to be 'scientifically' countered and disproven on wikipedia. They don't. Wikipedia editors are not journalists or scientists or police, and we have no mandate to protect people from their own misconceptions or from misconceptions fostered on them by others (per wp:NOTCENSORED). We are only writing an encyclopedia, and only aiming to give the best information on topics we can as it is presented in reliable sources. Even if these groups are causing harm to individuals in the meantime, it is beyond the scope of the project; we have to wait until reliable sources weigh in on the issue. wp:UNDUE prevents questionable science from getting front-page treatment on mainstream topic articles; UNDUE and various sections of wp:NOT (NOTADVOCATE, NOTOPINION, NOTGUIDE, NOTHOWTO, NOTCRYSTAL, NOTSPECULATION), not to mention FRINGE itself, keep questionable science from being overblown as fact on pages dedicated to it. what more do we need than that? --Ludwigs2 18:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The topic was unfortunately not hypothetical. I am sure that about 5-10 years ago sungazing went through your stage 2. The problem with stage 2 is that there are small mentions throughout many high-rate media because it's interesting. This is enough to make deletion of such an article completely unrealistic in practice, although I would agree with your solution in theory. (For some perspective on our deletion process, look at Alexandre Louis, Duke of Valois, its talk page and its AfD.) Hans Adler 22:22, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the problem you're pointing to is. there's a fairly large bridge to cross between having an article on an 'interesting' topic, and allowing that article to present itself as scientific fact. I haven't looked into this particular topic, but I find it hard to imagine that any reliable secondary source which bothered to give sungazing would not comment on the obvious health risks. that leads me to believe that what this has is causal mention in a few not-too-reliable sources. perhaps we need to expand FRINGE to lower the AfD criteria for such topics. that being said, if the topic is notable... what's the problem? all we need to do is inform people of the existence of such groups, with a few cautionary words (as the article currently provides). I don't see how that goes outside what I wrote above. --Ludwigs2 23:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

'equal validity' convenience break

I'm receptive to Ludwigs' desire to be careful not to introduce unintended consequences, and I also broadly agree with Yobol that it's a net positive to include some wording to elaborate on the concept. Here are two three four possible versions that have been discussed. Thoughts? --Tryptofish (talk) 17:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Comparison of alternative versions of the section
Old version, pre-April 2010	Version from FAQ by Dave, April 2010
The neutrality policy does not state or imply that we must give equal validity to minority views. Doing so would legitimize and even promote such claims. Policy states that we must not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such or from fairly explaining the minority views, when they are noteworthy.	The Wikipedia neutrality policy does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views such as pseudoscience, the claim that the Earth is flat, or the claim that the Apollo moon landings never occurred. If that were the case, the result would be to legitimize and even promote such claims. Policy states that we must not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers; but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such; from fairly explaining the strong arguments against the pseudoscientific theory; from describing the strong moral repugnance that many people feel toward some morally repugnant views; and so forth.
Wording proposed by Ludwigs2, above	Wording proposed by RexxS, below
Wikipedia may not itself be used to validate fringe views. Fringe views may be excluded from articles on scholarly topics where they are not a significant part of the mainstream literature, and where they are included may not be depicted as proven, true, valid, or accepted by the scholarly world beyond what independent sources say. Further, Wikipedia may not itself be used to invalidate fringe views. Wikipedia should describe any fringe view clearly, including critical perspectives and the view's relationship to established scholarship, but should avoid giving the appearance of attempting to debunk or disparage the topic.	The Wikipedia neutrality policy does not state, or imply, that we must give "equal validity" to minority views, examples of which are pseudoscience, the claim that the Earth is flat, and the claim that the Apollo moon landings never occurred. Policy states that we must not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers. However we should: describe the majority views as such; fairly explain arguments against any notable minority views; dispassionately report the moral repugnance that many people feel toward some morally repugnant views; and so forth.

• This was a longstanding part of policy, incorporated here in the merge from the FAQ as part of the agreed merge of the two sections of the policy, after significant discussion, so I've restored it. Ludwigs2 may feel that we should give more leeway to pseudoscience, but this is a clear statement of an essential aspect of NPOV. The proposal by Ludwigs2 above restates and modifies aspects of policy already covered under weight: tiny minority views don't need to be included, and in articles about a minority view we show its relationship to the majority view. Avoiding giving the appearance of showing clear majority views debunking or disparaging the topic is a new piece of bending over backwards to be nice to fringe views, and would be open to wikilawyering. . . dave souza, talk 18:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
  • This was not part of policy until your edit, Dave - it was part of the FAQ. and the agreement was to merge most of the FAQ into FRINGE, not into NPOV. I'm reverting you again based on the reasons I gave above. when you're ready to present reasons why this section is necessary, please do so and we'll discuss re-inclusion. --Ludwigs2 19:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

@trypto - I'd forgotten about that third option, which is certainly better than the current version. thanks for including it. --Ludwigs2 21:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Why are we whispering? (just kidding) I assume the third option to which you refer is the pre-April one, right? If so, could that be a compromise upon which we could agree? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

If we are looking for consensus for a wording, then it would be best to agree a few points first:

• The uses to which Wikipedia may be put are beyond the remit of editors;
• The fact that a statement appears in an article is not an endorsement (by whom?), nor a validation, nor a legitimisation of that statement;
• NPOV, including UNDUE, applies to all articles, not just a certain class of articles;
• Examples are illustrative, not restrictive. When giving examples in policy statements, we must not use wording that might allow the policy to be considered as restricted solely to a class exemplified by those examples.

Now, if we could agree the above, I believe we could offer constructive criticism of each of the three proposals, and start to establish a consensus acceptable to all. A Dinosaur has spoken. --RexxS (talk) 00:19, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, I can agree with that (but why do I feel like I just signed something I should have read more carefully? ... oh, well). Do please go ahead and provide your analysis. Definitely, we need to constructively evaluate the relative merits of these three. And by the way, I'm leaning towards preferring the old, pre-April version, or something like it. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't a trap (or even a fishing net), honest. If you accept point 1, then you'll want to remove wording that talks about how Wikipedia is used (Ludwigs). If you accept that stating facts does not endorse them, you'll want to remove wording that asserts we legitimise or promote (pre-April, Dave), or invalidate (Ludwigs). If you accept that NPOV applies to all articles, you'll want to remove the qualifier "on scholarly topics" (Ludwigs). If you agree examples are illustrative, then you'll want to reword "minority views such as pseudoscience, ..." (Dave), so that it is clear that the point applies to all minority views, not just ones such as <insert a class of views here>, perhaps by breaking the sentence and implicitly making it clear that they are illustrative examples. With the ambiguous/irrelevant text removed or amended, I think the three versions would contain a greater proportion of common ground. I've suggested an alternate version of Dave's text in the section below. --RexxS (talk) 21:40, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Sorry I missed that. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by 'beyond the remit of'; that's an odd use of the word 'remit'. Do you mean that wikipedia editors can and should not anticipate or try to control the uses readers will put wikipedia articles to? Your second point has some issues: there are many editors who will try to use wikipedia to validate or legitimize (or invalidate or de-legitimize) particular points of view, and as a rule that shouldn't be allowed. point 3 is ok; point 4 needs some discussion (I can see uses for examples, but I can also see how they get in the way of more generalized thinking). --Ludwigs2 19:01, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I've taken some time to think this over, and this is my take on it:

1. Pre-April version: My first choice, fairly simple, and I'm not persuaded that there are really any problems with it. On balance, I think it's better to include it than to leave it out.
2. Dave's version: Not wild about it. All it does is add a bunch of specific examples. Perhaps some of the examples may help some editors understand the point, but I think that, far more often, the specifics just end up being points that specific editors will disagree with, while others may see them as avenues for special pleading.
3. Ludwigs2's version: Wordier than the pre-April version, but not particularly objectionable to me. The beginning of the last sentence, "Wikipedia should describe any fringe view clearly," could have unintended consequences when fringe POV-pushers use it to say that we cannot leave their favorite fringe view out. Some fringe views may be sufficiently lacking in notability that we shouldn't describe them at all.
4. RexxS' version: As with Dave's version, I don't see the value in listing examples. I also don't see the value in discussing repugnant stuff, nor in the undefined "and so forth".

That leaves me preferring the pre-April version. RexxS has said that we should remove wording from that version that asserts that we legitimize or promote. For that reason, I would be receptive to deleting the second sentence from the pre-April version ("Doing so would legitimize and even promote such claims."), and replacing it with wording based on Ludwigs' version: "Wikipedia may not itself be used to validate or invalidate fringe views." That may appear to disagree with RexxS' point, but please note that this language says we do not do that. I've seen Ludwigs' criticisms of Dave's version, but I don't think they apply as much to this version. Could what I've said here be a starting point for moving forward? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

The pre-April version isn't too bad. Maybe use the phrase give equal representation to... instead of give equal validity to...; that combined with the second sentence you suggest should really get it away from the idea that wikipedia can be used to validate any perspective. We could also take the last phrase (starting with the 'but') and rewrite it as an affirmative rathe than a negative: "We should fairly explaining noteworthy minority views, while always describing the majority views as such." It would save people haing to parse out the double negatives. --Ludwigs2 21:23, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that of the four versions presented the original one is clearly best. Two dwell too long on voicing moral value judgmenet about morally repugnant topics. Ludwigs' spend too much verbiage implying that minority views should 'not be disparaged'. In short version two and four goes too far towards suggesting that minority views should be described from the majority view points vantage point, whereas Ludwigs goes too far in implying that minority views shouldnt be rejected - even when reliable sources clearly and unequivocally reject them as fringe. In short the original version is better because it allows us to make ad hoc judgements about how best to weigh the representation of minority views in the light of sources without suggesting primacy either to the majority viewpoint or suggesting that minority viewpoints cannot be 'debunked' as being fringe views rejected by the mainstream.·Maunus·ƛ· 21:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Noting that I think I agree with your preferred version, I do need to point out that you've misrepresented my position a bit. It boils down to this: everyone knows that there are editors who engage in SYN to promote some fringe topics, and everyone knows that there are other editors who engage in SYN to debunk fringe topics. There is a near-perfect consensus that the first is a bad thing (I agree with that, as does every other sensible editor); there is a debate over whether the second is bad. Statements in reliable sources (pro or con) are obviously acceptable almost everywhere (within the restrictions of wp:NPOV and wp:RS), given proper attribution and contextualization; editorial synthesis from such sources is never acceptable. it doesn't matter whether that synthesis is for advocacy or debunking, it's bad on the face of it. That is my position; do you still disagree? --Ludwigs2 22:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not trying to represent your position - I'm trying to communicate how I interpret your proposed text. We have a separate policy called SYNTH which prohobits original synthesis of sources to provide new viewpoints- we don't need to take the possibility of synth into account in this policy - it is already forbidden in another. I don't see a need for the policy to specify that synthesis is not allowed here and therefore the original version in all its shortness and with its consequent rooom for case by case application, is preferable.·Maunus·ƛ· 00:23, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

well, it's too bad you interpret it that way, but there's no need to drag the discussion out. so long as the section is not actively encouraging synth (as the current version does) then you're right, the other policy will be sufficient. let's get back to working out a feasible revision. --Ludwigs2 01:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not particularly wedded to the example I suggested; I only based it on Dave's because that is essentially the text in the article at present. I feel slighted by Ludwig's reference to my use of the word 'remit' as odd. If it's any help, I intended it in precisely the sense documented here, number 7. In other words, all Wikipedia content is reusable for any lawful purpose, and we're here to add content, not to second-guess what our readers may choose to do with it. As long as we follow the principle of neutrally reporting (without undue weight) what reliable sources say, we don't need to give any conjectural reason for proscribing practices that fall outside that principle. In short, it's a mistake to document that X is prohibited because Y might misuse it; it is sufficient to say that X is incompatible with our principles or community consensus.

Given some of the suggestions to improve the pre-April text above, I'd have no problem with accepting a tightened-up version of that, if consensus leans that way. --RexxS (talk) 22:54, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, this is good, and we are getting closer to finding something that has consensus. Taking into account the comments above, here is my stab at revising the pre-April version:

"The neutrality policy does not state or imply that we must give equal representation to minority views. Wikipedia may not itself be used to validate or invalidate fringe views. Policy states that we must not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such, or from fairly explaining the minority views, when they are noteworthy."

I added a comma after "as such" in the last sentence, but I did not incorporate what Ludwigs2 said about the double negative in that sentence, because, sorry, I'm confused about what you meant, so we can probably improve this version further. Thoughts? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm also pleased that more common ground is emerging. However, I still see three unresolved issues:

• I still don't believe the second sentence is appropriate, for the reasons I gave above, particularly as I discern a difference between "fringe" and "minority" views. I actually think the focus of this paragraph should be one or the other, but not a mixture of both – perhaps we first need to establish a consensus on which of the two is the intended target?
• In addition, compared with the current text, there are no examples provided. While there may be problems if examples are presented in an ambiguous way, it is possible to provide examples clearly and many editors may find them useful.
• Finally, compared with the current text (or Dave's), there is no mention that we should be describing the mainstream arguments opposing the minority views. I believe that it will be difficult to establish consensus for a version that omits this key issue.

As always, I'd prefer to document policy in the positive, rather than the negative, but that's a lesser issue. --RexxS (talk) 00:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

well, Rexx, it seems to me there are two issues here that need to be worked out:

• I'm not sure how you're distinguishing between fringe and minority views (particularly since fringe views are often referred to as 'tiny minority' views). The Wikipedia problem that needs to be dealt with is views that have little to no scholarly support in the real world but active advocates on Wikipedia - when Wikipedia editors engage in promotional activity (even innocently) topic articles can get bent out of proportion. The second sentence needs to point out that that the project shouldn't be used to promote or advance a particular topic, but should merely describe it as accurately as possible. how would you suggest we make the distinction between fringe and minority viewpoints in a robust way?
• With respect to mainstream sources - again - there is a fairly large distinction between making sure that readers are aware of the accepted scholarly opinions on a topic, and trying to make sure that readers believe that the mainstream theory is 'right' and the fringe theory is 'wrong'. For instance, if you read the (fairly well-written) flat earth article, there is almost no attempt to explicitly debunk the notion of a flat earth. The article is written in a descriptive historiographic style that makes it quite clear that this is an outmoded and unaccepted theory, but lays out the details of the theory quite nicely and neutrally. Would that all fringe articles were written that way... Again, I am mostly concerned with editorial synthesis here, and I don't want to explicitly encourage editors to write material with the thought of 'opposing' fringe topics in mind. Mainstream theory doesn't 'oppose' fringe, anyway, no more than a freight train 'opposes' a pushcart. if a fringe theory gets in the way of a mainstream theory there won't be much left of it; if it doesn't, it won't get very far.

with respect to examples... well, the two 'examples' used in Dave's version are less examples and more long-term skeptic stalking-horses (the implicit assumption being that all fringe theories are as mindlessly stupid as flat-earth theory and the Apollo moon landing hoax theory). If you really think we need examples (which I'm not convinced of) we can do better. --Ludwigs2 02:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Let's see if I can help you distinguish between "fringe" and "minority" views, without using examples that have "baggage". WP:Fringe theories gives this definition: "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field"; while WP:UNDUE uses a contrast between significant views that are held by the majority and those held by a minority. For example, the idea of a perpetual motion machine is an example of a "fringe" theory, as it violates well-established physical laws and there is no serious support for the concept in the mainstream; it is possible to construct a reasoned argument refuting the idea. However, if we were to examine the state of particle physics in the 1980s, we would find that the standard model was the mainstream, or majority view; while string theory was a significant minority view – both of these theories could claim to model the physical world, but the former was more established. Interestingly, we now acknowledge the deficiencies of the standard model, but there are currently five or more competing string theories, and it would be difficult to say nowadays which enjoyed a majority view. Hardly anybody seriously expects a perpetual motion machine to ever exist; but theories of particle physics are as yet undecided, and the balance of opinion may shift as time goes by. WP:Fringe theories applies to perpetual motion, but not to theories of particle physics. Hopefully that's clearer now.

I would not support any attempt to convince readers that "the mainstream theory is 'right' and the fringe theory is 'wrong'". That's a job for their own critical faculties. However, it would be remiss to discuss perpetual motion without stating that it violates the laws of thermodynamics. Similarly, it would be wrong to discuss the standard model without bringing to the reader's attention such problems as neutrino mass, or string theory without mentioning the lack of quantitative experimental predictions. When documenting policy concerning fringe or minority views (you pick), we should not ignore our practice of reporting significant contrary arguments that are represented within reliable sources. --RexxS (talk) 03:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

well, it doesn't seem like we're too far apart in viewpoint. However, I have to point out the weakness in your example which is that not so long ago (100 or 200 years, certainly) perpetual motion wasn't disproven. I'm not sure whether it took the laws of thermodynamics to disprove it formally or whether there was a looser logical argument against it prior to that, but at one point in time perpetual motion was a minor but certainly not fringe idea in the scientific world. I'm not saying there's no difference to be seen here (because there is), only that it's more a matter of degree and nt really matter of kind. --Ludwigs2 08:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. The point is that the mainstream view may shift over time. In some cases, it has achieved a stability for decades or centuries – what we might call a "settled question" – and there is very little remaining doubt that contrary views should be treated as "fringe theories". At the other extreme, mainstream opinion is still demonstrably in flux, and although there may be a majority view, significant minority views remain plausible. I feel that it is important to distinguish between these cases, wherever possible – although I concede that there is a spectrum of situations and there will be grey areas. What I don't want to see is credible minority views being treated as "fringe", nor fringe theories being treated as if they have any credence in the mainstream. --RexxS (talk) 15:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, that's definitely a valid concern. so the question is - starting from the pre-April 2010 version, which seems to be the emerging consensus - how do we work this in without opening the door to overt skeptical advocacy? Making it clear that fringe is fringe is fine, but it needs to be done without the appearance that we've let loose the lions as a form of public entertainment. --Ludwigs2 18:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Equal validity--arbitrary break 2

I guess I just disagree with the need for examples, but I take the points about minority versus fringe, as well as about majority rebuttal of the minority. Based on that, I suggest:

"The neutrality policy does not state or imply that we must give equal representation to minority or fringe views. Wikipedia may not itself be used to validate or invalidate minority or fringe views. Policy states that we must not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such, including their critiques of minority positions, or from fairly explaining the minority views, when they are noteworthy."

Getting closer? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The issue is of "equal validity", misrepresenting a tiny minority view such as pseudoscience as though it is just as valid as the mainstream expert view on the topic, when that is clearly against the majority view. The phrase "equal representation" suggests equal quantity, when volume of writing isn't the issues, it's the way the minority view is represented. The issue of "Wikipedia may not itself be used to validate or invalidate minority or fringe views" is a novel proposed addition to this long established policy, covering the same ground as "Policy states that we must not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers" but introducing more ground for arguments about whether we're doing that in either direction. I'd rather see it kept simple. My memory is of the "strong moral repugnance" line going way back, the version in the box by RexxS looks reasonable. . . dave souza, talk 17:15, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Dave, I'm receptive to looking at the issue of "representation" versus "validity", but I'm not sure that I believe your interpretation of it. As others have pointed out in this talk, Wikipedia does not actually confer validity. How something is represented includes how much quantity it gets, but it also includes how it is characterized. As for simplicity, I think we are all trying for that, but what you propose seems to me to actually be less simple. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Making it too simple will not improve this section. RexxS proposal works for me. QuackGuru (talk) 19:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

vamping off of what trypt said, I think most of the problem we have with this issue on Wikipedia is that (in truth) scholarly opinion ought to have a weight that is disproportionate to its size. E.g., there are half a gajillion popular press books on UFOs and not too many works on it published in reliable academic sources, but we should still present the reliable academic sources as though they represent the mainstream view (despite their smaller number) because they have procedures for validating and verifying information that popular press books lack. There are only two things I am trying to avoid in this effort: (1) attempts on wikipedia to assert 'validity' or 'truth value' even for highly accepted mainstream ideas, and (2) differential language in the guideline that weakens NPOV for particular disliked topics. Representation might not be the best word, but it at least avoids the idea that wikipedia is somehow enforcing 'the truth' the way that the word 'validity' does.

I hate to throw another option into the mix, but maybe it's time to consider changing the language entirely. something like:

Wikipedia strives to cover all topics fairly, but there is no 'fair play' notion that topics need to be included or validated simply because they exist. Wikipedia does not itself validate or invalidate any views, and fair coverage does not mean that minority or fringe views can "make their case" on the project, but only that such topics will be described neutrally and without bias, and placed in their proper relationship to the established views of mainstream scholarship.

This would resolve all my objections, help generalize the section so that it's not so specifically aimed at pseudoscience, and I think it gets at the worries that Dave and Rexx have been expressing. --Ludwigs2 19:13, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Your proposal does not give any direction for editors. Your previous proposal will allow fringe views equal validity. Especially the part "Wikipedia should describe any fringe view clearly". will allow any article on alternative medicine to be rewritten. QuackGuru (talk) 19:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course it gives direction for editors: all that they need. cover topics fairly, don't try to advocate for fringe views, be neutral and unbiased, and respect mainstream scholarship; what more direction are you looking for? are you suggesting that we should not write article clearly and fairly? --Ludwigs2 20:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not suggesting but asserting that we should not write articles equally with tiny minorty views. The direction your proposal gives is to balance the mainstean view every time with equal time for fringe views. Is that your goal. If that is your gaol that is not giving an appropriate direction for editors. That will create chaos and promote fringe views as if they were mainstream. QuackGuru (talk) 04:02, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

But that gives yet another tool to the POV-pushers who then claim that their pet topic isn't being treated "fairly". You haven't explained how we determine "fairly", and that is always going to be a subjective judgement. In addition, I think you're opening the doors by asking editors to "respect mainstream scholarship" - another phrase that is wide open to subjective (mis)interpretation. This section is about how we document our practices on Wikipedia, and I'll offer you four cases that I believe we should be distinguishing:

1. "Common knowledge" or "facts": We assert these without attribution, and reference as necessary. Examples: "Mars is a planet."; "Worldwide 42 million abortions are estimated to take place annually ... {ref}" – from Abortion
2. "Majority view" or "mainstream opinion": Significant minority views also exist and we attribute each view, describing each, while giving due weight to each according to their prevalence in mainstream sources. Example: "The Higgs particle is a hypothetical massive scalar elementary particle theorized by Peter Higgs et al in 1964 and is a key building block in the Standard Model ... {refs}" – from Standard Model#The Higgs boson
3. "Minority view": see above. Example: "In the years since the Higgs boson was proposed, several alternatives to the Higgs mechanism have been proposed. All of the alternative mechanisms use strongly interacting dynamics to produce a vacuum expectation value that breaks electroweak symmetry.{refs} ..." – from Higgs boson#Alternatives for electroweak symmetry breaking
4. "Fringe view": We describe these in the context of the mainstream view, and present criticisms dispassionately. Example: "There is undisputed scientific consensus that perpetual motion would violate either the first law of thermodynamics, the second law of thermodynamics, or both. Despite the fact that successful perpetual motion devices are physically impossible in terms of our current understanding of the laws of physics, the pursuit of perpetual motion remains popular.{ref if challenged}" – from Perpetual motion

Now it might be suggested that some cases are borderline between these four, but that in no way diminishes the importance of documenting these practices for the majority of situations where the case is clear. Moreover, local consensus on grey areas will eventually determine which category they belong in. We should be documenting the tools we use to help decide, for example when the findings of a reliable secondary source are not disputed, then it should be treated as case #1 (which makes it a "fact" in the Wikipedia sense). The preceding is the reason for this section, as there is no similar exposition elsewhere. I believe that the categories and processes I've described above constitute common practice on Wikipedia and there is no good case for failing to document them. Turning to the wording, I'd be content with any text that clearly laid out what we mean in each of those cases, and described how we treat them when writing an article – well-chosen examples are often useful to the reader, and I'd encourage their use here. That's my position, and changes that improve the current text towards that position have my full support (for what that's worth). I hope that others will accept my good faith opposition to changes that I believe moves us away from that. --RexxS (talk) 22:13, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Another tool for POV pushers??? what in heaven's name are you talking about? It almost sounds like you're saying "We need to be unduly harsh with fringe topics, because if we're not unduly harsh fringe advocates will run amok spreading lies. I don't mean to be hyperbolic, but it really sounds like you're saying we need to beat fringe topics into submission, and if so that's just plain odd. Fringe topics need to get the same treatment on wikipedia as every other topic (i.e. a fair description in accordance with their particular weight for a particular subject). We can trust that their 'fringeness' will be evident from a clear, neutral description.

Also, your typology is skewed. You can't blend common knowledge ("mars is a planet") under the same rubric with research data ("42 million abortions are estimated.."). the reason 'mars is a planet' doesn't need attribution is because it is common background information - one would have to argue extensively even to begin making the case that this was a contested issue. '42 million abortions...' may not need inline citation, but certainly needs a citation of some sort - it's doubtful that this is a highly contested piece of data that needs to be attributed explicitly to a particular group, but it certainly is figure that may be challenged or changed over time, so it needs to be connected to a source in the literature. beyond that, mainstream, minority and fringe views are all ideally treated the same way, just weighted differently; the less mainstream a view is, the lower the attention it received in reliable sources and the greater the criticism, the lower its weight - it's self-balancing, if you let it.

what we really should be talking about here is presentation styles, not "tools" (again, whatever that means):

1. direct presentation: "X is Y" - used when X is Y is common knowledge or general information that no reliable source seriously contests.
2. cited presentation: "X is Y^[cite] - used when X is Y is a generally established scholarly opinion that may be subject to change but is not actively contested.
3. attributed presentation: According to Q, X is Y^[cite] - used when X is Y is an opinion that is actively contested, minor, suspicious, or otherwise needs to be placed in perspective with other viewpoints.

These can obviously be mixed. a typical fringe article would say something like "According to Q, X is Y <type 3, for a suspect statement from a fringe perspective>. However, scientific opinion holds that X is Z <type 1, or in some cases type 2, for statements that are common knowledge or established research>". Further, an entire section might serve as an attribution (e.g. "So-and so's ideas about X") , reducing the need for inline attribution.

What we want to be avoiding is scientific peacock language. For instance, why would we ever need to claim that there is undisputed scientific consensus... about anything? science is not some voting system where scientists sit down and agree on which theories they are going to use this month; scientists use theories that work. The phrase included above could be restated as ""The concept of perpetual motion inevitably violates one or more of the laws of thermodynamics. It is impossible according to accepted principles of physics, but still attracts interest from non-scientists." This is just as strong as the phrase you gave, without implying any unsourcable consensus in the scientific community. We don't need to create an exaggerated sense of cohesion in the scientific community, or anthropomorphize the scientific community as a body with its own feelings and opinions. we simply need to present established scientific perspectives as such that dispute fringe ideas, and leave it up to the reader to follow the logic of it. --Ludwigs2 02:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

You need to spend some time working in controversial areas before putting words into my mouth, and I'll thank you not to do that again. Fringe topics are not a problem for this section; we have WP:FRINGE elsewhere to cover that. The problem occurs when a mainstream topic comes under regular attack from editors who simply don't like the mainstream view and want to dilute the undisputed findings of reliable sources by subtly casting doubt on them. Although it's not my point, fringe topics don't need to get the "same treatment" as other topics, because they may be either: (1) not significant (when they don't get a mention); or (2) so far short of having any general acceptance that mainstream criticism is itself significant and has to be included. It is not neutral to omit that.

On the contrary, my categorisation is not skewed. You are quite wrong to suggest that "common knowledge" ("Mars is a planet...") is treated any way differently from undisputed findings of reliable secondary sources ("42 million abortions are estimated.."). In either case, citation is required if challenged, but this section is not about citation (look at WP:CITE and WP:When to cite for that). The point is that both are asserted, not attributed. I've already posed the question whether you want to see the latter fact mutated into "According to a 2009 article by Shah and Ahman, using 2005 data from the World Health Organisation (who are well-known for a pro-choice bias), 42 million abortions are estimated to take place annually worldwide" – which remains unanswered. What would you see written into policy to discourage this sort of thing, if not WP:ASSERT?

Your categorisation is flawed. The difference between 1 and 2 is merely a matter of citation – and that is adequately explained elsewhere. The purpose of this section is to differentiate between no attribution and the cases where attribution is appropriate. You propose nothing to distinguish between these, and merely confuse the issues by suggesting it has something to do with citation.

This section is about more than science, although it is easier for me to take examples from a field with which I am familiar. I took the wording from the articles I cited, because policy is descriptive of what we do, not prescriptive of what we shouldn't. If you have a beef with the wording of an article, take it up there, or provide counter-examples to show that my examples are atypical. This is not the section to campaign against "scientific peacock language"; it is the section to document when we assert facts without attribution, and how we attribute different views otherwise. --RexxS (talk) 14:02, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I need to spend some more time working in controversial areas??!?!? Dude, you have no idea. 90% of my pit bull attitude I learned because early on a bunch of skeptical advocates decided they were going to make my life miserable (I made the mistake of trying to improve a couple of trashed fringe articles, and next thing I know I've got a rep, and an unpleasant set of stalkers). Fringe advocates are easy to deal with; you try coping with a science zealot on the warpath, and then you'll know what pain is. believe me, I've got the block log to show just how nasty and underhanded those SOBs can be. I understand the problem you're talking about, and I also understand how extreme the reaction to that problem is, and how easily the war between science zealots and fringe advocates can trash an article. The fact that you don't seem to recognize that science zealots exist tells me how far over into that perspective your point of view is; that's not a problem in and of itself, but it is troubling that you don't acknowledge it.

The main point about attribution here is that inline attribution is primarily used to visibly localize a statement to a particular source or author, when we want to make it clear that the statement should be 'owned' by that source and should not be treated as though any other source necessarily agreed with it (e.g. - stupid example - 'Roses are red' means that most everyone knows roses are red; 'Tim says that roses are red' means that Tim claims that, but maybe no one else agrees). This is all you really need to distinguish between mainstream, minor, and fringe ideas: mainstream ideas really don't need attribution; minor ideas do, but can usually be attributed as parts of broader discussions about mainstream ideas; fringe ideas will inevitably end up being attributed to individual sources without any mainstream referents. There might be some more specific tweaks on that that should be spelled out in FRINGE, but that covers the basic idea sufficiently for a policy. No special wording is needed to fend off article topics from 'attacks' of any sort; That can be handled on a page by page basis. If you think there's a page that needs to be defended that way, you point it out to me and I'll show you how to do it just by being reasonable (but first you have to get the skeptical advocates off the page, because trying to corral both sets of zealots gives me a headache - whenever I make progress containing one group the other group screws it up, because neither side is able to give up the fight).

Point of fact, policy is always prescriptive. even when people say it's descriptive, what they mean is that it describes what is normally done, which should be considered 'best practice' for all editors to emulate. The very nature of a policy is to establish institutional norms and regularities, and that is inherently and unavoidably prescriptive.

And by the way: I answered your question above, and as a I remember you even acknowledged it. Nobody wants solid sources over-attributed to weaken them. let's not puff up straw men, here... --Ludwigs2 23:02, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Please try not to refer to other editors in such a derogative manner. Recognising your "pit bull attitude" should lead to amending it, not parading it. I'm sorry you've had such bad experiences, and that editing here causes you pain. Nevertheless, that does not give you the right to put words into other editors' mouths, nor to make guesses about their points-of-view. I'm sure science zealots exist, and the advice I'll give you when dealing with them is the same as for any sort of zealot: stick to the best possible sources, and report them accurately; assert facts, and attribute opinions.

You continue to miss the point about attribution (as if it could be anything but inline). Attribution is the means we use to convert a statement of opinion into a fact we can assert. When a reliable source makes a statement that is disputed by other reliable sources, we we attribute each. When a reliable source makes a statement that is not disputed by other reliable sources, we don't attribute it. That's what you need to distinguish between, and have so far failed to do. You're quite right about how to distinguish the other three cases, but seem unwilling to see the difference between asserting facts and attributing opinions. That, of course, is the whole point of this section, no matter how much you try to turn it into a redundant copy of WP:When to cite and WP:FRINGE. I have no intention of arguing the same points over-and-over on a page-by-page basis – the whole point of documenting policy is so that the community consensus and practices are clearly set down where they may be referred to.

Policy is never prescriptive, but only descriptive, precisely because it only describes what is normally done. There will always be occasional exceptions, and policy is not a tool for establishing anything. Your assertion would be better written as "The very nature of a policy is to describe institutional norms and regularities".

I must have missed your answer to my question. My question seems to be sitting at the end of Why do we define "fact" and "opinion" in this policy? without response. Perhaps you would be kind enough to point me to the diff where you replied? --RexxS (talk) 00:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I will stop short of identifying the editors in question (unless there's a resurgence of the behavior that I need to deal with). But the problem is what it is, and I am not inclined to minimize it. If you recognize that some editors behave that way, then (a) you should not be overly-concerned with their feelings, since they are demonstrably not big on the whole 'feelings' thing, and (b) you should be a bit more careful with how you yourself refer to other editors. I am most certainly not going to politely overlook the disreputable antics of skeptical advocates if you indulge in regular and pointed commentary on the disreputable antics of fringe advocates. We could both agree not to refer to such disreputable antics from anyone at all, if you like, but I'm not certain what would be left of your argument if we did. You have been rationalizing all of the stronger measures you advocate for on the fear of attacks from irrational editors; without that rationalization, most of your argument turns to dust. Are you grokking the implicit bias yet?

errr... grokking the implicit bias??? damn, I need a beer...

Back on track, in bold this time, Wikipedia does not state facts. Wikipedia presents statements that have been presented in reliable sources. As you say, when statements in reliable sources disagree with each other we attribute the statements to individuals or groups so that it is clear who said what. When there is no significant disagreement in reliable sources we don't need to attribute because we do not need to specify the sources of different statements. There is no use and no sense getting tangled up in ontological issues of fact vs. opinion here; all we need to do is make certain that different statements are properly presented as generally unquestioned statements, statements of a particular position, statements of a particular group or individual, or etc.

Plus, you misread my comment about policy. Policy is always prescriptive, even where it's descriptive. It has to be: that is the only purpose and use of policy in any context, to prescribe acceptable behavior. what you said above (twice now) makes no logical sense, and cannot be supported in any rational discussion of the issue (I do recognized that it's a bit of a motif on wikipedia, but that's just poor language use). If you need me to go into this in more detail I can, but we should probably move that discussion someplace else.

WIth respect to your question, allow me to answer it now (I think I answered it before, but maybe not, and this is just as easy). let's look at the whole mess you posted above:

"According to a 2009 article by Shah and Ahman, using 2005 data from the World Health Organisation (who are well-known for a pro-choice bias), 42 million abortions are estimated to take place annually worldwide."

Now the core idea being presented is that '42 million abortions are estimated to take place annually worldwide.' obviously this needs a citation, so we don't need to discuss that. with respect to the particular parts of the attribution, I can say the following:

• the parenthetical 'bias' bit should be discarded unless it's sourced reliably and independently. so far as I know WHO has a reputation for reliable, unbiased data collection (it passes every wp:RS standard) so introducing a critical review is likely unsupportable. even if it were supportable through valid sources, we'd still have wp:coatrack problems (I assume this is not from an article about the WHO). 99% sure this coment goes away under policy.
• the '2005 data' bit ought to be included in the citation, but there's no particular need to to include it in the body of the article. If it were a 1948 study, the date might be important to show a lack of currency, but in scholarly circles 10 or 15 years is not generally considered out of date, so there's no real point in dating the data.
• the article attribution (2009 article by Shah and Ahman) may or may not be required, as follows.
  • If Shah and Ahman have a distinct viewpoint they are advocating with this data then the attribution would be required (primary research intending to make a particular case should always be attributed)
  • If the article is simply a statistical summary or review of the WHO data, then there's no particular need to add attribution for the authors, since it would be assumed that any competent researcher would have reached the same result independently.

Good enough? sorry I don't now enough of the details of the case to do more than raise the appropriate questions. --Ludwigs2 02:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

That's certainly good enough for me (but unfortunately I'm not the one you need to be convincing). The statement is of course referenced inline to this review, published in a high quality journal, using unimpeachable data, and the authors actually work for the WHO. That's about as good a source as we get per WP:MEDRS – secondary, a reliable source, and not subject to serious dispute. In other words, it ticks all the boxes, and as far as Wikipedia conventions are concerned, it is as much a "fact" as "Mars is a planet" is. Now the main difference between our views is that you want me to make those arguments on each article every time some anon decides to start sticking in attribution; while I want to be able to point to a policy and say "that's how we do it". So if we both agree that in cases like this, no attribution is normally done, why shouldn't that norm be clearly documented? Even if it does mean we refer to it as "asserting facts", it's as good a definition of "fact" as we're likely to get.

It seems that I didn't misread your comment about policy; it seems you possibly didn't read multiple ArbCom findings about it. Policy is never prescriptive. It cannot be, since it is merely "a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow". Prescription is intolerant of exception, and that runs contrary to the basic tenets of Wikipedia; it leads to what we call "process wonkery", where the letter of the policy has to be followed without reference to its spirit.

As for "grokking the implicit bias" ... it seems like a perfectly cromulent phrase to me. --RexxS (talk) 19:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Rexx: policy is not a substitute for consensus discussions. if anything, it should be the result of consensus discussions. I hate to point out the facts of life to you, but I feel obliged:

• You will never make a rule so clear that someone with an agenda cannot warp it to their desires.
• You will never rid wikipedia of people with agendas.
• There will always be someone who needs to have things explained to them repeatedly, and there is no getting around that.
• Trying to craft rules to stop people with agendas will accomplish nothing except f@gging up Wikipedia for the rest of us.

It's not like getting this kind of thing enshrined in policy is going to convince a tendentious editor. All it will do is shift the conversation from a painful discussion of sources to a painful discussion of policy, and sooner or later you're going to have to explain the sourcing problem anyway. we might as well just avoid the bureaucratic 'policy says' moment entirely and keep these discussions focused on the topic.

With respect to policy: as I said, we should discuss this elsewhere. if it's a major concern to you, I will go to the ArbCom page a request a clarification. What you're not seeing here is that I'm not rendering 'an opinion' or 'a fact' <smirk>; this is definitional. 'Descriptive policy' is an oxymoron - the concept is in use on wikipedia because (as I've mentioned elsewhere) Wikipedia attracts editors with anarcho-liberal mindsets, and so some terminology was needed that would allow the creation of overarching rules without appearing to violate that all too common "Rules? we don' need no stinking rules!" attitude. All of your arguments above are prescriptive arguments - you want to create a 'rule' in policy that 'prescribes' certain kinds of editing on articles so that you can avoid discussions that annoy you. In this sense, I'm trying to make policy less prescriptive than you are. do you see my point, or should be move this over to the ArbCom clarification request page? --Ludwigs2 14:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Ludwigs, policy is a documentation of consensus discussions, not a place for you to enshrine your own opinions of how things should be. As you mention the 'facts of life', there's a few you need to learn:

• WP:PG opens with "Wikipedia policies and guidelines are developed by the community to describe best practice, clarify principles, resolve conflicts, and otherwise further our goal of creating a free, reliable encyclopedia." The only prescriptive authority they hold is that of the community consensus (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking#Manual of Style)
• We don't make rules; we describe norms established by consensus across Wikipedia. It is that consensus that marginalises those with an agenda.
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking#Authority of policies and guidelines tells you that "Policies and guidelines exist to facilitate the smooth running of the project. However, they should be applied with common sense. Over-rigid or over-zealous implementation can be more disruptive than the behaviour that they are intended to discourage." The very reason for writing down policies is so that they can be referred to. It does nothing to aid the smooth running of the project by having to explain the same policies at length on every talk page.
• There will be editors who disagree with policies such as ASSERT because they find it restricts their freedom to push their POV against facts that the mainstream accepts. You need to be condemning that sort of disruption, not enabling it.

Feel free to take your suggestions to ArbCom. I already know what the answer will be, but I won't deny you your right to find these out for yourself. --RexxS (talk) 16:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

@ Rexx: I am simply amazed that you can reiterate exactly what I said in a tone that makes it sound like you're disagreeing with me. You do realize that that your first bullet point confirms that the intention of a policy is to be prescriptive, your second and third bullet points justify such prescriptive action? and that your last bullet point pretty much an echo of what I said to you a few paragraphs above? If you're just being argumentative (trying to negate what I say simple because I say it, without giving it fair consideration at all), that sucks, because thus far I've been assuming that you are trying to reach some kind of consensus, not just being obstructionist. As I said, if you want to take this to ArbCom for clarification, I will; one more post from you like this, and I certainly will, because there's no sense in me talking to you when you're not listening. --Ludwigs2 18:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Again you misunderstand what others are telling you. It is abundantly clear that I disagree with your confusion of policies and "rules"; that policies document consensus, not dictate it as you would have us believe; and that policies are helpful in ensuring the smooth running of the project. You can't just remove key principles like ASSERT from policy simply because you don't understand the difference between attribution and citation. I suggest you re-read some of the explanations of where you're going wrong, and actually respond to what is said, rather than accusing other editors of being argumentative (count the number of edits you've made to this page, and think about motes in eyes). Finally quit the empty threats of taking this to ArbCom. Have a read of WP:DR if you don't get it yet. Attempted bullying by threatening other editors in an effort to silence their opposition is not tolerated on Wikipedia. --RexxS (talk) 22:25, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Equal validity--arbitrary break 3

See also WP:CONLIMITED. WP:GEVAL has been around as policy since the inception of WP and titled Giving "equal validity" since 2003. Contrary to recent claims by at least two users that I noticed, it was not inserted by policy pushers as a result of content disputes at any particular article or group of articles. The reason it's a long standing provision with little change in its language from its inception until today is that it reasonably reflects both community practice and community preference. Three or four editors involved in extended discussion aren't likely to change community consensus on this unless there's a very compelling argument to be heard, of a type which I personally don't see presented here. And incidentally, it's not the obligation of members of the community to constantly involve themselves in every extended discussion such as that here about long-standing, stable policy. And the discussion includes, I might add, some very erroneous initial assumptions and outright mistakes about the history of WP:GEVAL (I recently summarized important markers in the history of WP:GEVAL on my talk page here.)
..... Here's the original language going back to December 2001:

"the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to completely repugnant views. It does state that we must not take a stand on them qua encyclopedia writers; but that does not stop us from representing the majority views as such; from fairly explaining the strong arguments against the repugnant views; from describing the strong moral repugnance that many decent people feel toward them; and so forth.

Here's the language as of June 2006:

"the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views. It does state that we must not take a stand on them as encyclopedia writers; but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such; from fairly explaining the strong arguments against the pseudoscientific theory; from describing the strong moral repugnance that many people feel toward some morally repugnant views; and so forth."

And here's the language as of April 2010:

"The Wikipedia neutrality policy does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views such as pseudoscience, the claim that the Earth is flat, or the claim that the Apollo moon landings never occurred. If that were the case, the result would be to legitimize and even promote such claims. Policy states that we must not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers; but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such; from fairly explaining the strong arguments against the pseudoscientific theory; from describing the strong moral repugnance that many people feel toward some morally repugnant views; and so forth."

I submit that any major deviation from the original spirit or basic thrust of this policy provision will need validation from the wider community, or it's not at all likely to last very long. ... Kenosis (talk) 16:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

And here is the version as of the beginning of April, which I think is just before the current discussion began:

The neutrality policy does not state or imply that we must give equal validity to minority views. Doing so would legitimize and even promote such claims. Policy states that we must not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such or from fairly explaining the minority views, when they are noteworthy.

Having watched the talk here over the past few days and having felt increasingly that it is becoming a stalemate amongst a very small group of discussants, I think that Kenosis' point is well-taken. It seems to me that the June 2006 version is significantly better than the December 2001 version. I mildly prefer the beginning of April version that I copied here over the June 2006 version, but I don't feel strongly. I prefer either of those versions over the later-April version, and I think we should go back to one of those. I also feel strongly that the frequent back-and-forth editing of the policy in recent days has been very inappropriate. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

@ Kenosis: the point of CONLIMITED is that a small group of editors cannot reach a consensus among themselves and impose it on the greater community. But this is not an issue of numbers ('consensus' ≠ 'majority rule'); the point of CONLIMITED is to allow a broad range of perspectives into the discussion so that the consensus result is as inclusive as possible. Now, as I told you on your talk page, I misread Dave Souza's insertion of this passage into the policy last April, and you'll notice that I haven't brought up the history of it since that I realized that. But even you need to recognize that this passage has never enjoyed anything like real consensus: it was initially put into the policy, then (assumedly because someone objected) it got moved to the FAQ, and then people objected to it again when someone tried to mark the FAQ as policy, and now it's being objected to again... At best, this passage has 8-12 ardent supporters and 5 or 6 ardent opposers, but clearly there are only small numbers of people involved in this discussion so far, and clearly the supporters are not winning on the basis of better reasons for inclusion (because the reasons given for keeping this passage - when people bother to give reasons at all - are not particularly sound). CONLIMITED is in no way clearly on your side, so don't start quoting it at me. Either participate in the discussion squarely, or don't.

I don't expect to convince you or any other ardent supporter of the current wording; I expect to make a reasoned argument that will convince unbiased participants that a revision is in order. I don't expect to have my preferred version of the section put in place; I expect that there will be a discussion geared towards consensus and compromise, and that a better revision will be the outcome. That's how consensus works. The only real question is whether anyone is interested in discussing the issues fairly, or whether the supporters are just going to band-wagon all the way to the finish line. Either way, stop trying to trump the discussion by saying there's no dispute about the passage, when it's painfully evident that there is and always has been dispute about it. --Ludwigs2 18:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

'equal validity' warning

No consensus for change has yet been reached. Ludwigs2, your edit warring to try to enforce your change on the policy is disruptive. Gain consensus for the change first; do not attempt to make substantial changes to long standing policy without such consensus. Puppy has spoken. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 22:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

KC, you need to learn to read discussion and participate on the talk page before you start throwing your sysop weight around. I removed this section because it was added without proper consensus from the old NPOV FAQ; I thought it was appropriate to do so, I've given good reasons for my actions, and for why I think the section is useless, I am willing and able to discuss the issues, and I am not inclined to put up with tendentious editors - even if they are sysops - who think they can use the weight of numbers to force inappropriate material into policy without discussion. You all are the ones acting against consensus (based on your obvious refusal to engage in consensus discussion), and as a sysop you should - frankly - be ashamed of yourself. now are you going to give reasons for your revert, or not? And please note, if you say no, I'm going to start looking into the procedure for de-sysopping. --Ludwigs2 23:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:GEVAL has been part of the NPOV policy since its inception in late 2001 (December of that year). Since 2003 it's been specifically labeled "Giving 'equal validity'". When the FAQ page was first created in 2006 it was with the understanding that that page would have policy status, and WP:GEVAL was among the policy clarifications spun off onto FAQ. When FAQ was downgraded from policy in 2009, GEVAL was brought back to this page, where, with only brief interruptions, it has remained since. See my user talk page for some relevant diffs and oldid's. ... Kenosis (talk) 15:40, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm saying this as a comment to all, not to anyone in particular. Personally, when I look at the three options that I placed above, I'm not particularly worked up about the differences between them. I think the facts of the situation are that Ludwigs2 has given a thought-out explanation of their reasons for not liking the version that is now on the page, but numerous editors have expressed disagreement with those reasons in this talk, and no one has really agreed with those reasons. I think it would be a good idea for everyone to take a deep breath, and think about which, if any, version would be better, and set aside worrying about what's on the page at the moment. Guppy has spoken. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:00, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I endorse the restoration of the section removed by Ludwigs2. Having read the above, I see no convincing reason why the section is inappropriate (and being previously in a FAQ is not relevant to whether it should be here). Johnuniq (talk) 00:43, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I would have to say that I believe the current wording is sub-optimal. It is ambiguous in the first sentence (could it be construed as applying only to minority views such as the ones quoted? what of other minority views unlike those?). It makes an unwarranted assumption that Wikipedia legitimises or promotes views. The last sentence is phrased in the negative, rather than in the positive. It addresses pseudoscience as a specific, rather than minority views in general; clarification of specific exceptions to general principles is the job of guidelines, but this is not an exception for pseudoscience, and the policy should refer to the general. I'd suggest the following amended wording:

• The Wikipedia neutrality policy does not state, or imply, that we must give "equal validity" to minority views, examples of which are pseudoscience, the claim that the Earth is flat, and the claim that the Apollo moon landings never occurred. Policy states that we must not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers. However we should: describe the majority views as such; fairly explain arguments against any notable minority views; dispassionately report the moral repugnance that many people feel toward some morally repugnant views; and so forth.

Feel free to pick it apart as you wish. --RexxS (talk) 01:24, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Have commented above on what I think is this version. Only quibble, "such as" makes it clear that the issue is small minority views, where views are more equally accepted by experts in the field then of course our articles should show that situation. . dave souza, talk 17:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Apollo 13

As of this time, no one has meaningfully addressed the arguments I have made for the removal of the GEV section (see the top of this thread for those arguments). Responses to date can be summarized as follows:

1. That it essentially restates UNDUE, but cannot be removed as as redundant for reasons that have not yet been clarified.
2. That it is a long standing part of the policy, which is explicitly false and (regardless) not a substitute for valid reasons.
3. That it needs to be retained because of an assortment of mild ad hominem statements thrown in my general direction.

None of these responses satisfy, the general attitude among the editors who have provided them has pissed me off a good bit, and when I get pissed off I get very, very stubborn. So, please note that I will continue pushing this issue until (a) someone gives a convincing set of reasons why this section is useful and necessary, or (b) this section gets removed, relocated, or rewritten. It would be in everyone's best interests if some one of you would make the mental effort to participate in reasoned discussion properly, since that is going to have to happen before I shut up about this. --Ludwigs2 18:31, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

From Mission Control, it seems to me that being pissed off is never a good position from which to achieve consensus, nor to persuade others to reevaluate their positions. But, that said, I'm going to try to give an honest critique of the four possibilities that are shown in the table above. I'll write it in that section. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:39, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, anger is what happens when I have to face editors who are way too quick on the reverts and way too slow on discussion. They are all highly experienced editors (one of them is a sysop for christ's sake), and they all know better than to supplement poor reasoning with aggressive editing (or at least they should). The fact that they do it anyway is an insult to me and to the project as a whole. So to hell with them. They can explain and discuss their position like good wikipedians, or they can give it up; I'm not giving them a third option. --Ludwigs2 21:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Other editors are under no obligation to engage in endless debate. You may need to content yourself with being the only person who is correct. Issuing a warning is not helpful. Johnuniq (talk) 05:56, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Other editors are obliged to discuss edits they make, even if those edits are merely reverts. Consensus insists on that. And I hardly think we're in danger of having an endless debate when (seemingly) I would have more luck getting blood from a stone than getting a reasoned argument from most of the editors defending this section.

Trust me, I understand the predicament: there is no good reason to retain this section, all the editors who support the section (including yourself) know there is no good reason, and none of them actually wants to discuss the issue because of an assortment of quibbles (fear they might look foolish, that they might be forced to admit there is no good reason, that they might lose some power or face in the community - cognitive dissonance is a strong motivator). I've been there myself, so I do sympathize. However, as it stands I have presented the best argument with respect to this section (if only by default, since no one else is bothering to discuss at all) and I am not inclined to let a decent set of reasons get trumped by mute aggression.

really, I'm having to watch my tongue a bit here. I happen to know that the original (ancient Greek) meaning of the word 'idiot' (from idios) was 'private person', meaning someone with no public voice in the community - they were not allowed to contribute to public decisions because they could not speak in public fora. I happen to think that's a good rule, in principle: If one chooses not to discuss, one loses one's right to contribute in any way, no exceptions. though it's probably best not to apply the Greek word because of the unpleasant modern interpretations.

So, you can keep trying to push my resolve in this section (more power to you on that), or you can drop it and contribute something to the discussion two sections above about the actual section content. I'll be interested to see which you choose. --Ludwigs2 07:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Ludwigs, you seem to be mind-reading or assuming bad faith, please be assured that in my considered opinion there is good reason to keep this section to maintain neutrality when presenting minority views. I've set out my thoughts in more detail above. . . dave souza, talk 17:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry Dave, are you suggesting that editors are not obliged to discuss edits they make? That hardly seems consistent with policy.

And yeah, you're right, I am mind-reading a bit. problem is, I'm good at it, so sometimes I can't resist. Unfortunately, it is occasionally necessary to consider and make assumptions about the motivations for both action and inaction: wikipedia already enshrines these kinds of assumptions (see Silence and consensus and related essays for examples). If you disagree with my assumptions, you are more than welcome to correct me - right or wrong, we will at least be having a dialog about it rather than sitting on our collective bums wondering about it. --Ludwigs2 19:30, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Clarifying giving equal validity

The Wikipedia neutrality policy does not state, or imply, that we must give "equal validity" to minority views, examples of which are pseudoscience, the claim that the Earth is flat, and the claim that the Apollo moon landings never occurred. Policy states that we must not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers. However we should: describe the majority views as such without giving small minority positions more legitimacy or even promotion than accepted by experts in the field; fairly explain arguments against any notable minority views; dispassionately report the moral repugnance that many people feel toward some morally repugnant views; and so forth.

I think this newer proposal clarifies the matter based on previous comments. QuackGuru (talk) 22:22, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I have tweaked a bit... There are two points that need to be made here... a) while we do need to account for significant minority views, we can describe them as such to give them due weight... and b) we can omit non-significant minority views completely. Blueboar (talk) 17:05, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Problems with this page

It seems that every time any improvements are made to this page by anyone other than QuackGuru, QuackGuru comes along and reverts them with no comprehensible explanation. Is eveyone happy with this? Should we not therefore remove the policy tag from this page, move it to his userspace to continue to do what he likes with it, and the rest of us set about writing a clear and accurate policy that properly explains to the world what we mean by "neutral point of view" on Wikipedia?--Kotniski (talk) 07:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

QuackGuru behaves like that throughout Wikipedia. A user RFC is probably the best solution to stop this waste of time once and for all. Hans Adler 08:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

If someone starts such an RfC, I will most certainly support it. I've had this difficulty with QG here, at the FRINGE guideline page, and at the QuackWatch page (which he guards with the ferocity and communicativeness of a pitbull). It's time he got his head turned around straight on project. --Ludwigs2 15:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems QuackGuru and others helped improve ASF. That would not be a problem. ASF is clearer and more accurately written. It's time for editors to move on when no specific issue was brought up. Of course some editors may disagree and think deleting part of policy improves this page. Edits like this were not an improvement. QuackGuru (talk) 17:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

QG - I don't actually question the fact that you often make good contributions, but I do believe that you frequently fail to communicate properly. Making significant edits/reverts without explanation or discussion is frustrating for other editors. if there is an RFC/U concerning you, that (I think) is what it will focus on. --Ludwigs2 18:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I only recently began following this page, but I too am troubled by QG's frequent edits while the rest of us are trying to discuss the issues in talk. A core policy should not be changing minute-to-minute. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:26, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The edits that are major changes to policy are like this edit that were rejected by the community. QuackGuru (talk) 18:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

No specific explanation for dispute tag

A dispute tag was added to the top of the page but the editor did not explain what was the specific problem. The tag is written as "The principle outlined in this policy is fundamental to Wikipedia. However the wording of the policy is subject to dispute. Please contribute to the discussions on the talk page." But the editor do not explain specifically what was the problem on the talk page. Instead the editor makes bad faith accusations of ownership. This isn't the way to complain about consensus. For example, the improvements to ASF were for the better. See Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view#Definition of fact. Sentences like "For instance, the published finding of a reliable literature review is a fact, when it is not disputed by another secondary source." greatly improved ASF. A fact is not just Mars is called a planet. When there is no serious dispute we can assert the text. QuackGuru (talk) 17:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

QG - I have explained in great detail (in sections above) why this tag has been placed on this section. the fact that the tag has gone through a few cycles of reversion and modification does not change that fact. However, I'll reiterate the problems with the section here, for your benefit:

1. The section is specifically geared towards pseudoscience, meaning this should really be in the wp:FRINGE guideline, not in policy.
   • Policy (IMO) is supposed to give broad, general statements applicable anywhere on project, that are then expanded on and clarified for particular areas in subject guidelines. Since this section is so obviously an expansion of wp:UNDUE as it relates to fringe and pseudoscience topics, it should be in wp:FRINGE, which is our guideline for dealing with fringe and pseudoscience topics.
2. The section as written shifts the nature of NPOV, implying that editors can and should take a stand on issues above and beyond what is presented in reliable sources.
   • basically, the section as written provides a loophole in NPOV by suggesting that topics which Wikipedia editors decide are factually invalid should not be treated with the same neutral detachment that all other topics on wikipedia receive. This encourages editorial synthesis, and in certain cases promotes the creation unbalanced, opinionated articles

As I keep saying, I'm not averse to the basic ideas presented, but the phrasing is poor, and as written tends to contradict some of wikipedia's core principles. As you'll note in the above sections, discussion is starting to iron out a more neutral wording. once that's been resolved, we can have a separate discussion about whether the section is better placed here in NPOV or over in FRINGE. --Ludwigs2 18:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

You have not given a specific explanation for a general dispute tag at the top of the page. No reason has been given to have to two tags. I think you may have misunderstood me. This thread is not about the section tag for Giving "equal validity". It is about the tag at the top of the page. QuackGuru (talk) 18:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah. I did not place that one, but I think it might be appropriate for the nonce because there are at least two sections of this policy under discussion (the GEV section, and the long-term discussions about ASF). I imagine what will happen is that both discussions will continue on the talk page for another week (±) and then we'll start a pair of policy RfCs to get broader community input on whatever final drafts get worked out. at that point, the tag will probably come off. OK by you if it stays there for a week? --Ludwigs2 19:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

You are unable to give a specific explanation how edits like this improved ASF. I don't think there is a need for a second tag. QuackGuru (talk) 19:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm perfectly able, you just didn't ask. please don't Perry Mason me. to be frank, I don't find either version in that diff to be entirely acceptable (as I've said, I don't think we should be asserting 'facts' here at all). I find the replacement to be a bit better than the original because (1) it's more concise, and (2) it seems more descriptive and less argumentative (in the sense that it doesn't rely so much on argumentation to support what it's trying to say). but I'd rather see the whole section reworked. --Ludwigs2 19:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

You are unable to explain what the problem was with any version and no explanation was given to rework the whole section. There is no problem with the current version and no explanation was given for the strange edit were made on the talk page.

This sentence was very odd. "Factual statements that can be verified in reliable sources can be stated "as fact" in Wikipedia articles."

Sentences like this were vague and don't explain anything. Verifed text does not make it factual. QuackGuru (talk) 19:51, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

In fact, I did state a problem with this section, here and elsewhere, so I'm not sure why you're saying this. I said I don't think we should be asserting facts here at all and the replacement is more concise and less argumentative. which of those statements is confusing you, and why? --Ludwigs2 20:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

"For instance, the published finding of a reliable literature review is a fact, when it is not disputed by another secondary source." Do you have a problem with this sentence that puts the breaks on attribution in the text. Do you think this sentence is argumentative. You still have not explained which sentence is the specific problem or do you prefer no instruction creep.

You claim I don't think we should be asserting facts here at all. No, when there is no serious dispute we cannot add attribution every time an editor disagrees with a systematic review. You don't seem to want to make the text more concise when you are against asserting non-controversial text. It seems you want to rewrite policy to allow attribution in the text any time an editor wants to do that. You want to make ASF less argumentative which means you want to make it more vague. Was I right. Do you think I am mind-reader too. QuackGuru (talk) 03:28, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if you're a mind-reader, but you haven't read mine in this particular case. To take your particular example - "For instance, the published finding of a reliable literature review is a fact, when it is not disputed by another secondary source" - this is odd and problematic phrasing. 'the published finding of a reliable literature review' is not a fact in any sense of the word, and certainly should never be presented without citation. If there's no other source contesting it, then there would be no need for inline attribution, but that still wouldn't imply that it is factual or true, only that it is (apparently) a broadly uncontested result. The danger in using the 'fact' terminology is that it can cause confusion. for example, there is reliable research (largely uncontested) which states that some 40% of Americans believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction prior to the US invasion. Asserting that research as a 'fact' can confuse the issue: many people will not realize that we have asserted that the '40% believe' bit is the fact, and will assume that we have asserted a fact about Iraq and WMDs (which is most likely false, and certainly not related to the research being cited). Using the word 'fact' in policy is just going to lead the editors down the path towards arguing about 'truth' (since in most people's minds facts and truth are intimately related), and per NPOV we want to avoid 'truth-value' debates and stick to the balancing of sourced opinions. see what I mean? --Ludwigs2 03:57, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

"40% of Americans believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction prior to the US invasion." could be a value judgement depending on how you write it which is covered in the opinion paragraph. 40% of Americans believe bit seems like a survey example. That is irrelevant to a review of the literature. Fact does not equal truth. Fact is equal to assert the text without implying there is a serious dispute. 'the published finding of a reliable literature review' is a fact in every sense of the word when there is no serious dispute, and we should certainly not confound V policy with ASF. ASF is about how to present the verifed text. You know what I mean. QuackGuru (talk) 04:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I think part of the problem is that QG and others are trying to write the policy to help their cause in particular disagreements, rather than give a clear explanation of what Wikipedia does. For example, the thing about "a particular survey found..." that they insist on including in the ASF section is precisely something they've been arguing about at the Chiropractic article. I'm not saying that people involved in disputes shouldn't take part in the dialogue about the policy, since it's important to know what consequences our words are having in practice (unfortunately pages marked as "policies" have taken on a kind of law-like status in some quarters, which they don't deserve at all), but we shouldn't allow editors to dictate specific wording that just happens to help them in their particular disputes. --Kotniski (talk) 09:41, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

And on the general matter of how this page should be written, I think there are two possible approaches: identify the key principles behind what we mean by NPOV, and set them out briefly and clearly; or just leave the page as a disorganized jumble of largely repetitive text that reflects thoughts people may have had one day and written down in random places. As will be apparent from my phrasing, I favour the first option.--Kotniski (talk) 09:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

You're quite right that I found myself here from that article. When I was trying to explain to a new editor at Talk:Chiropractic that we assert facts such as the findings of undisputed reliable sources, not attribute them, I found that it had been removed from WP:ASSERT. So the question is this: Do we want to thrash out the reasons why we assert, not attribute, on every talk page every time someone wants to disagree with an undisputed reliable source; or do we document our policy here? I've identified for you a key principle, "assert facts, don't attribute them". I'd rather the attempts to organise this page didn't throw out such key principles as part of the clean-up. --RexxS (talk) 14:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that (suitably worded, so as to tighten what we mean by "fact" in the context) ought to be one of the principles. But wouldn't it be much more effective to use against the fringe-pushers if it were written short and clearly, rather than as the jumbled mass of text that the ASF section is now?--Kotniski (talk) 14:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Editors have experience at chiropractic dealing with this specific type of content dispute over attribution. You have not explained what is the specifc problem with the current wording. The text is concise and very clear. You have repeatedly changes the section name against consensus. I think the section name should be restored. Since you were unable to explain what is the big problem with ASF I think the tag at the top of the page should be removed. Shortening the text would delete important parts of ASF that would leave ASF without a clear explanation for what is a fact versus what is an opinion. We should not delete improved sentences like "For instance, the published finding of a reliable literature review is a fact, when it is not disputed by another secondary source." QuackGuru (talk) 17:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I moved for the purposes of this policy to the appropriate FAQ section. It muddles the text to have it in this policy. QuackGuru (talk) 17:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

QG - you have a serious case of "I didn't hear that" going on. I'd appreciate it if you would make more of an effort to respond to what other editors are telling you.

Let's be honest, the chiropractic article is a cesspool of advocacy, from both the pro-chiropractic and the skeptical advocate perspectives. I've studiously avoided the page, myself, because it would be just too much of a darned headache to participate on (and I generally am not bothered by controversial topics). If you really want this to be about chiropractic, however, I will gird my loins and wander over there, where we can do this discussion properly. No, I would not find that fun, but...

We do not want to NPOV to become hostage to people trying to gain some fiddling advantage over their opponents in a contentious dispute. for one, it won't help with the disputes on chiropractic, because opponents are just going to IAR any tendentiously written policy, as I assume they already consistently do. For another it reduces the policy to a meaningless, confusing cipher, which is of no use to anyone. I'm with Kotinski here, that policy should be a simple, general, universal statement, that doesn't enter into a whole lot of fiddling detail or specific examples designed to win particular battles. --Ludwigs2 18:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

ASF is more concise now and no specifc problem with the current wording has been pointed out. Specific details is what makes ASF more concise now. Let's be honest, you are making no sense. Facts does not mean we are advocating truth. Wikipedia has a disclaimer. Making ASF too simple would make this policy meaningless. QuackGuru (talk) 18:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

QUACKGURU: I AND OTHERS HAVE REPEATEDLY POINTED OUT SPECIFIC PROBLEMS WITH THE CURRENT WORDING, AND I DO NOT LIKE IT THAT YOU CONSISTENTLY SAY WE HAVE NOT. THIS IS NOT PROPER TALK PAGE PROCEDURE, AND AND IS EVEN MORE ANNOYING THAN TYPING RESPONSES ENTIRELY IN CAPITAL LETTERS.

PLEASE DESIST.

Thanks, --Ludwigs2 18:47, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Please understand that "For instance, the published finding of a reliable literature review is a fact, when it is not disputed by another secondary source." is part of the solution to the previous version. Vague comments claiming there is a problem without showing there is a real problem is not a problem at all.

You claim "I said I don't think we should be asserting facts here at all and the replacement is more concise and less argumentative. which of those statements is confusing you, and why?" The whole point to ASF is to explain when to assert facts and when to add attribution in the text. Your argument it that you don't like to assert the text. That does not make sense. QuackGuru (talk) 19:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

For any interest editors, I have opened a wikiquette case regarding QuackGuru at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#QuackGuru. Please comment there if you so desire.

QG: vague phrasing (if in fact that were the case) would be far better than the version you are stumping for which is incorrect and misleading. greater detail does not help when the material being detailed is wrong. I have given a far better rubric for dealing with when to assert above, but you still have no responded to that. could you please? --Ludwigs2 21:59, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The propsal to use vague phrasing would make ASF meaningless. That is not the goal of having a policy. QuackGuru (talk) 22:08, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Now you're just stonewalling; you're not even trying to discuss the issue. So fine, your ever-unchanging opinion is noted and understood, and we can all go on to discuss the issue without you. have a nice day! --Ludwigs2 02:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not stonewalling. You have not explained very well what you want to replace in ASF. I don't know how it could be an improvement to shorten ASF which would make it less understadable.

You claim "I said I don't think we should be asserting facts here at all..." That goes against long time ASF policy. You have not given a valid reason why you oppose asserting fact especially when there is no serious dispute. I don't see a problem with asserting non-controverisal statements. QuackGuru (talk) 16:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

QuackGuru:

• I have given several reasons why I want this section changed, and explained each in copious detail above. You simply refuse to acknowledge them or discuss them. that's your problem, not mine: continuing to refuse to acknowledge or discuss them is stonewalling, pure and simple.
• I don't care if it's long-standing policy; it's 'bad policy, for reasons I have discussed above which you have ignored.

I have nothing further to say to you until you address the points I've made above. it's frustrating to have to repeat myself endlessly. So, read, ask specific questions if you're confused, make clear points if you're not. until you do that, there is no point in listening to anything further you have to say. --Ludwigs2 14:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)