Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Archive 51

Order of competing claims

(I am not sure if this is the right place, if not, I would be happy if someone directed me to the correct place)

In many articles, in WP:ARBPIA, there are competing claims. The UN says something, Israel says something, the Palestinians say something etc. Is there some guideline as to which order these claims should be presented in a section? See for instance, the dispute here. Kingsindian ♝♚ 17:40, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

No... This is the sort of thing we leave up to editorial consensus. Blueboar (talk) 00:25, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Allowing more than a single viewpoint in an article

I recently proposed here that when a topic has both a significant or notable minority view, and a majority view, that Wikipedia articles ought to allow both sides of an argument to be fully and fairly laid out. I apologize for making the edit before the discussion, but I thought that this might be the best way to clearly state the proposal. Thoughts? Scott P. (talk) 15:30, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

This is an incorrect description of your edit you linked. -M.Altenmann >t 18:50, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not certain what you mean... Why do you feel it is incorrect? Does this mean you think that there should, or should not be two points of view fairly and fully laid out in such articles? Please clarify. Scott P. (talk) 19:08, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I am not expressing an opinion about the policy. I am stating that your description here incorrectly (possibly unintentionally) renders your edit, by omitting certain subtleties which IMO are critical. Therefore, to exclude misunderstandings and the resulting waste of time, please state your suggested change here in full, in this form:

old text

new text

Please also keep in mind that, first, this is a policy, not an article, so we usually don't need to footnote it with references; and second, argumentum ad Jimbonem are good in talk pages, but not in policies, where consensus counts, rather than authority. -M.Altenmann >t 19:46, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

---

OK, in the hope of clarifying that Wikipedia does ask that the two conflicting views typically found within "significant or sizeable minority view topic articles", both be fairly and fully laid out, I propose that the current NPOV text:

In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space. However, these pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view.

Be changed to read:

In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space. In articles relating to viewpoints that fall somewhere between true "fringe/ distinct minority" views and "mainstream" views, both sides or contending views should be fairly represented, allowing the reader to "think for themselves". Such pages should never limit content strictly to the perspective of the minority view.

Scott P. (talk) 20:14, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Why? Is there an article where the above proposal would help the encyclopedia? It is likely that the only outcome from the proposed change would be to assist those pushing fringe views and other nonsense. Where authorities on a subject differ, their views are recorded, so what is the problem? Johnuniq (talk) 01:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I believe there is such an article that could easily serve as an example of the many articles that could be helped by this policy. I arrived at this article by simply scanning the recent comments on this talk page. Please check out the Circumcision article. There, the editors have tried to make it appear that all medical opinion recommends against circumcision, yet the fact of the matter is that it is an "undecided subject", and a very significant minority recommends for circumcision. There I have tried to include the fact that it is not a "decided" subject in the article, but I have been fully reverted out of that article. We will see how my most recent edits and arguments there will fare.

There on the article's talk page you can see the debate, obviously unsettled for years, raging on. There seems to be this idea that Wikipedia's role is to not only inform people, but also to make up their minds for them. This idea of making up people's minds for them in such cases is RUBBISH. We need to encourage truly "Balanced" articles, which show both sides of such debates, not "Slanted" articles, which intentionally give the mistaken impression that there is only one side of such an argument. Thus the need for the edit to the policy that I have suggested above. Scott P. (talk) 09:50, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

It's an issue that has been discussed many times before... advocates of fringe views often claim that an "argument" exists (and that their side of that "argument" is not equally represented), when in fact there isn't much argument at all. It's really just a few vocal advocates shouting in the wilderness. On the other hand, I have seen advocates of mainstream views try to suppress legitimate minority viewpoints as being "fringe", when in fact they are not.

Which is which is not something we can answer in the abstract... because a lot depends on the specifics. The underlying question is this: How much weight should a specific minority viewpoint be given? If it really is a fringe view, then (per WP:UNDUE) it should not be given much weight at all. It's not our job to promote fringe views. On the other hand, if it is a legitimate minority view, then we need to note that the view exists, and what it's proponents say.

So how can you tell how much weight to give a viewpoint? You examine what the independent sources say about it... how much they discuss it. Set those involved in advocacy (for and against the viewpoint) to one side... If the independent sources spend a lot of time either discussing the view point (whether to support or debunk it), then we should give that viewpoint a reasonable amount of space in our article. However, if they more or less ignore it, then we should do so as well.

That said... once you determine how much weight to give the viewpoint (whether that is a lot, a little, or none at all), you can then go back and examine what the advocates (for and against) say on the issue, and use them to flesh out what we say about it. Blueboar (talk) 12:29, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Blueboar here, well stated. In the particular case Scott is talking about, the edits are getting reverted mainly because they're making the article misrepresent the sources. Can we agree that before we start considering NPOV we first have to 1) identify the reliable sources and 2) represent them accurately? Zad68 13:46, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

It actually has to all be considered at the same time... because there is a wrinkle to consider: There is no such thing as a 100% completely unreliable source. Fringe advocacy sources actually are reliable for statements of opinion (ie an attributed statement about what the advocates say)... even if they are not reliable for statements of unattributed fact. Which means we have to do more than just identify "the reliable sources" in some abstract sense... we also have to identify which types of statements any given source appropriately supports. However, there is no point in identifying what type of statement the source might be reliable for if the opinion it expresses is so fringe that we will omit it in the first place. That's where NPOV and UNDUE come into play... figuring out whether a specific statement of opinion should be noted in depth, noted in passing, or completely ignored. Blueboar (talk) 14:34, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

@Blueboar:, please consider making your exegesis part of the policy. Since the issue pops up now and again, it probably means that the policy is insufficiently clear/ understandable. -M.Altenmann >t 16:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Blueboar, right, the reliable sourcing I'm referring to here is authoritative, independent secondary sources. Independent secondary sources are needed to be able to determine whether a particular viewpoint is being given emphasis compliant with NPOV. Yes, any source is a primary source for itself, but you cannot determine how much weight to give it without a secondary (tertiaries can help too). Any advocacy group can produce self-published sources and plaster them all over the Internet, cluttering up your Google search results with the top 50 result placings, but unless that group's views are covered seriously by authoritative, independent secondary sources, they shouldn't be included at all. This is what current policy says, and it produces the desired result. Zad68 21:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

A fringe article is a minority view (albeit a small one - applying the ancillary article exception) and thus is covered by "In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint". We make no distinction there between a "significant minority" and "extremely small (or vastly limited) minority". The point of that statement is that the scope of an article changes the focus of the weight. At a higher level, fringe views get no place in an article - weight is placed based in proportion to the prominence within the larger context. As you create sub-articles describing minority views, the body of sources changes to focus on fully exploring the topic scope, and while they will describe their place in regard to the larger topic (as the policy states), the viewpoints that make up the minority view become more central to the article, thus gain more weight in relation. This is no different when the article focus is a fringe view, except the sources often become more primary and sometimes self-published (if discussing itself). In any case, the content should represent a complete understanding of the topic, which means fully describing the viewpoint and the various positions on it. Thus, I don't see what the change accomplishes. Morphh ^(talk) 21:50, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to remind y'all that articles such as Whig Party and Zoroastrianism, which both reflect minority points of views, exist, and probably do not link back or discuss the current majority points of view (which I guess would arguably be Republicanism and Catholicism, respectively). I know you scientists out there, staring down at your microscopes, are offended by some people say the world is flat, other people disagree type articles, but there exist whole other realms of thought out there!

But on the larger point, per WP:YESPOV, by all means, include multiple points of view where possible. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Bad examples. These are belief systems, not scientific theories. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:17, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

• strongly oppose i cannot see any place where this would ever be a benefit to the encyclopedia and i can see a gazillion places where it would be horrible. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:38, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Red-Pen, could you please keep to the subject of the specific article being discussed. How would you see it as being "horrible" in the Circumcision article? Scott P. (talk) 22:55, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

No, we do not tweak policy wording based on one article. If you want to change wording, all implications must be considered. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:00, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

You are correct, but we must start with one article, no? Scott P. (talk) 23:06, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

The article on Circumcision is all about the science of medicine. Is that not an acceptable artlcle to start with? Scott P. (talk) 23:11, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

No. You can propose changes and other editors are free to comment on how those changes will affect other articles or a broad spectrum of articles. It's no good working on wording for one specific article in isolation. It's like building a factory to produce one size of a shoe style in one specific color when you have to manufacture shoes for the entire market. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:53, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

The only reason that I chose the Circumcision article to start with was simply because it was listed just above on this page as an article where editors have just complained that the "minority view" is being stifled there. Low and behold, I inserted a tiny reference to the "minority view" which happens to be the view of the World Health Organization and of the American Academy of Pediatrics, and which happen to be views listed prominently in the Britannica article on the same subject, and my small mentions are quickly reverted with the explanation that they are supposedly "misleading" but with nobody able to answer my question, "specifically why are the views of the WHO and the AAP misleading?" That article, indeed only fairly presents one side, even though they fail to fairly represent the largest association of pediatric doctors in the US, and the WHO. Britannica knows how to fairly represent two contending views. Why can't we? Why we have to play second fiddle to Britannica because we don't know how to fully list two opposing views fairly in a single article? Scott P. (talk) 00:04, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Wouldn't WP:NPOVN be a better forum for this? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:07, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Jumping Jack Flash on a pogo stick, Scottperry, the reason you kept getting reverted was because you were not representing the sourcing accurately. You can't make the article say something the sources do not and then complain about NPOV policy because your edits didn't stick. Zad68 00:12, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Exact quotes from both organizations are "inaccurate", sure Zad. I'm trying to point out that this is a systematic error with Wikipedia policy. Not that it is merely a problem in one article. The editors of the Circumcision article correctly followed NPOV policy and carefully weighted their article in favor of the majority view. That left the WHO and the AAP as supposedly "misguided organizations", whose misleading views were not permitted to be fairly explained on the page. Britannica knows how to weave more than one viewpoint into an article. Why can't we? Scott P. (talk) 00:18, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to be a party pooper, but it's my bedtime.... Night. Scott P. (talk) 00:22, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Neither time did you quote the AAP as you claim, and it's the AAP's position that you misrepresented both times. Until we resolve this misunderstanding, we can't get anywhere. G'night. Zad68 00:23, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I believe all three of us editors at the Circumcision article are now on the same page. Thank you kindly, all.Scott P. (talk) 00:55, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Allowing more than a single viewpoint in an article (post Circumcision article-interaction)

I have two question for those here who are in "opposition" to this proposal that Wikipedia policy should have a section which specifically describes how "minority views" should be treated. They are:

1. If you feel that all articles should automatically be "weighted" to favor the "majority view", and that minority views don't even deserve a separate policy section to describe how they should be presented, then are you saying that you believe that essentially, the only views that deserve any real consideration in Wikipedia are majority views?
2. If you feel that minority views are not worthy of any specific Wikipedia policy about how to best represent them, then without any policy addressing this question, what is there in our policy to prevent such views from being essentially "unfairly squelched"?

Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 00:55, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I believe that one very major reason why people seem to prefer Wikipedia over Britannica is because on any given subject there is generally more information available on Wikipedia than in Britannica. As for myself, I like to read articles where "there is an abundance of pertinent information, but not an "over-abundance" of it. It seems to me, that this idea of providing an abundance of pertinent information, but not an over abundance of it, could serve well as a "guiding principle" in determining what should and what should not be included in Wikipedia. That is, would a reader see the information as being "helpful" or as mere "clutter"? Currently, our policy seems to try to focus more on very abstract principles that read something like "does the majority of the opinion of the published community support this idea?" Why can't this be simpler, and only ask, "does it seem more likely that a typical reader would see this information as being helpful or as being mere clutter?"

For me the article on Circumcision is a sort of a case in point. Whoever wrote the Britannica article on circumcision probably determined that including both some pro-circumcision-views and some con-circumcision-views would most likely be found by typical readers as being "helpful" information, and thus he included both perspectives in his article. In our article on the same topic, our editors, duly following our policies, could only justify fully explaining what they apparently find as the majority-view which was the con-circumcision-view. Thus, they systematically deleted anything that attempted to fully explain the pro-circumcision-view, as they apparently determined that this policy was a "minority view, and therefore "not worthy" of a full explanation in Wikipedia.

It seems to me that our policies are drifting away from trying to meet the needs of our audience, and are becoming a rather convoluted means of trying to debate "ultimate truth" amongst ourselves, when that is not supposed to be the purpose of an encyclopedia, a "well rounded" view, not a "difinitive single view". Thus, I feel it is time we started a section of policy that focused on the proper presentation of minority views, so that we can present more "well rounded" articles, and not "difinitive single perspective" articles. Scott P. (talk) 11:02, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Scott... You seem to be exclusively focused on the circumcision article. It is never a good idea to try to change policy based on one single article. We need to write policy with all articles in mind. So... to better prove your point, can you come up with a few other articles where you see a similar problem... and could you give us an example of an article where you think the policy is being applied appropriately? Blueboar (talk) 11:47, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

As I wrote above, I believe the editors of the Circumcision article were following our "weighting of articles" policies appropriately. Our "weighting policies" encouraged them to "weight" that article with no explicit restrictions on how much to "weight" it. Ultimately they were so zealous in weighting the article in favor of the perceived majority, that the article even included a false statement, heavily laden with med-speak to make it difficult for most lay people to even understand, in "weighted" support of the majority view. It took thousands of words of talk-space discussion to even correct that mis-statement of the facts, so zealous were the page editors to "weight" the article, and to make sure no minority view was fully laid out. Which specific WP policy do you feel is written to prevent the "over-weighting" of articles in favor of the "majority view", that they violated? Scott P. (talk) 16:29, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Blueboar, do you feel that there is already some Wikipedia policy in place to assure the fair representation of noteworthy minority views? If so, which policy might that be? Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 16:49, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes... its called WP:NPOV. which states that we should present: ...all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.

The key word, of course, is "significant"... there are often disagreements between editors as to whether a particular view should be considered "significant" or not - advocates of minority views will often argue that their view is very significant, while opponents will often dismiss them as being not significant at all. The way we resolve the disagreement is to look at reliable independent econdary sources to see how much they discuss the view. If they give the minority view a lot of attention (even if only to disparage or debunk it), so should we... If they ignore it, so should we. That's called giving it due weight.

You might also look at our WP:FRINGE policy... that goes into more detail about both when and how to mention views that are at the lower end of the "significance" spectrum. Blueboar (talk) 12:20, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Our NARTH article

Here is an article where the actual views of an Association (which are apparently held by our editors to be the "minority view") are completely omitted from the article. This is an article about a professional association, for which there appears to be a PC (Politically Correct) consensus, that this organization is fundamentally "evil". Thus the Wikipedia article on that association clearly reflects the weighted-PC view of that Association and refuses to actually fairly represent the true views of that association. People should not come to Wikipedia to get PC-correct views regurgitated back to them. They should come to Wikipedia to get actual information.

So "Ok, get to the point, what is the name of this organization?" you ask. It is our article on the NARTH association. You can read that article before my last edit which removed a certain false statement here. After reading their Wikipedia article (before my first edit), I was mistakenly misled by the text of that article to believe that NARTH was an organization attempting to categorically claim that homosexuality was always simply a "choice", and a choice that is always "reversible". I believe that such is probably the PC-correct view of NARTH. After actually reading the NARTH position statement on this, it turns out that such is not the case, yet our article erroneously misleads the reader to believe it is. The NARTH position statement clarifies that they believe that more research would have to be done to determine at which point along the "continuum of sexual preferences" that one's sexuality is or is not a truly malleable choice. The fact that NARTH's actual position on this question is in fact somewhat more reasonable than what their implied position was as shown by the article, seems to me to be a disservice to our readers.

As in the Circumcision article, WP policy regarding the mandatory "weighting" of articles had encouraged the editors of this article to actually make an "overly weighted" claim that was essentially false within the article, yet nobody caught it. This was the article's former claim that NARTH policy "disagreed" with APA policy regarding whether or not homosexuality was a "disorder". I have since deleted this false statement from the NARTH Wikipedia article. We will see how loudly the PC-correct editors over there clamor to reinsert it, based on their guidance from a WP policy that requires the proper "weighting" of all articles. I can almost guarantee you that if I put in the actual NARTH position over there, and the editors over there were left on their own, within three months, that view would be deleted by zealous editors duly "re-weighting" that article in favor of the PC-weighted majority view. Scott P. (talk) 16:15, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: Actually, it didn't take 3 months. The false statement was just re-inserted into the article by an editor who was obviously diligently following Wikipedia "article weighting policy" to the letter. Shame on the editor who would have the audacity to defy the PC-weighted view! This time, unlike in the circumcision article, I'm not going to waste 2 days of my time just to get an article to be honest. Policy needs to change, not individuals trying to make Wikipedia honest with a conflicted policy in place that doesn't back them up. Scott P. (talk) 17:36, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

"Conflicted policy?" you ask... Why does a policy section that is supposedly about "neutrality" strongly advise that all articles must be properly "weighted"? Isn't the word "weighted" implying "favoring one side"? So, a truly neutral article must favor one side? What is this, some kind of fancy-schmantzy double-speak designed to confuse newbies, and to give supposedly seasoned veterans who can "understand" double-speak some kind of upper-hand? This terminology makes no sense to me. Why can't neutral simply be neutral, and not "favoring one side"? I'm sure someone will say to me, "You don't have the proper understanding." I say, if you want a slanted article, why not use the word "slanted," not "weighted"? What is the difference? Scott P. (talk) 18:47, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Because giving the same weight to a minority view as we do to the majority view isn't actually neutral. Doing so would actually favor the minority view.

Let me ask - do you really think we should spend half of our Earth article discussing the views of the Flat earth society? Should we really spend half of our article on Apollo 11 discussing the various Moon landing conspiracy theories? Blueboar (talk) 13:15, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Certainly not. But do you not care about the "false statements" that unrestricted weighting/slanting of articles now seems to be occasionally producing? Can we not rationally discuss where weighting/slanting of articles should start, and where it should stop? How much weight/slant is too much? Wikipedia seemed to work fine for its first 7 years without any requirement for "due weight" on all articles. Then, around 2009 the new concept of "due-weight" was extended from the "undue weight" concept. I haven't looked at what the arguments were back then, and I wasn't aware of the shift at the time, but I am wondering if sufficient consideration was given at the time to what in reality amounted to requiring the weighting/slanting all articles. Once the "due-weight" concept was introduced, not only was it important that minority views not be "over-inlflated" (which makes perfect sense to me). It also began to become more and more important that majority views be sufficiently "inflated". I do not really enjoy having to review the argument from 2009 when the concept of "due-weight" was first introduced here, but I am planning on reviewing it closely. It simply seems rather odd to me that my initial proposal that "noteworthy minority views be treated fairly" was fully "shot down" without anyone offering any explanation of what policy protects the fair treatment of noteworthy minority views. This seems to me to indicate a potential shortcoming in policy that is worthy of a rational discussion (where we attempt to understand one another, not to merely out maneuver one another). Scott P. (talk) 17:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for asking

Scott, explain how you determine whether a minority view is being treated "fairly". Current policy says that a minority viewpoint is being treated "fairly" when the emphasis in the article matches the emphasis found in the reliable sourcing. To me that sounds like a pretty reasonable and encyclopedic approach that should produce good results. What do you find wrong with that part of the NPOV policy (if anything), and what is your alternate proposal? Zad68 17:32, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I very much appreciate your thoughtful questions Zach and Blueboar. You have pointed up some legitimate considerations. After considering your questions, I have reformulated my proposal. I am proposing that wording that was included in our NPOV policy in 2008 be re-inserted in our NPOV policy now. This wording once read:

Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them—Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. But on such pages, though a view may be described, the article should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view.

This would certainly address my concerns. Certainly in our Earth article, the flat earth view may not even deserve mention (reasonable), but in our Flat-Earth article itself, it does deserve to be fairly laid out, even if this might require exceeding the space that a properly "weighted" explanation would require, no? People do not go to the "Flat Earth" article only to find proof that the Flat Earth theory is wrong. In all likelihood they mostly go there to find out exactly what reasoning could have led people so far astray! Why not let them find that information? They are not a bunch of idiots, easily swayed by any stray theory found blowing in the wind, and we are not the 'keepers of the gates of reason'. We are here to provide well-rounded information for those who seek it, allowing people to think for themselves whenever possible without creating an actual misrepresentation of the truth. Scott P. (talk) 18:13, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Alright so you're saying that you're really concerned about articles dedicated to minority views, correct? The wording you're proposing wouldn't affect anything at Earth but would at Flat Earth?? Zad68 18:45, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Our Flat earth article is written without undue inflation of the majority view. I see it as having been written that way for two reasons:

1. The topic is not perceived to create any true "threat" to the majority view, thus those who hold the majority view feel no compulsion to slant/inflate/weight that article against its own topic.
2. Since that topic is endlesslly used as an example in theses policy talk pages, editors of that article are far more careful in that article not to make it seem that the majority view was unduly slanted/inflated/weighted against the minority view.

Certainly that article would be the last place in Wikipedia that we would be likely to find undue slant/ inflation/ weighting. Trying to even have a rational discussion here on this talk page seems to me to be nearly impossible because of the way our Wikipedia neutrality policy has been so hacked to death in the last few years. It has gotten so bad that the "guardian editors" here cannot even think clearly themselves. It is becoming the "cult of Wikipedia" where neutral means slanted, and where "minority view" always means the "ranting fringe view". Thus I am automaticlly treated here as if I was a lunatic fringe editor to be silenced because I am the unfortunate messenger pointing out that "the emperor has no clothes ". I suggest that the words "weight" and "proportion" are "weasle words" which actually mean slant, inflate, and "remove neutrality".

I rationally ask here if there is any policy to prevent "over inflation/slanting/weighting/proportionizing" of the "majority view", and I am treated here as if I were an "enemy of the state". An article like our circumcision article is a perfect candidate to exemplify how our neutrality policy is being gutted before our very eyes. The thinking has gotten so cultish here that in the minds of the "guardians of this page" they read "evil fringe lunatic", each time I attempt to simply ask why a policy like the one I just proposed above was deleted from the NPOV page, and replaced with weasel words like "weight" and "proportionate".

Why does Wikipedia treat the WHO, the largest health organization in the world, as if it were a "fringe group" over at the medical article on circumcision, refusing to even clearly lay out its position? It is because it is supposedly a minority (read fringe) group. Why is the Britannica article on circumcision actually balanced, and ours slanted? It is because we have a double-speak, conflicted, kooky, neutrality policy and Britannica clearly has a more sane and rational neutrality policy, capable of preserving true neutrality in their articles. But apparently nobody here has yet picked up on that or seems to care, and all here merely stand by silently watching, as our neutrality policy, over the years, piece by piece, is actually replaced with a policy which in fact advocates for "bias"!

This discussion has wearied me. OK, I give up then. Isn't the emperor wearing a most splendid robe today? Isn't it so brilliant how the editors over at the Wikipedia NPOV policy now require all editors to "properly balance" all of their articles by "properly weighting" them over to the politically correct side? I used to find it to be such a bore over at Wikipedia to have to read through anything that dared to speak clearly against my stylish PC views. Aren't all of Wikipedia's articles so much more helpful and thought provoking now that their neutrality policy asks them to only clearly present a single well rounded view, which oddly enough, for some strange reason happens to always agree with my own rather wonderful PC view?

Zach, thank you for asking the one reasonable question here and not just repeating the party line, "oh, but then all of the fringer's will deluge us", when I specifically stated in the beginning of this section that this was not focusing on fringe articles in the first place, it was meant to focus on significant minority views that are not true "fringe". We are not even allowed to mention in hushed tones important non-fringe minority views on our NPOV page, as such views do not really exist at all. But that's right, according to our NPOV page, only two types of views exist, PC and fringe. I also think its absolutely stunning how the emperor's tailors can make those tight fitting pants which the emperor seems to like so much, a little more "anatomically correct" each day. Bye. Scott P. (talk) 09:04, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Vacuum science

In Wikipedia truth once actually had what you would now call "weight" here in and of itself. When one hears/ reads truth, there is usually a certain recognition, no matter what its source. Now, current policy actually completely ignores the "weight" of truth itself, in favor of the majority view. If the fringe took over, and gained control of the press, and became the mainstream view, then WP would automatically be forced to censor out, slant/weight against what was once the mainstream view, regardless of whether or not it was true, in favor of the fringe (now mainstream). Doesn't that sound like a lap-dog policy? Ideas no longer can be allowed to stand on their own here, unless they are the single monolithic view of the mainstream. I once had a debate with a Wikipedia editor who supports the new PC-view-only policy. I asked him, what if science were at the stage just before it made the leap of recognizing that interstellar space was not filled with ether, and recognizing that it was primarily vacuum? The ether scientists would be in the mainstream, and the vacuum scientists in the minority. Here is a sample of that dialogue:

"So you believe that it would have been "correct" Wikipedia policy to "censor out the vacuum scientist?" ...... Yes, ..... he would not be covered as anything other than a curiosity. We dont make any effort to predict what is going to turn out to be true and what is going to turn out pure crap, we just follow what the mainstream has agreed."

Thus, the current policy clearly mandates that there are only two views, fringe (pure crap), and PC (supposedly true), and truth itself can at times easily become a casualty of that. The world is all black and white. Mainstream vs: fringe. Us vs: them. And Wikipedia which systematically attacks all that is not mainstream, i.e. fringe, is the world's new arbiter of Truth. It was once better than that. Before 2009, Wikipedia policy once allowed shades of gray. But slowly the policy began to demand more and more weighting/slanting of all articles in favor of mainstream, and against all others. WP's sophomoric witch hunt against the fringe is the new norm. Witch hunts are so much more fun. Before 2009, Wikipedia would have probably been one of the first places to find an article dedicated to the new "Vacuum science". With current policy, now it would be the last. Now Wikipedia neutrality can't even hold a candle to Britannica's neutrality. One day that may blow up in Wikipedia's face. Scott P. (talk) 12:15, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Note, this section was just "hatted", and I was told to go elsewhere... I have since restored this section. Protonk, please explain to me what logic is faulty in my reasoning rather than deleting me. There is no other place to debate specifically about NPOV policy. Logic and reason should prevail over brute force and censorship in Wikipedia. Scott P. (talk) 13:01, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Because this isn't a blog for your opinions about NPOV. I'm really surprised you haven't been topic banned from this page, given how unproductive the bulk of your commentary here is. Protonk (talk) 13:10, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps it is because there might be some actual "truth" in what I am talking about? This is not a purely one sided monologue as you claim, questions are being asked and answered. Please don't do this. Scott P. (talk) 13:14, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Don't do what? Look, I don't particularly care if you edit this page all the live long day, but we're trying to have an actual discussion above with some concrete outcomes for editors working on a page. I'm glad that you've moved this section out of there, thanks for that. Protonk (talk) 13:17, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Protonk, Scott P. (talk) 13:19, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

How our "Due Weight" and "Proportioning" policies have degraded some articles

The current NPOV policy requires the "weighting/ proportioning" of all articles to match the "weight/proportion" of the sources, which is normally roughly equivalent to the "majority view". The fact that our NPOV page, which is allegedly about "balance" actually requires the "imbalancing" or "weighting" of all articles, would seem to make for at least some confusion. Wikipedia survived and did quite well without any such "weighting" or "proportioning" policies at all through 2009.

With perhaps 99% of all articles, where there are no controversies or unsettled questions surrounding the page's topic, this type of "balance" between competing views is not relevant. Thus for these articles, this policy does not result in imbalanced/ weighted articles. Still, in a very small percentage of articles that cover "controversial" or "unsettled" topics, the requirement of "weighting" such articles becomes a problem, sometimes resulting in imbalanced, non-neutral, and biased articles.

In articles which cover such controversial or "unsettled" subjects, the requirement of necessarily favoring only one view, the majority view, begins to cause imbalance and can apparently become a "polarizing" dynamic amongst the editors of such pages. This is because our current "neutrality policy" tends to pit those editors who believe they are representing the majority view, against all other views, and to essentially give them carte-blanche to "weight" such articles in their own favor. Sometimes such "weighting" can result in a seriously imbalanced, biased, and single POV article. In 2010, our NPOV policy first created and clearly defined the new principle of "Due Weight" as opposed to our old and faithful "Undue Weight" policy. In that year, Due Weight was added to the title of the former "Undue Weight" section. The former section had been titles as the "Undue weight" section, and it was then renamed as the "Due and undue weight" section.

By selecting a certain range of articles whose quality, I believed would be likely to be seriously degraded by the new "Due Weight" policy, I would like to demonstrate how such articles have in fact been degraded by our newer "Due Weight" policy, and by its sister concept, "Proportionatizing". Also, I have compared these same articles below with how Britannica treats the very same subjects (Britannica being a less detailed encyclopedia, the Britannica articles are mostly much smaller than ours.)

Alternative medicine: Anyone who reads the lead section of our currently "embarassing" article on this topic, is treated to no less than 15 heavily weighted, harsh, and judgmental statements, that clearly reflect only one certain POV. Our 2009 article made the fair, neutral and balanced statement that, "Alternative medical practices are generally not accepted by the medical community" only once in the article's lead. The more recent insertion of all of the POV in this article's lead, is indeed "weighted towards the majority view". Anyone coming to our article on Alternative medicine will leave feeling more that they have just been "preached to" than informed. As Jimbo has said about other such "aborted" articles, it: "reads a series of judgments telling them what to think, but no actual information to allow them to think for themselves."

1. Please see our 2009 version of this article at: Alternative medicine 2009
2. Please see the Britannica version of this at: Britannica- Alternative medicine
3. Please see our current version of this at: Alternative medicine 2015

Parapsychology: The lead of our current article on this topic lists four heavily weighted negatives in the lead, without a single true positive. Our older article from 2007 lists three mild positives and three mild negatives in the lead.

1. Please see our 2009 version of this article at: Parapsychology 2009
2. Please see the Britannica version of this at: Britannica- Parapsychology
3. Please see our current version of this at: Parapsychology 2015

Circumcision: As the medical question, "To circumcise at birth, or not to circumcise at birth" is an unsettled matter, I suspected that this article would be likely to show degradation and increased bias/POV towards one side or the other pro or con, (depending on which group of editors might have gained control of that article.)

1. Please see our 2007 version of the circumcision article.the current article on this at: Circumcision 2007.
2. Please see the Britannica version of this at: Britannica- Circumcision
3. Please see our current version of this at: Circumcision 2015

I could go on and on, and have fairly easily identified 8 other similar articles that have been turned into soap-boxes upon which the preaching of a certain single POV is being performed, with no evidence of any genuine neutrality or balance at all. I call these articles POV-abortions, but unless our policy is fixed, I have no reason to believe that such degradation to our articles will not only continue at an even faster pace.

Wikipedia did fine during its first 6 or 7 years without any "Due weight" or "Proportionatizing" policies in place. The word "weight" in this "neutrality policy" is no different than a horse race bookie who "fixes" a horse race. Nobody wants to attend a horse race where they know the race is "fixed" in advance. Similarly, if Wikipedia continues to have such a "weighting/ balancing" policy, it will undoubtedly deter some readers, and ultimately it may end up making a generally bad public image for Wikipedia. Ideas are like horses in a race. Let the fastest horse win on his own. Let competing ideas be expressed fairly. In the free marketplace of thought that Wikipedia was designed to be, why do we have to "fix" all of our races. I propose that it is time we either seriously rewrote our "Due weight" and "Proportioning" policies, or else delete them all-together, going back to the safer ground before these policies began to degrade many of our articles. Scott P. (talk) 11:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Please pick one article and identify one example of some text that is "wrong". What text would be better? Why? Referring to other articles may be of interest, but it's far too vague for any meaningful discussion. The fact that there are so many alternative medicines demonstrates that at least some of them deserve "harsh" descriptions—it is useful to directly tell readers the facts. Johnuniq (talk) 11:51, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, regarding the first sentence of the 2015 Parapsychology article, which makes the weighted claim that Parapsychology is pseudo-science. Throughout the rest of the article, not a single cite lists a single major academic or professional association that officially holds the view that parapsychology is pseudo-science. Anyone can find 6 individuals who support any view, but such is not sufficient proof to essentially invalidate an entire discipline. Please tell me you haven't yet had time to review the links above. Or have you reviewed them and you find no degradation of the Wikipedia articles? Scott P. (talk) 15:26, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

From a 2005 version of NPOV: "Now an important qualification. Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all (by example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority). We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by only a small minority of people deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views." and "None of this, however, is to say that tiny-minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can possibly give them on pages specifically devoted to those views. There is no size limit to Wikipedia. But even on such pages, though a view is spelled out possibly in great detail, we still make sure that the view is not represented as the truth." and "The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories." So no, weighting principles have existed far before 2009. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:04, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Neil, thanks for actually seriously looking back at earlier policy, and also for reading the links on parapsychology. Regarding our 2005 NPOV policy, I'm not sure if you personally consider Parapsychology as an illegitimate science, but it seems to me here that you may be operating under the assumption that a discipline for which countless hours of real scientific research has been undertaken, and for which no major academic or professional group has ever described as "pseudo-science", is in fact "pseudo-science" (read essentially an illegitimate science). Since when has Wikipedia begun to tolerate the making of such sweeping and essentially dishonest generalizations in the lead of its Parapsychology article? Only since the introduction of the "Due weight" and "Proportioning" policies in NPOV. Scott P. (talk) 16:42, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

PS, please also see further in my reply just above to Jonuniq regarding the Parapsychology=pseudo-science claim. Scott P. (talk) 16:45, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

There's an entire section on Pseudoscience in the 2005 version which has relevant commentary. The gist of the policy has changed little over the years. Fringe views get little or no attention in mainstream topic articles. Articles on fringe topics need to explain how mainstream science receives the claims. Regarding Parapsychology, have you used the talk page to make the case the 2009 version of the intro is superior? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:49, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I am arguing here that sweeping generalizations discrediting an entire discipline without any stated support by any academic or professional organizaitons should not be made in the name of "the proper weighting" of articles. It seems to me that the easy bandying about of such unsupported judgmentalism only begins to make Wikipedia look like a "pseudo-encyclopedia". Regarding the Parapsychology talk page, no, I have not taken up that cause there, as I see no point in trying to fight a difficult battle there, when I have no clear policy to back me up, and when I see that article as only one of many with similar claims, all seemingly properly supported by the "Due weight" policy. I write that Wikipedia begins to seem pseudo-reliable only because I care about Wikipedia, just as you obviously do. Scott P. (talk) 17:00, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Scott is this a fault of the policy itself or of the application of the policy to this article? Zad68 17:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Zach, I find it as the result of policy failure for two reasons: 1. Prior to 2009, editors seemed to instinctively know that such a biased statement was biased. Now they no longer seem to understand it. With a policy that describes "balance" as "weighting to one side", it is "no wonder" to me. 2. Because while we have many policies now in place encouraging the "weighting" of articles, nowhere do I see anything describing how to determine exactly when "too much" weight has been injected into an article. Scott P. (talk) 17:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry Scott you're proposing to replace a sensible heuristic with "instinct", and ignoring what's in the actual policy. Consequently I find this conversation fruitless and very unlikely to yield consensus for a policy change that will improve Wikipedia. Zad68 17:14, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm proposing a return to a policy that seemed to work better than the current seemingly conflicted policy. The WP policy that essentially states that "Balanced articles = Weighted articles" still makes no sense to me. The last time I bought something that had to go on a scale to calculate its price, I was not comfortable having any additional "weight" that did not belong there put onto that scale. Admittedly, storekeepers who unfairly weight their scales probably make more money. With Wikipedia, the only benefit of the "weighting" might seem to go to various POV pushers who are "weighting articles" in favor of their own particular POV's, but in so far as I can see, Wikipedia itself only gets short-changed in that process. It seems to me that we need more clarity in our neutrality policy, and fewer contradictions. I apologize for apparently not being able to make the oxymoronic nature of the wording of our policy clear enough for you. Have to go to work now. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 17:17, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

For all of these many discussion sections, the underlying assertions that either something fundamental changed in the policy in 2009 or thereabouts, or that the current suboptimal state of certain articles is the fault of policy (as opposed to the application of policy), haven't been supported. Also although the complaint has been made repeatedly that there's some other way of writing policy that would result in improved articles (and how would we tell they're improved?), no serious suggestion has been made, and without that this discussion can't be driven to a conclusion. Zad68 13:04, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Per above, I propose that it is time we either seriously rewrote our "Due weight" and "Proportioning" policies, or else delete them all-together, going back to the safer ground before these policies began to degrade many of our articles. I take it that you disagee with this recommendation? Did you not see any degradation occurring in the three articles listed above? Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 15:56, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I would classify all three of those articles as greatly improved over the previous version you've cited. And in general most topics with fringe elements are largely improved by not pretending to grant equal time. I don't see a real problem with the current policy or its application. Protonk (talk) 23:38, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Protonk. The three articles are better now than they were in the past, so I see no need for a policy change, and most certainly, no need to accommodate the advocates of presenting pseudoscience as legitimate. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:59, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Since the "mainstream" view is apparently make the articles say what the majority of people say, and squash all other POVs, then you are right, and if that is the right thing to do (it isn't, by the way), then no change is needed. However, call it what it actually is, and none of this "properly weighted" bullcrap, *mob-rule* in the past was never a good idea and it is still not a good idea now, especially in a place that is supposed to be an information source. The problem may be in the policy itself, or it may be in the application, or varying combination of the two. However, the fact that it is being done is the issue here, not trying to place blame on a specific part. All that does, I am guessing intentionally on some people's parts, is muddy the issue, when facts which somehow do not coincide with what "mainstream" thinks they should be, then they must not be facts.

Don't give any weight to any viewpoint, otherwise you end up going down the same road that the alleged news sources have. Instead of actually presenting just the news, they give you their viewpoint of the news when it suits them. As I believe a line from a movie I saw recently was worded, "If you want truth, the philosophy class is down the hall." Let the articles present the actual, unbiased, unweighted FACTS. If someone believes something other than the mainstream on a subject, post that as well. "Some people believe this to not be true" or however it would work for that specific article. Let the reader of the article determine how much weight that THEY give the different viewpoints, not decide it for them. 32.212.104.223 (talk) 01:46, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

the only "problem" i see is that some people see it as a "problem" that we as an encyclopedia stand on appropriately representing the mainstream academic views as the best perspective for accurately representing how the subject is viewed. You want to represent something else? An encyclopedia is not the place for you - take it to your blog and let the whole world hear! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:53, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Changes in editor preferences

(Neil, I moved your last reply down here for the sake of easier navigation.) Scott P.

I think you're failing to recognize that a majority of the active Wikipedia community want it that way. A small detour: There's a weekly science radio show that's been running for decades where I presently live with hosts that stay for years. The past host occasionally had segments on fringe topics, carefully disclaimed and presented. That changed when the current host took over, with "harder" science topics being covered and the fringe stuff dropped. The tone of the show was dictated by the host as the tone of Wikipedia is dictated by its editors. These editors have chosen to emphasize science and rationalism as the mainstream as opposed to a more uncritical view of beliefs. I don't think you're going to change that. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:06, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Good point. Still, undoubtedly there are certainly a lot of editors out there (possibly a majority of editors) who, if given the chance, would love to use WP as their personal soap-box to stand on to preach whatever message they'd like to preach. I personally am probably guilty of this as charged. What better platform to preach the "good news", whether that's atheism, skepticism, Hinduism, or Christianism. Shouldn't a truly good policy here prevent this tendency, and not enable it? There is a shift since 2009, but is the shift towards more true balance in our articles, less true balance in our articles, or neither? If it's a shift towards less true balance, then perhaps it's a shift in the wrong direction. By the way, just a hunch, but I bet the new radio guy's ratings aren't as good as the old one.... Scott P. (talk) 22:08, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

It sounds like equal time is wanted—at evolution we could have a section from biologists followed by a section from creationists and let the reader choose the reality they like (with a button to like whatever aligns with their upbringing). Re your response to me above: Parapsychology starts with a very short paragraph including the obvious "pseudoscience" and finishing with ^[1] which appears to have all the notes anyone could want. Do you doubt that parapsychology is pseudoscience, or do you just not want the reader to be informed? Johnuniq (talk) 23:19, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

The creationist view is already noted at the Evolution article. And that is about all of the space it needs. I recently mentioned at the Human brain article that intelligent design is WP:Fringe, and that the scientific community overwhelmingly supports evolution. Flyer22 (talk) 05:48, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree 100% with Flyer about the evolution article. I also like the "neutral" way that Creationism was described in the evolution article, letting the voice of the expert (RS) essentially nullify Creationism, and not using the voice of the editor to do that. Smooth and classy. Regarding the Creationism article, after reading our currently "silly" article on Creationism, in which the voice of our own WP editor assumed the role of the judge, jury and hangman of the theory itself, I feel that that our article on Creationism does a great disservice to both Wikipedia and to our readers.

The greatest disservice is done when editors themselves assume the role of judge, jury, and hangman, and in the voice of Wikipedia, state unequivocally that "Creationism is pseudo-science". In articles on significant controversial and unsettled topics, passing judgment or POV should not be the role of our editors, no matter how silly the topic. When using the "voice" of the editor to condemn the fallacy of Creationism, WP moves from the respected role of the neutral observer, to the far less respected role of the partisan backer of the PC view, and thus we compromise our own credibility.

It's like watching a murder trial and listening to testimony from a bystander to the crime who has no relationship to the defendant or to the victim, vs: listening to the testimony of the defendant's mother. WP has no business taking sides in any such argument! Please see how Creationism was treated in 2009, vs: now. In 2009 our editors knew how to assume a truly neutral role, which made us far more credible than taking sides. Our current article looks like it was written by a preachy propogandist. The 2009 article retains neutrality, and thus, makes the case against Creationism much more eloquently and believably than the current article, which looks like it was written by Richard Dawkins, not by a genuinely neutral encyclopedia. In 2009, our editors seemed to naturally understand this concept. Since adopting the WP-Due Weight policy, our editors seem to have forgotten this responsibility. This concept of true neutrality should be ingrained in all editors, and it baffles me that it is no longer understood, even by our policy editors. (This post slightly revised to correct spelling, grammar and wording at 13:46, 6 May 2015 (UTC))

Scott P. (talk) 11:41, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I'm probably out of this discussion as there are so many things wrong with that sentence and your other statements. I'll probably comment on any wording changes to the policy if/when you actually make them. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:20, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that Scott P. has substantially changed his post and mine three times after I replied to it. [1] Doing so is at best uncollegial and at worst deceitful. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:47, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

There were serious spelling, grammer, word usage and syntax errors in the old post. I only moved your post to a clearer location as far as I know. If in any way I changed your wording, I have no idea how that happened. Sorry. Scott P. (talk) 13:50, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

It's pretty clear from the diff you changed content and removed my quote of one of your sentences. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

If you want, we can revert to before I edited my post, then I will strike it all out, then post my corrected post below. Please look at the version before I started to re-edit the post, you will see that I made no changes to your wording. Maybe there is some server error, but I deleted nothing of yours.Scott P. (talk) 13:57, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

What is done is done. But look at the diff. Do you not see you removed the leading quote from my post? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I see. You are entirely correct. Most certainly my mistake. Thanks for bearing with my own bumbling. I will be more careful from now on. Scott P. (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have to go back to work now, or my employees will "string me up". Will return later today. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 14:11, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Due to the fact that Creationism has been classified as a "pseudoscience" by several academic or professional groups, the assertion that Creationism is a pseudo-science is legitimately made in the article's lead. In the Evolution article it receives at least limited coverage, but certainly "some" some coverage, which coverage would probably be "weighted" against it, just as it already is, however the evolution article itself would still refrain from using the article's "narrator's voice" to pronounce the heavily weighted claim that Creationism is pseudo-science, instead, it would use the "voice of the actual

Obviously Creationism is pseudoscience, at least to you and I and for most of us. But my case here is that by using the "editor's voice" to proclaim this, does more harm to the actual argument of the page than good. As far as I can see, using the "editor's voice" to label it as pseudo-science preaches to the choir, so to speak. But outside of our little choir here, most people don't come to Wikipedia to be "preached to". The editor himself becomes partial to one side, and thus loses a certain amount of credibility in the eyes of the audience. Pro evolution people like you and I already know that it's pseudo science, and don't need to be "taught" this. Creationists will read the first line of the article, and stop reading any further, and anyone who might be "on the fence", say thinking about "jumping ship" from the Creationist camp will also read the first sentence and stop reading, because just as their mother told them, you and I simply consider them all to be fools, and love to snicker at them. What good does that term do in the beginning? It does nobody any good.

We want our articles to invite all people in to read further. Not articles that make people think they just walked into the Church of Richard Dawkins, and are about to get blasted with one of his sermons. The subtlety of the logical arguments laid out on the page is far more effective than the megaphone approach, announcing in sentence 1, "YOU ARE ABOUT TO READ WHAT WE THINK ABOUT A PSUEDOSCIENCE HERE". Scott P. (talk) 00:40, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

As a devout atheist - I agree completely. Our job is not to draw conclusions, it's to present evidence objectively and comprehensively so readers draw their own informed conclusions. DallyKale (talk) 00:54, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Dally. Exactly. Our job is not to take sides using the voice of the editor. Sure, the evidence is overwhelming that Creationism is bunk, but our job is to let the evidence speak as clearly as possible itself to the audience, and to get our own personal biases out of the "voice of the editor". I think most readers recognize when they're reading a fair and reasonable interpretation of reliably sourced evidence, and when they're reading something that is the "first hand opinion" of the editor. When I come to any article in Wikipedia and I read anything at all that appears to me as merely the personal opinion of the editor, yet being stated as if it was an authoritative indisputable fact, I instinctively wince, I seldom read any further, and I suspect that I am not the only one.

Sure to you and I, evolution is an indisputable fact, but not to everybody. If the article can at least have the decency of not flipping the bird to Creationists in sentence 1, then maybe one or two of them will be able to wade their way all the way through the article, and who knows, maybe one of them will even decide to start investing in genetic research companies, and divest their shares in that Creationist amusement park, wherever it is? Not to change the subject, but I do truly appreciate your willingness to put up with me and to hear me out, bumbles and all. Scott P. (talk) 01:20, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Scott P. it seems to me that your overall argument is that we aren't being impartial, and we are using WP:UNDUE as an excuse to not be impartial. Am I relatively correct? --Kyohyi (talk) 13:59, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I think you hit the nail on the head. Scott P. (talk) 14:11, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Scott P., there is not evidence that Creationism is bunk any more than there is still evidence that the world is flat. There has been theories accepted as fact because of no clear 100% guaranteed way to show to either side, and as such, Creationism AND Evolution are still both theories. That being said, and as I have said before in different words, the WP articles need to present the facts as facts and the theories as that, theories. Let the reader figure out for themselves how much weight they want to give to one side of the coin or the other. 32.212.104.223 (talk) 01:54, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

New discussion segment May 7

From what I've seen that is a pretty true situation. POV statements being justified as being "Due Weight" is just adopting the dominant narrative. We shouldn't be adopting narratives, we should be describing them. --Kyohyi (talk) 13:46, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

This statement hits the nail on the head on what the problem is, given the articles identified above as well as the situation around Gamergate (see section below). It is very easy to write in the viewpoint of the predominate narrative in WP's voice, and forget that it may not be the right one particularly on a controversial subject ("All these sources have written negatively on this topic, so should we" is what this ends up being). It is best when there is any reasonable doubt to the nature of the predominate narrative to make sure it is only presented as, in prose, attributed to that narrative to stay objective. Obviously there are cases of fringe views - I would not expect our article on the planet Earth to deny the planet the planet is round simply due to the existence of FlatEarthers, given the massive amounts of scientific evidence to show this true. --MASEM (t) 14:15, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Right, I think the issue I have with the policy change proposal is that it would open the door to having our articles fall victim to the "give equal validity" problem. Very well-supported ideas should be asserted in Wikipedia's narrative voice. Take for example Homeopathy, which currently says "It is not effective for any condition, and no homeopathic remedy has been proven to be more effective than placebo." The problem with the suggestion is that this plain assertion might be turned into a "he said/she said" WP:GEVAL problem, "Such-and-such says that homeopathy is not effective, but this-and-that says it is." This would interfere with the encyclopedia's clear purpose of presenting the information clearly and with emphasis that matches sourcing. Zad68 14:32, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

From what I've seen the issue comes more apparent when we aren't dealing with physical sciences, and are dealing with social concepts/issues. When in the realm of physical sciences, we have more hard data and empirical research. Whereas social concepts/ideas don't have the level of empirical research, particularly on new issues. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:55, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

OK that's possible, I really don't edit much at all outside the medicine area. Zad68 14:59, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

"It is very easy to write in the viewpoint of the predominate narrative in WP's voice, and forget that it may not be the right one..." How on earth are we (or any reader) to know what is the right narrative and what isn't? Look, this whole conundrum is solved pretty effectively by relying on verifiability, not truth. Do we know that the arrow of time only moves forward? Is that the right narrative? I have no idea, but I bet every single article on wikipedia is written with the presumption that cause precedes effect. The statement that we should not frame opinions as fact is largely uncontroversial. The idea that we should treat claims from unreliable sources as a font of hidden facts left out of the official narrative is not. Protonk (talk) 15:03, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

If there is a reasonable doubt of what the "correct" narrative is, we should not write as if any narrative is correct, and simply state claims made by the given views as views by those groups in proportion per WEIGHT, and let the reader decide and/or research further. We are only documenting those narratives to the best of our abilities within RS without taking a side or judging the situation. --MASEM (t) 15:16, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I wonder if this can be analyzed based off of the "strength" of a statement. Is stating something as a fact in wikipedia's voice "stronger" than saying something is an opinion, or even a consensus opinion? --Kyohyi (talk) 17:17, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

"XYZ claims water is wet" is always a more conservatively more neutral and objective statement than "Water is wet" when writing in WP's voice. Understandably that where extreme views come in, such as Flat Earth, weakening statements that are clearly established facts is inappropriate, but most of the examples so far are not "clearly established" as being wrong or right, simply that there's a prevailing opinion towards it. --MASEM (t) 18:04, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

The only times I see editors have a problem with the WP:Neutral policy is when they don't want to follow it appropriately and/or don't know how to follow it appropriately. I am completely fine with the WP:Neutral policy, and I have never had a problem with it (other than minor tweaks that it needed). And because it's such an important policy that people too often misunderstand, I have a section about it on my user page. Flyer22 (talk) 17:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't see the need to make changes to the core policies. Articles evolve all the time, and that is part of the beauty of this project. What could have been a great article for someone once, it may have been a poor article for someone else, and a good article today for me could be a poor article for you. Welcome to the wiki and collaborative editing. - Cwobeel (talk)

I apologize, but I have a business trip, and will not be back until May 15. I will not be contributing any further to this discussion until after that date (assuming the conversation remains active at that time). Francis Schonken or any other editor who may wish, please feel free to continue to set up new sections to make navigation in this discussion easier. Thank you kindly to all for at least considering my concern here. I truly appreciate each of your contributions to this discussion so far, and I truly admire and respect what I see as the honest efforts of all here to continually improve the very noble endeavor that WP is. Scott P. (talk) 12:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

As after several days of carrying on what I viewed as essentially an argument of one person vs: many, with not a single editor after all of these days yet conceding a single point of logic, and not directly and consisely answering a single question I placed, I hereby withdraw from this discussion, and will refrain from taking up any more of the time of others on this page for the time being. I must say that I did get the sense that all who opposed my suggestion here were sincere and heartfelt in their opposition to my suggestion, and I thank them for that. I feel certain that everyone else here has more imortant things to do with their time, as do I. Thanks to all for your kind generosity with the time you spent with me. Scott P. (talk) 04:39, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Part of the problem with some of the "policies" that are supposed to seem as to be fair is that the end result ends up being anything but. Case in point being the wiki admin not allowing the Neo-Tech system or belief to have it's own wiki page. To me, it would seem that they would just use something like this policy to justify not having certain valid pages that they happen to disagree with, because the only way the page would get written or even started was by someone who was interested in the subject matter. So, and I have seen this on other non-official wikis as well, instead of correcting a page to have it follow the guidelines claimed in the justification for the deletion, because the person who wrote it was doing so under the best of intentions, they just delete it instead. As Johnuniq posted, it might be a "fringe" view, but I have to disagree with the concept John. It might be a fringe view to you, but that does not make it any less valid for others. 32.212.104.223 (talk) 01:29, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Zad, the problem as I see it is the issue being that exists already in the proposed policies that many progressives are trying to force feed the public here in the United States, one specifically being "net neutrality". The problem with this is the actual result is much different than what the name itself sounds like. Their apparent idea of "neutrality" is to force all views to appear to have the same validity by the same weight (by forcing an equal amount of "air time" for lack of a better phrase). Now, here, we have the opportunity to actually just present the facts, good bad or indifferent, and let the individual decide for their own self what they choose to believe as true. If you do not present all facts (not truth, as that is subjective) as facts and beliefs as beliefs, then that is you (collectively) trying to tell the reader what actually is or is not correct.

There is nothing wrong with presenting differing views of a subject, but do not use misnamed policies to justify doing something that is clearly wrong. If for example, there is a policy called "neutral point of view", then actually BE neutral. 32.212.104.223 (talk) 02:03, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Biased article of graphology

Please come to the site graphology. The site is written in a very unscientific way, it is claimed that graphology is a pseudoscience and only studies older than 20 years are referenced. I tried to add some new studies both against and pro graphology but Alexbrn destroyed everything I had written. The site is totally controlled by Roxy the dog and Alexbrn, who want to use Wikipedia to promote their own opinion AGAINST graphology. For me wikipedia is a free lexicon, where people can put together their knowledge. Please read the history of graphology. Roxy the dog was also bullying "GraphEnquirer" after he added some pro graphological studies and declared him an "edit war", so he could not edit the page anymore. I used the talk page and told them the necessarity of new studies and also other opinions than those, but they laught about me and deleted it on the talk page. Please help! Make Wikipedia a place where freedom of expression is not repressed. Thank you! Here is the history of the article:

• (cur | prev) 07:08, 20 July 2015‎ Alexbrn (talk | contribs)‎ . . (43,549 bytes) (-1,621)‎ . . (Reverted to revision 672108658 by Alexbrn (talk): Rv. large edit containing whitewashing, poor sourcing, spelling errors etc. Do not edit war but take to Talk. (TW)) (undo | thank)
• (cur | prev) 20:17, 19 July 2015‎ Wicky media (talk | contribs)‎ . . (45,170 bytes) (+1,621)‎ . . (Undid revision 672108658 by Alexbrn (talk)) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 09:41, 19 July 2015‎ Alexbrn (talk | contribs)‎ . . (43,549 bytes) (-1,621)‎ . . (Reverted to revision 670230827 by McSly (talk): Rv. nnpov edits. (TW)) (undo | thank)
• (cur | prev) 06:07, 19 July 2015‎ BG19bot (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (45,170 bytes) (-448)‎ . . (2 using AWB) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 18:15, 18 July 2015‎ Wicky media (talk | contribs)‎ . . (45,656 bytes) (+2,107)‎ . . (undo)

I only added new studies from psychology journals pro and against it, but Alexbrn only wants unscientific sources (like youtubevideos) or studies from the 80th. Please help! wikipedia should not be a place where someone can promote his own personal hate against anything or anyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wicky media (talk • contribs) 11:03, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

No mention of relevance?

We tell editors that they should "describe disputes, but not engage in them"... which I totally agree with. However, I think this rule may be incomplete. It assumes that the dispute is relevant enough to be mentioned in the first place. I have seen this over and over again... editors engaging in heated POV debate over relatively trivial bits of background information that are not really important the topic/subject of the article.

My point... sometimes "teaching the dispute" may actually be the wrong approach. When the bit of information being disputed is a minor bit of background trivia, spending article space on "teaching the dispute" may end up giving UNDUE weight to that trivial background information... In such cases it may be better (and neutral) to simply OMIT the bit of information completely.

I think we should mention this approach somewhere in the policy. Thoughts? Blueboar (talk) 14:48, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

That's covered by WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTE, I think. If a dispute is not relevant enough to cover, then devoting time to it is giving it WP:UNDUE weight. Especially see the WP:BALASPS and WP:GEVAL subsections, which specifically talk about how giving all disputes equal validity is not neutral, and how some disputes are so WP:FRINGE that they should not be mentioned at all. WP:FRINGE and WP:PROFRINGE also talk about this; generally citing WP:UNDUE, WP:NOTE and WP:FRINGE is the way to go if you're trying to explain how you feel a controversy is too fringe (and lacks enough coverage by reliable sources) to include in an article. --Aquillion (talk) 19:41, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Blueboar, Thanks for raising an interesting point. While I'm not sure that I agree with Aquillion that each of the policies & guidelines referenced apply directly, I do concur that the question is covered in a number of different places, including already being mentioned explicitly in this (WP:NPOV) policy. I would highlight WP:BALASPS as directly relevant to the question, and as allowing omitting aspects which are not WP:DUE.

Notwithstanding this, I do consider that WP:NPOV, especially WP:IMPARTIAL, provides the best advice for us in documenting disputes or controversies in a neutral way - and that we should definitely be describing, rather than engaging, in them. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 13:13, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

thanks Blueboar (talk) 20:24, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Issue being that what some people might not see as relevant might be extremely relevant to others. For example, some people might think that having a trivia section on a page about the United States' July 4th celebrations that lists famous people from other countries who have a birthday on that day might be irrelevant, but others might not. 32.212.104.223 (talk) 02:08, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi "32", Thanks for an interesting follow up. I would be inclined towards suggesting that the "list of famous people" is clearly off topic for an article on "US' July 4th celebrations"; but also that it would clearly be on topic for a "List of people born on July 4th". There is similar example in WP:NPOV already, covering the Earth & Flat Earth articles - "Flat Earth" theory being undue for the former, but clearly core to the latter article.

These examples draw attention to WP:UNDUE being contextual to the Article topic itself. Points of view, theories, beliefs, etc are not WP:UNDUE or WP:FRINGE across the whole encyclopedia; and we should not treat them as such.

Hope this helps. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 06:42, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I can easily imagine some facts or events being irrelevant, but it's hard to say that a POV is not relevant (unless it's UNDUE). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:35, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Art and creative topics section

In the section on "Describing aesthetic opinion", a sentence near the end of the paragraph says that "Articles should provide an overview of the common interpretations of a creative work, preferably with citations to notable individuals holding that interpretation. Verifiable public and scholarly critiques provide useful context for works of art." (bolding added by me). I think that the first sentence, stating that citations should preferably sourced be to "notable individuals" is incorrect, according to WP policies. WP:RS sets out three criteria for what qualifies as a reliable source, these being the reliability of the author, the work (the article, book, etc) and the publisher. There is no requirement in WP:RS that the reliable source be himself or herself notable enough for his or her own WP article. If Pat Smith is one of the world's leading experts on the art form XYZ, and she/he has had articles published in the most reliable journals that are put out by the most reliable publishers, then Pat Smith's views on XYZ are pertinent for that art or creative topic article, even though Pat Smith does not have a Wikipedia article about him or her.OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 19:31, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Valid point... and easily resolved by simply changing "notable individuals" to "noteworthy individuals". Blueboar (talk) 00:22, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Well yes, but there is still the matter of the wikilink to Wikipedia:Notability (people). In context it seems clear that a requirement of Wikipedia-notability was not the intention. Perhaps the wikilink should be removed to prevent confusion. Manul ~ talk 00:55, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Since this seems minor and uncontroversial, I've gone ahead and made a change.[2] Manul ~ talk 10:30, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Would make that "broadly recognized" experts...: in the context we're not looking for the self-declared ones. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:55, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

"Expert" is usually defined according to the standard set forth in WP:SPS. (Also, thank you for noticing the problem.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:37, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:PRESENTISM

See current discussion at WP:VPP#How to write on moral/ethical acts/behaviors that are treated negatively today but not during the time of the original topic? --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:BIASED

The WP:NPOV#Bias in sources section confusingly starts by suggesting bad behaviour: to overcome this, I propose removing "A common argument in a dispute about reliable sources is that one source is biased and so another source should be given preference. The bias in sources argument is one way to present a POV as neutral by excluding sources that dispute the POV as biased."
In its place, the policy should start with the much clearer statement from the WP:RS guideline WP:BIASED section: "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." . . dave souza, talk 06:54, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

The current wording is strange, and the proposal is highly desirable. The current text was added 4 December 2013 by TParis (user page has a retired template). I can't find mention of it in talk. Johnuniq (talk) 10:25, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Quantitatively measuring NPOV

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

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

I've added a group column to the table for sorting purposes. The groupings are imperfect but still useful. For example if one sorts within the "tyrant" group, then by this measure, the negative information is most prominent for Stalin and Marcos, and by far the least prominent for Kim Jong Un. One could then discuss whether that is proper, or not.MissPiggysEx (talk) 13:31, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Article	group	negative information	paragraph.sentence	Subsequent	article date	version
Hamas	terror	terrorist	1.2		8 Sep 2015	[3]
Hezbollah	terror	terrorist	5.1		8 Sep 2015	[4]
Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant	terror	Daesh; terrorist; war crimes	2.1	3.1 3.1	8 Sep 2015	[5]
Al-Qaeda	terror	terrorist	1.3		8 Sep 2015	[6]
Kim Jong-un	tyrant	poor grades; awkward with girls	9.4	9.7	8 Sep 2015	[7]
Kim Jong-un	tyrant	executions; cult of personality; nuclear threats	24.3	26.1 44.1	8 Sep 2015	[8]
Kim Jong-un	tyrant	crimes against humanity; famine; cannibalism in NOK	54.1	56.1 56.2	8 Sep 2015	[9]
Lenin	tyrant	red terror; dictator; human rights abuse	3.2	4.2	8 Sep 2015	[10]
Stalin	tyrant	dictator; gulag; famine	1.2	3.3 3.4	8 Sep 2015	[11]
Hitler	tyrant	dictator; ww2; holocaust	1.3	1.3 1.3	8 Sep 2015	[12]
Mao Zedong	tyrant	famine; cult of personality; 40-70 million dead	3.2	3.3 4.4	8 Sep 2015	[13]
Hugo Chavez	tyrant	economy faltered; murder rate; corruption	3.4	3.5	8 Sep 2015	[14]
Vladimir Putin	tyrant	electoral cheating, undemocratic, political murders	2.7	5.1 37.2	8 Sep 2015	[15]
Ferdinand Marcos	tyrant	dictator, corruption	1.2		8 Sep 2015	[16]
Church of Scientology	religion	cult	3.1		8 Sep 2015	[17]
Catholic Church	religion	ordination of women; sex abuse	5.3	5.3	8 Sep 2015	[18]
Moral Majority	religion	helped Mondale; is neither	14.4	16.2	8 Sep 2015	[19]
Intelligent design	theory	pseudoscience; no empirical support	1.1	1.2	8 Sep 2015	[20]
Homeopathy	theory	no empirical support; pseudoscience	1.2	1.3	8 Sep 2015	[21]
Watts Up With That	theory	denialist	1.1		8 Sep 2015	[22]
Smoking	drug	kills people	2.2		8 Sep 2015	[23]
Cocaine	drug	addictive	2.1		8 Sep 2015	[24]
Cannabis	drug	impairs memory	2.2		8 Sep 2015	[25]
Methamphetamine	drug	addictive; brain damage	1.5	3.6	8 Sep 2015	[26]

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

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

RfC announce: What does Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) cover?

There is a request for comments at [ Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#What does MEDRS cover? ].

At issue is whether the lead paragraph OF WP:MEDRS should remain...

"Wikipedia's articles are not medical advice, but are a widely used source of health information. For this reason it is vital that any biomedical information is based on reliable, third-party, published secondary sources and that it accurately reflects current knowledge."

...or whether it should be changed to...

"Wikipedia's articles are not medical advice, but are a widely used source of health information. For this reason it is vital that any biomedical and health information is based on reliable, third-party, published secondary sources and that it accurately reflects current knowledge."

This has the potential to change the sourcing policy from WP:RS to WP:MEDRS on a large number of Wikipedia pages, so please help us to arrive at a consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:09, 3 November 2015 (UTC)