Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Archive 31

Archive 25

←

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

→

Archive 35

UNDUE vs DUE

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Imo, the undue weight section makes a laudable effort, but only in one direction. I think the concept works both ways and the section should be slightly amended to also warn against censorship in articles. I.e., information that has been covered by reliable sources should be given DUE weight, according to its significance within the entirety of the topic. Otherwise, as is frequently the case, some do game the policy by claiming UNDUE whenever someone tries to improve the completeness and thereby overall accuracy of an article. User:Dorftrottel 12:23, February 19, 2008

• support per above  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 19:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment The policies have generally been stated in only one direction, and consistentlantly. -- we have a WP:FRINGE identifying what to exclude, but no separate WP:SIGNIF identifying what to include. One reason is that we can inforce exclusion of inappropriate viewpoints by removing content. But it's not as simple to "enforce" the ommission of viewpoints that should be included or are underweighted; editors simply have to add the content. We can tag the article, but it's up to editors to balance it. I suspect there is some bias towards what is easier to enforce. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 20:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I've seen a fair cross-section of articles where editors "establish consensus" that certain information should not be included, in spite of reliable sources. — "But it's not as simple to "enforce" the ommission of viewpoints that should be included or are underweighted; editors simply have to add the content." — But many passers-by won't try for a very long time, and some will even revert sourced additions they don't like over and over, and I'm sure everyone has seen it. It can be enforced, and it should be, that's my very concern. Granted, an RfC can be opened etcpp, but many —understandably— don't bother to try that. The question is, why do we install stepping stones for accuracy and completeness in one direction, but not the other? It may be because of more notable experiences where people tried to insert fringe views, but I think the other, more low-level, variant is just as much of a problem and it should be able to simply point status quo guardians to a policy (they tend to deliberately ignore guidelines as being "just" guidelines) instead of having to open a full-fledged WP:DR. User:Dorftroffel 12:11, February 21, 2008
    • Do you have an example of where this is a problem? You seem to have a specific "they" in mind, so an illustration would probably help crystallize the issue. My 2 cents: WP:NPOV already states: "The article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." In fact, it's the first sentence of the WP:UNDUE subsection. I'm not sure that more policy creep is necessary; if there's a problem here, it's with practice, not with insufficient prescription in policy. MastCell ^Talk 18:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Agree we have no need for more instructions to obey (instruction creep), but a guideline in the sense of an instruction manual, which one can read or ignore as liked, would be very helpful. What is DUE? How much is DUE, how much is undue? What is proportion, what is prominence? Are we counting votes? Who is eligable to vote? 2 billion people are Chinese, yet I do not feel they should have a major vote in the content of en.wikipedia. Any hints are welcome. And I would love to be shown some pages where consensus was reached to let certain things out. Do you mean real consensus, where a course of action [was] chosen that is likely to satisfy the most persons (rather than merely the majority).^WP:CON ?  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 12:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems there is nothing there: Help Search  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 12:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

proposal: what is DUE

There is no indication "how much is due". From the phrase "not as much as" in the UNDUE policy section, it follows that whatever is due must be less than 50%. I propose to add the following to the section: The majority view should be balanced by the significant minority view, by at least the amount of support it has either under the general population, or among specialists.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 15:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

What determines a specialist? How does one measure the general population? Since most of the population doesn't know what the capital of Brunei is, do we say that Brunei doesn't have a known capital? Etc. etc. etc. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

your first two questions are very relevant! Your third one, I do not understand. The people who do not know Brunei do not have the view that it does not exist, they do not have a view. That's not a problem for Wikipedia, is it? We can ignore them.
Back to your first two questions: they cannot be answered rigourously or exactly. We can use indications: the community involved is the sum of all the stakeholders and all the participants in the debate. A specialist is someone who is considered by both parties to be more knowledgeable than average, but that need not imply that his/her expertise is good enough or that his/her conclusions can be relied upon. On the contrary: specialists' opinions will most likely be fiercly debated.
It does not matter that it is hard: we need a minimum DUE guideline, or else we have these discussions at 1.000.000 articles instead of over here.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 22:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

second proposal

every claim in an article representing the majority POV, when not attributed, may be balanced with a RS-sourced claim or statement representing a significant minority view. When attributed, all the majority claims together may be concisely balanced by representing the cardinal points for the significant minority view(s), including all non-disputed RS-based circumstances on which they make their case.

 — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 08:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• Since there has been no further discussion upto now, I made a corresponding change, being BOLD. Let's hear if it needs more improving.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 14:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

  I edited the comments with two ideas in mind: one) minority viewpoints should only be described if they are prominent. two) balance is not the point of WEIGHT. The wording about "not describing majority viewpoints as fact" and "every majority viewpoints deserves a minority viewpoint" is counter the the sense in which this policy is made. For an example of why this is absurd see Apollo moon landing hoax accusations. Following your proposal would mean we wouldn't say that "Neil Armstrong stepped foot on the moon in 1969" anywhere in this encyclopedia -- an absurd proposition. More than this, given your new wording we would have to counter every mention of the moon landing with a fringe viewpoint in such a case: obviously this cannot happen. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not interpreting Xiutwel's comment that way. I heard "may be balanced with a RS-sourced claim or statement representing a >>significant<< minority view. Could anyone reasonably make a case that the Apollo moon landing hoax accusations are significant, and use that assertion to "mean we wouldn't say that "Neil Armstrong stepped foot on the moon in 1969" anywhere in this encyclopedia". Seems like a stretch. WNDL42 (talk) 15:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I just edited the text to suggest that "a prominent viewpoint" be "prominent viewpoints", insofar as often there are several prominent minority views. Simple example is Christianity. Catholicism is by far the most "prominent" perspective, but "a prominent minority view" would only require describing Protestantism, if "due" comes from a primarily numeric weight. However, Orthodox Christianity is another "prominent minority view". That's not a great example, because several million people would also made that group "of due weight", but this was intended as a simple example of the non-binary nature of prominence. --Christian Edward Gruber (talk) 16:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec) :::Opps, I see there's a discussion up here. The final result wasn't so bad but I don't see a case for needing them and my concerns I spoke about below are still valid. RxS (talk) 16:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it's way too prescriptive. The wording seems to address a relatively narrow content dispute in one area of the encyclopedia, but such prescriptive language is going to have all kinds of unintended consequences. Mandating "minimal due weight" - that a minority view's claims be presented in detail - will lead to the insertion of "rebuttals" and the refighting (rather than characterization) of disputes on Wikipedia.

Also, "majority viewpoint claims should be explicitely attributed as such, not presenting them as undisputed facts" is a recipe for disaster. I can guarantee, for example, that immediately after such language is enacted, a handful of editors will insist that we alter every reference to HIV/AIDS to read "AIDS is believed by the majority of scientists to be caused by HIV" - to accomodate the AIDS denialist viewpoint. Does that make the encyclopedia better or worse?

What problem are we trying to fix here? Also, the edit in question bore little resemblance to the "second proposal" archived above, unless I'm missing something. MastCell ^Talk 17:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

"little resemblance"... In my opinion, and certainly in my intention, it meant exactly the same. I am not a native English speaker, and the sentences do not come naturally to me.  &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 08:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Quick note about the undue weight section

moved section up from more below to avoid confusion, Xiutwel, 08:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I took out the new content in the undue weight section. I'd rather not have editors who are involved in undue weight debates and minority views go and start changing relevant policy without discussion first. Being bold is a good thing but sometimes it can go too far. I realize some modifications were made to that section, but I'd still prefer changes to come from the ground up via discussion. Thanks. RxS (talk) 16:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I commented further up, in an earlier thread, to the effect that the proposed change was way too prescriptive and focused narrowly on a specific content dispute. I also agree on the undesirability of having changes to policy enacted by editors involved in a content dispute in which they would benefit directly from the proposed change. MastCell ^Talk 20:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• I am happy with the contributions this proposal is getting. Let me make some points clear:
  1. What problem are we trying to fix here?
     —endless POV debates on countless talkpages. /X
  2. ...the undesirability of having changes to policy enacted by editors involved in a content dispute in which they would benefit directly from the proposed change.
     —If I get my way, I benefit. If we make an enhancement to policy together, all will benefit. (It appears I had to make a change to the policy first to get the debate here on the talk page going.) /X
  3. There are two issues at stake (let's edit the new proposals just underneath using strikethrough and red text):
     1. A.: What is the minimum DUE weight? /X

        • Keeping proportion in mind, the minimum due coverage would be to present those facts and claims which are deemed relevant from the perspective of the significant minority viewpoints even when they are not deemed significant from the view the majority viewpoint.

     2. And B.: When should the majority view be attributed, and when should it be presented as factual?.  &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 08:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

        • Majority viewpoint claims, when opposed by prominent significant minority views, should in principle be explicitely attributed as such, not presenting them as undisputed facts. In case they are not attributed (per sentence or per subsection or per article) each claim ought to be balanced by the corresponding significant minority claim on each separate occasion, regardless of overall proportion in the article.

Comment on proposal B: I've added the possibility of attributing per section, which would make it unnecessary to use weaselish words. Rationale for B is to "force" our editors to remain neutral and attribute claims appropriately. A good example is the evolution article, which in its first sentence explaines that part of is a theory and refers to Evolution as theory and fact, and after that it makes sense that the rest of the article is describing a theory, not absolute truth.  &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 09:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment I agree we must not make a policy which will lead to unreasonable editing. So if the proposals above can be mis-interpreted, please improve them!  &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 09:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see what is unclear about the policy as it stands. Why does it need to be changed? The case does not seem to have been made. Dlabtot (talk) 12:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Dlabtot. Evolution is a good example, as it's a science article and science, by definition, does not describe absolute truth. Adding these ideas to policy would provide a loophole for demands that every mention of evolution be qualified as being "the mainstream scientific theory", giving undue weight to creationist "teach the controversy" ideas. .. dave souza, talk 13:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, I think 1A is way too prescriptive. Mandating "minimum due weight" in policy is a bad idea - this should be left to the editors of individual articles, because the minimum due weight really does vary substantially depending on the view being described. Additionally, 1A substitutes "the perspective of the minority view" for the "perpective of the majority view", which conflicts with WP:WEIGHT and, I think, is a mistake on encyclopedic grounds as well.

As to 1B, again, I think this is too prescriptive and would be destructive if applied to large portions of the encyclopedia. My example is that of HIV/AIDS: according to 1B, our articles on HIV/AIDS would have to continuously say that AIDS is "believed by a majority of scientists" to be caused by HIV. That's awkward, misleading, and unencyclopedic, but 1B would presumably mandate it. MastCell ^Talk 21:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Morally offensive views

I'm not entirely sure about what we have written for Morally offensive views:

Morally offensive views

What about views that are morally offensive to most Westerners, such as racism, sexism, and Holocaust denial, that some people actually hold? Surely we are not to be neutral about them?

We report views that have been published by reliable sources. We do not report views that are held by tiny minorities, or views that reliable sources do not write about. Beyond that, we make no judgements. No view is omitted because someone might see it as prejudiced; if it is omitted from Wikipedia, it is because reliable sources have omitted it.

What I think:

1. Yes, of course we report views held by tiny minorites - as long as there are reliable sources regarding them.
2. The questions asks about NPOV, and the answer talks about criteria for inclusion - reliable sources.

I don't know if other people could help with that...

Thanks, Drum guy (talk) 14:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Ad 1.: we report on "significant minority views", but not necessarily on tiny ones. If with report you mean "mention that they exist", then mention in a RS would be enough. If by "report" you mean: balance the article with this view to be overall neutral, then tiny views should not be addressed, simply because there are too many tiny views possible to write about: it would clutter the article and selection would be arbitrary.
  Ad 2.: I think you are right, and that needs clearing up. — Sockrates dual 22:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, and sorry for taking so long to get back :)

I was still thinking about the issue of whether to include them - even for a miniscule minority view (I'm thinking of, for example, Holocaust denial), if there are reliable sources, it does need (I think) to be included - i.e. given an article. I of course agree about having a neutral article, which includes not giving undue weight to a view that's considered wrong, or have random possible views that some people might have.

Again, thanks for waiting :D Drum guy (talk) 23:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Remove templates

Would anyone mind if I removed the templates that are accumulating at the top of the page? They are unnecessary instruction creep. Bensaccount (talk) 22:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

This page, or the project page? Which templates? Thanks, Darkspots (talk) 22:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The project page. The nutshell and the 'reflect consensus' waste of space. Bensaccount (talk) 00:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

They should stay. As annoying as it is to regulars, the "page in a nutshell" really helps the (very) casual visitor. Darkspots (talk) 00:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

No it just repeats the introductory sentences in a box. Thats not helpful at all. Bensaccount (talk) 01:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Some people will come to this page because they click on a link in a template on their user talk page. If these people see nothing but a solid block of legalistic-looking text, they'll hit their back button faster than you'd believe possible. The templates soften the page, give their eyes something to rest on, something they may actually read. Seriously. Many, many people are like this. The two templates are simple, punchy points. Darkspots (talk) 04:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

We don't need to sacrifice having succinct nonrepetitive policy pages just to please people who are incapable of reading unboxed text. It is instruction creep and the clutter it creates outweighs any usefulness you may imagine it has.Bensaccount (talk) 05:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

If someone has an NPOV temp on their user talk page, we're not going to please them no matter what we do. If we can communicate, just a tiny bit, we're a little further ahead. If you quickly scan those text boxes you know that a) NPOV is a policy, b) we're serious about it, and c) NPOV means x. Maybe you'll stop whatever it is you're doing without a block, which means there's an incrementally larger chance you'll stick around and contribute effectively. The greater good of the project is worth a little clutter. Darkspots (talk) 13:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the threat, but I have been contributing effectively far longer than you, and I think I will stick around. The nutshell template and the reflect consensus templates on the project page are what I am speaking of. Your arguments are making very little sense with respect to this ("we aren't going to please people with NPOV templates on their user talk pages???") There is no good that comes from these boxes (never mind "greater good") Bensaccount (talk) 18:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa, whoa. The "you" in my post above is not you, Bensaccount. The "you" is a theoretical new user who has a {{Uw-npov1}} template on their user talk page. You misread my post--why in the world would I threaten you with a block? You and I are both longtime editors, and I've never thought differently.

We're talking about the same two templates. I'm talking about my impression of how the page would look to an impatient new user who made some edits that were considered tendentious and got an NPOV template slapped on their user talk page. They hit the link to this page, and look at it for the first time. My post above describes what they would see in a quick scan of the page. Perhaps they would then stop what they were doing because they realize that we have policy that covers this and we're serious about that policy. If they don't stop, they'll get blocked, and we almost certainly lose that contributor.

My above post is a little unclear, and I apologize for being unclear. But my arguments, I think, make a lot more sense than you give them credit for. I'm talking about a certain kind of user that this page needs to communicate with, and I think these text boxes could help to reach that kind of user. Every post I've made above describes that user in greater detail. My impression of your responses to me above is that you feel that impatient, tendentious new users can either read unvarnished plain text or lump it. I think that we need to try to reach these people, to do something to communicate with them, and that these text boxes are a good way to get across the points that need to be made to them. Darkspots (talk) 17:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Remove Undue Weight

I protest this "policy" and don't think popularity is a factor of truth. Here's my suggestion for an alternative: Wikipedia:Balance Your Perspectives. To any admins, if the page is to be deleted for not being official, I understand, if it has been, see User:IdLoveOne/Balance Your Perspectives. IdLoveOne (talk) 03:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

User complaint

I have had additions I have made to articles removed that were verifiable and annotated clearly because editors, who had to make it clear they are part of Wikipedia's elite, did not agree with what I said. One addition, to a politician's page, was made "OK" through a lot of modification, was later moved to a separate page about a certain election, and later removed. You can threaten to banish me after one warning, you can stick your nose up in the air, you can demand politeness, but the TRUTH is that there are editors who seem to be highly placed who are damned hypocrites who have their own political adgenda that dictates what is allowable on Wiki, and I think it stinks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.141.198.58 (talk) 05:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

This is not the right place for this complaint. Try the village pump. Bensaccount (talk) 18:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Everywhere is the right place for this complaint. Dear anon, you are not alone. All I can say is: if you comply with all the WP policies, be stubborn, you will win at the end. Emmanuelm (talk) 15:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE doesn't need changing

I'm concerned about the rush to introduce changes to a core policy, with discussions being templated closed after just a few days. WP:UNDUE is just fine and perfectly clear as it is. It already provides a sensible, workable guideline for determining what constitutes a significant view and what constitutes undue weight. It shouldn't be changed just because some folks aren't winning their battles. Dlabtot (talk) 12:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not about winning battles, it is about avoiding them. I admit I have my personal view on what the guideline is saying — I hope I am correct in it; the purpose of the discussion is to clear up misunderstandings. That can include me, if I am misunderstanding it.
The need? The battles I encountered exist because the policy is interpreted differently by different sides.
Discussions have been templated "closed archived" by me only to avoid confusion during discussing, because the same discussion has been accidently started at 3 different positions on this talk page. No implication of anything having been resolved is intended, nor any manipulation of any debate.
Are you willing to discuss the policy amendment with us now, or are you needing examples how and why the policy is causing disputes instead of avoiding them?  &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 12:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm totally willing to discuss the proposed policy change, which is unneeded and should not be implemented. Dlabtot (talk) 17:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The fights are because of differing interpretations. What needs to be done is to have the policies written more clearly, with examples, and possibly even with multiple choice tests to test your knowledge so you can understand what the policy actually is.--Filll (talk) 17:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The undue weight section definitely does still need changing. There are too many trolls here who like to argue just for the sake of fighting change. Bensaccount (talk) 18:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I like it how it is, but it is of no value if we will not enforce it, or the POV pushers and trolls interpret it in the opposite way from what it is intended. And the powers that be have decided NPOV and all related policies probably should not be enforced, so we end up in the mess we have now.--Filll (talk) 21:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

From the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Homeopathy, NPOV and Minority Topics#Back to basics, it appears that there is a desire at alternative medicine articles at least for something on these lines:

Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them—Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. On such pages the minority view may be spelled out in great detail, and appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint can be shown in a linked article devoted to majority views of the minority topic.

From my viewpoint, this would invite problems and conflict with WP:NPOV/FAQ and WP:FRINGE. A suggested revision which in my opinion clarifies the existing policies follows:

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 spelled out in great detail, the article must include appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint showing the majority view of each topic covered in the article, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view.

My understanding is that this is the intent of existing policies, so that all articles represent fairly all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.. . .. dave souza, talk 21:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that undue weight is vague. This is why almost every other section on this talk page since 2005 is another person complaining about the vagueness of undue weight and subsequently being told that it is fine. Here are the changes that need to be made: It must state that the criteria for exclusion of viewpoints include lack of popularity, lack of relevance, and lack of expertise. It must also state that these are not absolutes, so consensus as to where the line is drawn must be worked out on the individual article pages. Everything else is useless rambling and must be removed. Bensaccount (talk) 22:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The other problem is that the lack of criteria and the vagueness seems to serve as a means to allow users to bypass discussion of reasons for inclusion or exclusion of a view and enforce the removal or inclusion of views based entirely on their personal biases. Bensaccount (talk) 22:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• It is better to have no guideline than one that is vague. UNDUE is not so vague but DUE is. So, it is incomplete. Let's have an example then, where I am involved in. For instance, suppose a French minister, a former British minister, and a former German minister are calling for an investigation into 911 government complicity, how much proportionate coverage is DUE? All I can find is a link to the 9/11 conspiracy theories article, which in turn focusses on the conspiracy theorists instead of the alleged lacunes in the official version. What is DUE? And how can participating editors use guidelines to ascertain that? A group of editors at the 911 article is blocking factual RS-sourced information on the basis that RS do not share the minority opinion. Is that what's intended?  &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 00:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

That example is way to confusing and personal to help us clarify anything here -- take it to the articles discussion page.Bensaccount (talk) 01:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

It's there already. Something else then: I have a little fantasy: it appears to me that you like majority opinions, and do not care when minority opinions are deleted using WP:UNDUE. But how about the core of NPOV, which says that significant minority views should get adequate treatment. We must be able to say more than "editors should discuss what is DUE"???  &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 02:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Undue weight is too vague to be "used" for deleting anything. The problem is that it nevertheless continues to be brandished by anyone who wants to exclude or include anything without reasonable discussion. Ideally it should provide the criteria that should be evaluated when considering to exclude a view. And popularity is only a small fraction of what needs to be considered. Bensaccount (talk) 02:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Undue weight is too vague to be "used" for deleting anything. That's not what I've encountered from at least 3 admins. Maybe you can find the time to have a look at Talk:9/11 at the undue weight discussions there?  &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 09:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

As I review past disputes on this topic, it strikes me that we have to do a better job of describing NPOV and documenting NPOV, handling difficult cases that "fall between the cracks" like what to do with FRINGE topics which have not been addressed by the mainstream in WP:RS since they are so obscure, giving examples and training people in NPOV. Part of the problem is that we just are too obscure and confusing when we describe NPOV. The information is spread over too many pages and too confusing. I would like to see an FAQ and other tools to help people understand NPOV. For example, creating an FAQ on the evolution talk page helped tremendously. I would like to see two versions; a succinct version with just short one sentence summary answers, and a longer set of FAQ answers.

Even if we do a better job of describing NPOV, we will always have some who are frantic to misinterpret NPOV or reinterpret NPOV. We will never change these. What we will do, is make it far easier for the average editor to get up to speed very fast on NPOV to slam these characters who want to misinterpret NPOV for their own purposes. --Filll (talk) 19:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

This thread is about the Undue Weight section. If your concerns are more general, create a new thread. Bensaccount (talk) 20:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the policy is perfectly clear. Just what is about the policy that you find confusing? Dlabtot (talk) 21:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

It is "clear" to those who need to be sure that others cannot speak of the policy with the same authority as they do. Not to me, or to the endless stream of editors who flood this page with requests to clarify it. Bensaccount (talk) 21:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Just what is about the policy that you find confusing? Dlabtot (talk) 16:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's an exact copy of what I said a a few lines above (as if this time anyone will read it or care): Here are the changes that need to be made: It must state that the criteria for exclusion of viewpoints include lack of popularity, lack of relevance, and lack of expertise. It must also state that these are not absolutes, so consensus as to where the line is drawn must be worked out on the individual article pages. Everything else is useless rambling and must be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bensaccount (talk • contribs) 23:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

lack of popularity, lack of relevance, and lack of expertise - ok - lack of popularity I understand. Lack of relevance - I'm not so sure.. I thought significance was established by citations to reliable sources ... of course there must be an editorial judgement as to whether a citation is relevant to the article topic - is that what you are referring to? I'm at a loss as to what you mean by "lack of expertise" in the the context of the NPOV policy, however. Could you elucidate? Dlabtot (talk) 05:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

ALthough I'm am not in principle opposed to modifying it I don't see the need to change it either at this time. Perhaps a companion essay or a guideline would be appropriate to clear up any confusion. Anthon01 (talk) 16:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I appears the problem is not with WP:UNDUE, but with those who'd like to alter it to give their viewpoints undue weight at Homeopathy articles. For that reason alone it is obvious that WP:UNDUE is functioning as it should. Odd nature (talk) 21:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Xiutwel: On second thought, do you have an example of what you would like to change? Anthon01 (talk) 02:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Often enough, I've added a sourced fact to an article, concerning news reports which are in my view relevant, which support a significant minority viewpoint that is disliked by other editors, and then gets removed/blocked from the article. I agree that a minority viewpoint should not take 50% of an article, but systemic deletion of the facts that support it, is not fair either. Someone wrote above that UNDUE cannot be "used" to block content, but in practice it is quoted when doing so. My question is: when 50% is (UNDUE) too much, how much would be DUE then? Giving significant minority views fair coverage means we cannot at the same time assert the majority view is the truth. This is a nuisance, but it is a fact: the majority view should be attributed to its proponents, and not stated as "the truth". Agree?
In my opinion, if we want to avoid using clumsy wording in every sentence, we should have either a broad disclaimer in the beginning of the article that it is presenting a majority view, with a small paragraph for the minority view, or it should be allowed to balance each unattributed claim with a counterclaim. This is the solution I proposed. Maybe I'm wrong, and looking in the wrong direction. But when 50% is UNDUE and 0% is too few, we have to have some guideline to help editors on a specific page get consensus on what is due. Even when all feel that no such criterion can be given in general, it would help to add the sentence: "The amount of coverage which is DUE should be decided upon by the editors on a per article basis." That would make things more clear already.  &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 16:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The question of whether a viewpoint is significant, and the further question of how much weight should be given to a significant minority view, is an editorial decision that is arrived at through consensus. Dlabtot (talk) 16:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

If "UNDUE" says no more than "SigMinView should not receive as much attention as the majority view", then I agree UNDUE does not need an amendment. However, I can use some help at discussing consensus at Talk:9/11, where a group of editors seem to me to feel that any addition which is unsupportive of their view is UNDUE.  &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 13:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I took the plea "I can use some help at discussing consensus at Talk 9/11" at face value and went there and read through that whole overlong, tedious, tendentious discussion. There's no help I can offer there except to echo, as gently as possible, the many things people there have already tried to tell you, that you're just not hearing. That's how it looks to me, a complete outsider. Woonpton (talk) 21:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

What happens when the majority view is out of sync with the evidence? When science says one thing but the public believe another wouldn't that make science the fringe view and thus mean that the entry should be weighed towards the popular opinion?

For example, if it could be demonstrated that 90% of the population believed that folk remedy XYZ worked, but 1 scientist does an experiment that said that proves that it didn't. Would the fringe be the uneducated masses or the educated scientist, and how would you weigh it? - perfectblue (talk) 17:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Classic argumentum ad populum. The truth of the matter is irrelevent of what people believe - Earth was still round when most people believed it was flat. To find reality, we follow the evidence. In most cases dealing with physical reality, scientists are the most capable at collecting and analyzing the evidence, and so their collective opinion is the strongest driving force (and we often further segregate it: physicists for physics, chemists for chemistry, historians for history, etc.). The public is easily swayed by propaganda and logical fallacies. The experts on a subject are (usually) better. They know what the pitfalls to investigation are, and so they try to avoid them. This is why our policy on undue weight appeals specifically to the expert opinion in the relevant field of study, and not public opinion. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh look - another person questions the vagueness that is 'undue weight' and is subsequently told that it is fine *see my comment above. Bensaccount (talk) 20:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

UNDUE Employed in Religious Pages

The "Dispute Resolution" page suggests asking questions on policy talk pages for deeper insights on them; so hello. I'm trying to understand when the "exceptions" for WP:UNDUE apply. Because the group I belong to is in a "tiny-minority", it is contended by editors from the mainstream Baha'is that the policy of undue weight exempts our views from being stated on the Baha'i divisions page; a page which outlines the history of division in the Faith. The discussions I've read here mainly have covered scientific views. My concern is religious in nature.

It has been contended on the talk page that the only appropriate place for criticisms of the mainstream group is on main article pages devoted to that particular group in the minority. I've contended that the policy states ""Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented *except* in articles devoted to those views". My question is what dictates exactly what is an "article devoted to those views"? Am I confused to think that an article that summarizes the history of dissent in the Faith is "devoted to those views"? The opposing contention is "This article is about Baha'i divisions, not Remeyite postions on Baha'i divisions. The majority position is the Baha'i position. As such your opinions are indeed tiny-minority ones — even here. Therefore, your insisting that it be "established or even eluded that anyone believed the UHJ was 'not elected per Shoghi Effendi's instructions'" be included is inappropriate. You've already got pages to make your own points." I wasn't ever trying to give and "extended treatment" to our view, but rather include one sentence that sums it up. They contend that the article is about the "majorities view" on the matter. So doesn't that mean its an "article devoted to those views"? _{Baha'i Under the Covenant}^Jeff 07:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Someone will be along shortly to tell you that your questions regarding the vagueness that is 'undue weight' are unfounded and the section is fine. Bensaccount (talk) 17:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Part of this depends on just how "tiny" your particular group is. Has it received sufficient coverage to warrant an article of its own? If so, its own article is actually the place that the section means as being "devoted to those views," and it would be quite appropriate to describe everything about them there. On a broader page such as this one, it depends. The article you're talking about isn't actually specifically about listing all cases of dissent, but rather the major divisions. However, if your particular case is notable enough, you should be able to show some reliable third-party sources commenting on it. This may be enough to warrant just a sentence or two. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Infophile. Our group fits the "tiny minority" definition. Actually all the smaller groups do, as there are 5-7 million mainstream Baha'is, and each of the other groups by orders of magnitude are tiny (in the 100's). Our group in particular has been noted by a couple third parties; mostly researchers. I would concur that any criticisms of the mainstream Administration wouldn't warrant inclusion on it's mainpages; but this ancillary article would seem to qualify for the exceptions. Do you feel that would only be the case on our own main articles, or in an article specifically about dissenting views (there isn't such one)?

There is a larger implication that I didn't mention in the interest of brevity. I guess I've looked at this article as one outlining the Divisions, and as such should be devoted to those divisions, as the article's title implies. The mainstream group has used UNDUE to expand their views to the extent that four sections of history and detailed accounts of their POV precedes the summaries of the Division groups. These sections have zero space devoted to any contrary opinions. If I'm mistaken that this is FORKING in an effort to marginalize these groups, then so be it. I'm trying to understand if this article in question warrants any minority "views"? For UNDUE is consistently stated as the reason their POV dominates and suppresses all others. _{Baha'i Under the Covenant}^Jeff 18:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I haven't looked much at this particular case, but it does sound like they're interpreting UNDUE correctly. It says pretty clearly that "tiny minority" views don't get mentioned at all, and this sounds like the case here. There might be an exception, though, if the sum of all these small groups is more than a tiny minority (ie. each is 1% of the total, but there are 30 of them... 30% merits a mention). In this case, there might be a way to present this general dissent.

Now, what you're describing with the article devoting more space to the mainstream views than the actual divisions is really a COATRACK, and not directly an NPOV concern. The solution there would be to get rid of that material, not to try to make it NPOV. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, okay. I didn't even know about COATRACK; I'll look deeper into that. They contend it's necessary to give the detailed history of their perceived proper succession "for the sake of the reader". As far as tiny minorities go, I was under the impression that there was an exception in "Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented *except* in articles devoted to those views". _{Baha'i Under the Covenant}^Jeff 19:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there is such an exception, but I don't believe this is such an article. That would have to be an article specifically about your group (or a more comprehensive list of all alternative views than what we have here). --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Weight in an uneven environment?

How should you play it when you have a topic where the primary point of notability comes from sources that express one side of an argument but which are usually considered unreliable, while the other side of the argument comes from reliable sources but is not in itself notable enough to carry an entry, or even to justify its existence?

For example. On one side somebody claims to see a monster in the local lake. It generates masses of wild and spurious claims (sufficient to make it notable) all saying that the creature is real and that there is evidence for its existence and generating masses of potential content. On the other side there is a 1/2 page word entry in a peer reviewed journal explaining that the monster was something perfectly explainable, and that the evidence isn't. Not enough to make the entry notable. How do we weight it? Do you crop the first side down to give the second side the weight of the entry, do you give them equal billing, or do you do you say that because the first side has the weight of notability it should have the weight of the entry?

perfectblue (talk) 17:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Since the current section on weighting viewpoints is hopelessly vague I will explain to you how it actually works: Generally all views are included. The criteria for exclusion of viewpoints include lack of popularity, lack of relevance, and lack of expertise. These are not absolutes, so consensus as to where the line is drawn must be worked out on the individual article pages. Bensaccount (talk) 21:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The answer to perfectblue's question is remarkably simple. We write an article saying that someone claims to have seen a monster in a local lake, leading to all manner of wild claims. If these claims are notable, they will be covered in independent, reliable secondary sources, which addresses the WP:RS issue. We also note that a scientist has looked into the claim and found evidence against it and in favor of a less supernatural explanation. It's really that simple... except when the article is being edited by people who have a deep belief in the existence of the monster, or vice versa I suppose. MastCell ^Talk 19:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The important thing is that we keep this policy page vague so people must come here for those who really know things to put it straight. Bensaccount (talk) 20:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Some degree of flexibility ("vagueness", if you like) is essential for the policy to be a useful tool across a wide array of subject areas. If you have a point, it may be more effectively made without sarcasm. MastCell ^Talk 05:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Flexibility is the quality of being adaptable or variable. Vagueness is the property of being not clearly understood or expressed. We keep the policy vague so that those who "understand" it can tell people what to do in every case (no matter how unique). Bensaccount (talk) 16:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

History of NPOV

Any thoughts on removing the "History of NPOV" section" (perhaps by moving it to the talk page)? It adds quite a bit of text without adding any guidance regarding NPOV. Moreover, I would expect that the specific history of the principle and the policy are of interest to relatively few people... Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I've been copy-editing this article, and think a bunch of the text could be distilled for readability's sake. Would make the article less intimidating to newcomers, too, who might feel they need to read the whole thing in case they miss something Really Important 4/5ths of the way in. But that's just me. Xavexgoem (talk) 19:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Move it to its own project page and make a link. Bensaccount (talk) 20:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Negotiable!

Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikipedia principle. It would be very hard to alter the basic principle of neutrality without altering the nature of wikipedia.

This much is true. However, foundation issues *are* negotiable. Have been negotiated, are occasionally negotiated, still need to be negotiated today.

Hey, it's on meta, a foundation wiki. It's determined by consensus!

The consequences of such negotiation can be rather large, so it's potentially very hard to make headway... so I guess lots of people have never tried.

But saying that they're non-negotiable is silly. If you want to make them non-negotiable, please negotiate that option on meta first. Oh, and good luck with that.

Contradiction with foundation issues therefore removed.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 11:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Has the change made by Kim Bruning to the article page been discussed? --Doug Weller (talk) 11:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

No, and it's been reverted. Clearly it should be discussed before making such a change. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 13:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

"points of order"

• @ Doug Weller: Duh no. @SheffieldSteel Note the order, Bold first, then discuss. Note that this is a cycle, so once we're at the discuss stage we discuss to find a compromise *quickly*. (that means preferably today :-P). It doesn't need to be perfect, we can be bold again and try to get more input and ideas. Moving quickly along, no I don't care what people told you earlier about what BRD is supposed to say, or what you did in wikiproject:obscuretopics last week Tuesday. Read the fine documentation and do it right. ;-) not that this will likely help, but it's worth trying saying it at least once... you never know ;-)
• Please note the tag at the top of the page by the way (am I the only person who still reads it?): Please ensure your changes reflect consensus. Someone added "NPOV is non negotiable" to the page when I wasn't looking, clearly :-P. They definitely didn't discuss it with me either. Now, as "non negotiable" pretty much denies consensus entirely, I've removed it as being a rather silly. I could have done that at any time, but I'm doing it now. Ok?
• I'm editing the wiki, which, I may point out, is *also* a foundation issue, so this sort of balances out.
• Possibly this discussion should be held on meta instead.

actual discussion

Now that we've covered the whole what policy are we following debate (hopefully :-P ), can we get on with "non negotiable". Why do you believe NPOV is non-negotiable? That's pretty absolute. You'd oppose people suspending this rule even temporarily, while sorting out nitty gritty details of one POV or another? Refusing to negotiate makes it very hard to mediate a situation. I've seen people play the "non-negotiable" card in attempted mediation, and I was less than impressed.

So basically, I think it doesn't work that way, and I haven't seen anyone get it to work that way(short of driving people off-wiki) and we really don't need that line in there. If anyone can show where it does work that way, I'll listen and possibly change my position.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 13:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

(undent) My preferred wording:

“ Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikipedia principle. It would be very hard to alter the basic principle of neutrality without altering the nature of Wikipedia. ”

--Kim Bruning (talk) 14:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

5 November 2003:

According to Jimbo Wales, "NPOV is absolute and non-negotiable". [1]

The link to the mailing list message had become incorrect, by 2006 the reference (in a footnote by then) read:

NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable" in statement by Jimbo Wales in November 2003 and reconfirmed by Jimbo Wales in April 2006 in the context of lawsuits.

The first of the two included links in this version is still OK, the second is out of order but shouldn't be too hard to locate. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Next to that being a brief short throwaway statement (and possibly a lie-to-children) in an e-mail exchange (as opposed to an explicit statement about "I want this to be policy") , it actually causes major issues (see above). So I don't think that that's a good idea to mention here at all. --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Note that currently the third paragraph of the NPOV policy page also has "[...] This is non-negotiable [...]", no longer needing Jimbo to support the inclusion of this statement.

Whatever the statement at m:Foundation issues (which includes statements w.r.t. to all Wikimedia projects), for en:Wikipedia the formulation has continued to be ... "non-negotiable" ... since November 2003, as far as I can remember without interruption. For the Wikimedia projects in general it became "essentially considered to be beyond debate" some time later, covering some other principles too. For English Wikipedia we kept "non-negotiable" for WP:NPOV at the time, and after, until today.

Anyway, if you want to negotiate about it, do so with the Wikimedia Foundation, it *is* a Foundation issue now. I don't see any major issues caused by non-negotiability on this page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Anyway here is the correct link to the April 2006 "non-negotiable" statement by Jimbo: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-April/044386.html - I don't see anything "throwaway" about it (or whatever derisive comment you're making). --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec) As far as I'm concerned, the statement was not ex cathedra and thus not a binding policy. :-P pre-ec... this does not refer to the 2006 april statement, let me check

If you don't see major issues, let me explain some of them to you.

• Basically, anytime you stop a conversation or declare things non-negotiable, the other party is forced to expand scope. There are many ways in which temporary exceptions can be made to the rule which actually help to enforce the general rule. If it's just the NPOV rule that is non-negotiable, well, maybe we can live with that but...
• Apparently declaring a rule non-negotiable has a knock-on effect. Suddenly the term "non negotiable" will tend to spread across multiple rule pages. This makes it almost impossible to have a tolerant policy anymore, and makes the wiki a much harsher place to work (or even nigh-on-impossible). Fortunately most of these knock-on effects have been reversed. Unfortunately sometimes they still crop up again.
• non-negotiability has a negative effect on dispute resolution. it makes it harder to mediate, and puts a larger load on the arbitration committee. Since the only time we really really need to depend on written documentation is precisely during dispute resolution, this is Not A Good Thing.
• Anytime something is non-negotiable, you create an exception to our policy that everything is done by consensus. This then allows people to think they can ignore consensus in other situations too.
• Anytime something is declared non-negotiable, people just immediately start playing hardball (and typically failing :-P ), even when a softball solution was available, and would have solved the problem.
• with a negotiable rule, you can [{WP:IAR|temporarily work around it]], while building a consensus, when that might be helpful. In that way, negotiable rules are more likely to actually have their intended effect.
• If two people disagree on interpretation of a soft rule, they will negotiate and come to a compromise. Therefore, a soft/negotiable rule is more likely to have the intended effect.
• If two people disagree on interpretation of a hard rule, they tend to fight. Only one will win, and they are likely to actually be wrong. In this way a hard (non-negotiable) rule tends to have a different effect from the one intended, or can at times even have the opposite effect (see earlier in this thread where someone misquoted BRD... if that had been a hard rule, we may have had lots of wikidrama, and ended up doing The Wrong Thing. Fortunately, BRD is not a hard rule)
• (This space reserved for expansion)

--Kim Bruning (talk) 15:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see that misunderstood my post regarding WP:BRD. Let me rephrase what I said. Since your bold edit was reverted, it is clear that we should discuss the matter before making further edits. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 15:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It's clear that I should discuss with Francis Schonken, at least. :-P --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC) rtfp for rationale ;-)

WP:NPOV has been non-negotiable for four-and-a-half years, with or without Jimbo. None of the monsters colorfully depicted by Kim ever came to life in those 4½ years. The only incident I can remember is that at a certain point there was an attempt to make WP:V and WP:NOR as non-negotiable as WP:NPOV (and make WP:NPOV a little less non-negotiable at the same time). Jimbo's opinion was asked. Nor WP:V, nor WP:NOR have any language currently pertaining to non-negotiability, but they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another as all three policies note in their lead section. But expansion of non-negotiability to other pages never materialised. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

To continue the metaphor, These monsters materialized but we managed to hold them off with a lot of blood sweat and tears. Perhaps you never noticed them showing up due to the diligent efforts of our wiki-superheros ;-) Now it's the final episode. We've fought the monsters back to the source, and are here to finish them off once-and-for-all. ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC) ps. if you doubt any one of my statements above, obviously I can dig up diffs, discussions, mediations etc for each; as I try to be sure to never make a statement I can't back up. Note that this might take a while since I'm actually busy elsewhere as well.

(post-ec) Now having read the 2006-april statement, this seems to refer to dealings with the outside world, where this is a useful position. In other news, it might be interesting to draw Jimbo into this debate (by which I mean actual debate, not drive-by posting ^^;;) but I'm not sure he has much time --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)Imagine the situation

1. Someone makes a horribly POV edit to an article.
2. Another editor reverts, and quotes WP:NPOV.
3. The first editor visits this page, looking for a loophole they can use to make their preferred edit.
4. Instead of seeing, up front and clearly spelled out, the information that this policy is absolute and non-negotiable, they see that it isn't going to be easy to change it without significantly changing wikipedia.

What are they supposed to make of that? What if they believe sincerely that wikipedia needs to change? This isn't too much a stretch of the imagination - we have conservative Christians worried about evolution and abortion, nationalists of all types concerned about history and news article, businesses looking for free promotional opportunities - all of whom would dearly love to see a paradigm shift in WP policy. This proposal is asking for trouble, and I can't see any benefit to it. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 15:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see this as a proposal, but rather as a description of how things actually work.

As to your example:

• Say someone does make a POV edit to an article. You mention NPOV but they're not buying it.
• Cool! An opportunity to teach a newbie how to edit. :-)
• Just like in any other rational consensus discussion, you should now easily be able to convince them of the merits of neutrality. You *have* properly internalized the contents of this page, RIGHT? :-)
• If you fail to convince them, that's ok, you tried and failed, and normal dispute resolution can handle it.
• This is not theory. I've been doing things like this for the past 5 years or so. (I was nommed for admin because I handled my first case so well :-) )
• And please *DO* handle situations that way first, please. DR is congested enough as is, thanks. We don't need to pick up behind petty wikilawyering exchanges. :-P

As a separate note, notice that soft&negotiable rules tend to not have loopholes (typically none), while hard&non-negotiable rules tend to resemble swiss cheese. Nations typically set hard rules, and everyone knows about the high priced lawyers who can steer you through the loopholes ;-) (compare how arbcom views wikilawyering, and you'll see where I'm getting at) I can give a more detailed explanation on request.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 16:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

There is a mis-perceived idea that NPOV is some kind of "truth" that lives in a theoretical domain, removed from the practical aspects related to its application. It is not. NPOV is an ideal, and the application of principles embodied in that ideal is arrived at in articles by the building of consensus about how an article measures against that ideal. Attempts to make NPOV a hard rule in the manner of (Thou shall not steal) will never work. So, this discussion about if NPOV is negotiable or not, is a bit of a red herring. NPOV as an ideal is one of the foundations of this project, and it is not going anywhere regardless what formulation we choose to display in this page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Re. "This proposal is asking for trouble, and I can't see any benefit to it." - Seconded.

Re. "[...] this discussion about if NPOV is negotiable or not, is a bit of a red herring. NPOV as an ideal is one of the foundations of this project, and it is not going anywhere regardless what formulation we choose to display in this page." - Seconded too. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The two seem to be somewhat mutually exclusive. You pick the one or the other? :-)

Actually, In my experience, the "non-negotiable" mindset seems to be positively disruptive. Many situations like that have required mediation. I have always used WP:IAR to work around it, and get things mediated, but I would much prefer if the page actually reflected current best practice. --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC) that is best practice, not random practice, or worst practice. (to forestall that particular debate :-P)

I second both. I don't see a benefit to the change, and I think the discussion of it a bit of a red herring. But the formulation of the NPOV principle is something I think on second thought not to be wholly without merit. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Rather than asserting that NPOV is non-negotiable, we can describe who said that, how it is applied, and the fact that NPOV is a principle that is at the core of the project. That would be a much better way to explain the importance of NPOV, than just say "non-negotible" without an explanation as for the reasons. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The statement "NPOV is absolute and non-negotiable", and other condescending rhetoric of this kind is unnecessary instruction creep and as such should be removed. Bensaccount (talk) 17:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

"This proposal is asking for trouble, and I can't see any benefit to it." - Thirded. Publicly declaring that NPOV is negotiable will, in many cases, simply nullify NPOV. Consider the present situation with the various nationalist disputes on Wikipedia, and imagine how it would be if we implied that the righteous struggle to ensure that The One And Only True And Holy Truth prevails, despite the constant efforts of members of the hedonistic and cannibalistic Other^TM to suppress it with lies, misinformation, and brainwashing, might be justified. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes some people think that way, and I've noticed that this is counter-intuitive for them. Interestingly, at least as far as dispute-resolution is concerned, removing the non-negotiable clause from NPOV (rather than explicitly declaring it negotiable) , actually makes the rule much stronger, not weaker. This is the key thing you need to understand. I've actually applied WP:IAR to NPOV several times, and by doing so, managed to convince people to be on our side, and they then actually applied NPOV and other policies not because they were told to, but because they were convinced it was the right thing to do.

Now I was raised this way, so it's natural and intuitive approach for me. I understand that some people have had a more authoritative upbringing? --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that removal of the clause is preferable to a change in wording; however, I'm not convinced that removal is preferable to the current version. :) I'm not sure how much effect upbringing has, but my concern has more do with the difficulty of convincing someone to do the right thing, when he or she is absolutely convinced that the right thing is nothing other than revealing The Truth about a certain event, object, or activity.

I'm not saying that it's not possible (or even that it's rare) for editors to put aside their personal viewpoints in favour of improving the encyclopedia (my experience with disputes related to the Sri Lankan conflict is enough proof that it can and does happen), but there will always be editors who don't get it or refuse to get it. In such cases, it would be much harder to uphold NPOV if the policy page implies that the principle can be negotiated. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

@Black Falcon: No one is arguing for describing NPOV as "negotiable". The arguments are for explaining how and why NPOV is a fundamental principle of this project. Big difference, no? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes, but explaining how and why NPOV is a fundamental principle is also substantially different from removing the statement that it is "non-negotiable". Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Either it's negotiable or it's not. If you want to add detail about why it's important, that's a different matter. Perhaps removing the "non-negotiable" sentence should be discussed separately. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 18:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The two are strongly intertwined. To make things black and white: Either you say "no, it's not negotiable" and chase people away, or you give people a little more leeway and draw more people into the project by teaching them about NPOV. In both cases, NPOV still applies. In the latter case, NPOV becomes stronger, because you end up with more people genuinely supporting it (after all, you catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar). This is not just something I'm making up. I've seen it happen that way. (I am allowed to "violate" NPOV via IAR, if I can show that this improves the encyclopedia... which it does.)

In general, I've found that the way rules work is counter-intuitive. Often a change will have a different effect from what you'd expect. In fact, a lot of things about wikipedia are counter-intuitive. That's why we expect people to think about them rationally instead. :-)

Am I making sense to you? --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

If people think NPOV is negotiable, telling them it isn't won't change their minds. Removing instruction creep to facilitate reading the policy will. Bensaccount (talk) 18:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

My 2 cents: calling it non-negotiable gives editors a reason to find a way to non-negotiate there way out of the spirit of the policy by lawyering over the text. Xavexgoem (talk) 19:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec) @Blackfalcon: Well, I figure that if you can't convince people that they need to remain neutral or follow other best practices of their own accord, they're going to be a net time sink and a negative contributor to the encyclopedia anyway. (As they will constantly need to be watched, thus using up valuable time of other volunteers.)

In that situation, the only benefit of having a hard rule is that you get to drive the bad apples away a little faster. On the other hand, you'll also end up driving away people who are redeemable (because no one bothers to redeem them).

So having a soft rule allows you to recruit more good editors. At the same time it also gives you a decent rationale to actually get rid of the bad editors ("we really tried, but they're just not listening").

Cynically: When it comes to The Exchange Of Diffs (tm) in many dispute resolution processes, you'll end up looking squeaky clean, while the "bad guys" look really bad indeed. Getting them banned is so much easier then. O:-)

--Kim Bruning (talk) 18:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Why do you think that having a soft rule "gives you a decent rationale to actually get rid of the bad editors"? As I see it, it would only increase the possibility for wikilawyering and use of multiple loopholes. (Incidentally, I think a block or ban is easier to obtain for repeated violation of a hard rule rather than for a pattern of tendentious editing (i.e. repeated violation of a soft rule)). Black Falcon <suYp>(Talk) 19:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

You are violating assume good faith. Bensaccount (talk) 19:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Huh?! How? I'm discussing my perceptions of the potential consequences of a change in wording; I've not suggested anything about Kim... Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Your goal should not be to facilitate the banning of editors. Why not focus on more helpful goals (ie. removal of instruction creep) Bensaccount (talk) 19:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, if an editor is disruptive to the project and is unwilling to change his/her behaviour, then banning is a reasonable option (and sometimes a necessity). There is no reason we should make it easier for disruptive editors to carry for longer periods of time... In any case, this has nothing to do with AGF since it's not an assumption of bad faith to state that there were/are/will be disruptive editors who were/are/will be banned. That's a fact, not an assumption of any kind. As for "instruction creep", one brief sentence hardly makes a difference in 40KB of text... (besides, I have focused on the goal of removing instruction creep - see the section below). Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It is an assumption of bad faith, and one sentence does make a difference. The statement "NPOV is absolute and non-negotiable", and other condescending rhetoric of this kind is unnecessary instruction creep that should be removed. Bensaccount (talk) 20:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It is an assumption of bad faith... Please see Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. It is not an assumption that disruption has occurred and that disruptive editors were banned -- it is a fact. Moreover, it should not require any stretch of the imagination to realise that disruption will continue to occur in the future and that some editors will be banned in the future. WP:AGF involves assuming that "we work from an assumption that most people are trying to help the project, not hurt it"; however, it would be naive to assume that everyone acts in this way. Perhaps it would clarify if you could state about whom you think I'm assuming bad faith?

The statement "NPOV is absolute and non-negotiable", and other condescending rhetoric of this kind is unnecessary instruction creep that should be removed. I can understand the claim that it's unnecessary (though I don't agree with it), as well as the claim that it's instruction creep, but how is the claim that "NPOV is absolute and non-negotiable" in any way condescending? Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

You answered your own question. It is condescending because it assumes the editor is out to harm the project and might need to be banned. Bensaccount (talk) 21:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Following that logic, having Wikipedia:Blocking policy is condescending because it implies that some users might need to be blocked and having Wikipedia:No personal attacks is condescending because it implies that some users might make personal accounts. However, those policies are not assumptions of bad faith -- rather, they are responses to situations that theoretically might and in practice do arise. Your definition of "assuming good faith" does not match the common understanding of the term, as define here. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Theres a difference between responding to theoretical situations and assuming the editor is out to harm the project. Bensaccount (talk) 02:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Just chiming in to briefly agree with Black Falcon (and to add that I'm not convinced Bensaccount understands what Black Falcon is saying).--Doug Weller (talk) 08:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if you don't understand how some people might find the sentence condescending. What matters is that we all agree the sentence is instruction creep. Bensaccount (talk) 18:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

In reply to a bit further up, why soft rules allow for less wiki-lawyering? Well, that's an interesting one. You're still going by intuition there. ;-)

Here's a general case:

If you're trying to find a way around a rule, and you have to negotiate about the exact interpretation of a rule anyway, there's only so far you can go while still taking into account the other party (or parties). And once you've agreed on what to do, you need to stick to the agreement. Lawyering your way out of a good faith agreement is generally "Not Done". Also you know *exactly* who you will be offending, and social pressure will keep you in line. Forget loopholes. Other people you've talked with will know exactly what you're up to and tell you off. "No, we really agreed to this behaviour... stick with the program". You use soft rules for community standards and for meatball:SoftSecurity, when you would like people to cooperate.

Conversely, a hard rule is set by some anonymous entity far removed from the trenches. It is triggered in an exact set of circumstances. If you know the exact trigger, you can act right up to the line and not get into trouble... except if you sneeze, in which case you're suddenly banned for a week. ;-) If there's a loophole, you can sneak through. Very few people will care if you sneak through a loophole, because (practically) no one has any vested interest in your good behavior (at best they have a vested interest in you Not Being There At All :-P). You typically only use hard rules for meatball:HardSecurity, when you have already given up on people.

In general, if you have to start using hard rules, you're probably better off just banning people outright (which is a basic expression of hard security).

So to summarize: Soft rules are for keeping people working together, hard rules are for keeping people out.

Now, what is NPOV for?

--Kim Bruning (talk) 20:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Well argued, Kim. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

If a dozen editors on an article decide they don't want to follow WP:NPOV on an article, that WP:CONSENSUS is invalid, as all articles must comply with WP:NPOV, regardless of any agreements to the contrary. It is non-negotiable. One can negotiate about whether or not an article does indeed comply with WP:NPOV, but one cannot negotiate it away as a requirement. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

You're too paranoid. :-) If another couple of editors from the general community join the discussion, then the previous consensus to ignore is certain to fall. That's the meaning of large-scale consensus, and that's why the foundation issues are listed as what they are. They're descriptive, not prescriptive. They describe that such a hypothetical situation can never last for long.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 00:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

@Jayjg - I am not arguing that NPOV is negotiable. In fact, I believe that it is not negotiable. What I am arguing for is to provide an understanding of why it is so, rather than say it in a manner that it does not provide that understanding, which it is when you just say "non-negotiable", period. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

@Jossi, can't both be done? And some people do need explicit(what some people are calling hard) rules. Ideally Kim's suggestions would work, in practice I think they would cause problems.--Doug Weller (talk) 08:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Ideally? You have some interesting ideals. Suggestions? I'm not suggesting anything new.

Ideally people might be angelic little robots doing the right thing at the right time following the right rules. Ok, so that's not my kind of idealism, but I can see where it's coming from. In such an ideal world, hard rules would work.

In reality, people are stupid, slow, uneducated, and make mistakes (including me :-P ). In such a situation, hard rules and power answers only serve to amplify mistakes, force the expansion of scope and hide underlying problems. This has been my experience. Often you first clean up the mess caused by power-players, before you get around to dealing with the real issues.

At the same time, in reality, I have seen soft rules be used to limit scope , solve problems, and help people. It's the basis for successful dispute resolution.

This has been observed and documented on many wikis, time and time again.

People who need hard rules are people who should not be welcome here in the first place. We are here to cooperate on making a wiki based encyclopedia. I do not see any gain to be had in tolerating people who are here for other reasons, who do not wish to cooperate. - I am opposed to writing actual rules for their sake, to the detriment of encyclopedia writers. And that's not just a good idea I'm suggesting at the spur of the moment; it's already P O L I C Y ! :-)

We have already pushed back the idiotic ideal of of zero-tolerance and non-negotiability all the way to here. Can we get rid of it entirely?

--Kim Bruning (talk) 05:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Kim, you seem to want to go back to some mystical time when WP:IAR was all that was needed to run the place. Well, frankly, the vast majority of the articles from that time were crap; personal essays cited to peoples feelings. WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:NPOV are our core content rules. They cannot be negotiated away through WP:CONSENSUS, or ignored via WP:IAR. Rather than "amplifying mistakes", they have steadily improved the content of our articles, and helped guide editors in this continual improvement. WP:CONSENSUS and WP:IAR are helpful to people who are looking for an online community. WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:NPOV make editors write better encyclopedia articles. That is why the latter three are non-negotiable. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I think I'm pretty realistic, thank you, or at least, things do Work For Me when I do them.

How's your experience with dispute resolution outside of arbcom? --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes better sometimes worse. Regardless, we don't de-value the core policies because of your concerns about "power players". Jayjg ^(talk) 01:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to find common ground. Have you been doing any other kinds of DR process yourself lately? --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

You are falsely attributing the progress that wikipedia has made to WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:NPOV. These rules actually do very little to help Wikipedia (unless your ideal is a compendium of quotations). Far more credit goes to IAR and CONSENSUS. Bensaccount (talk) 01:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

That's an interesting point. Can you explain further? At the same time, do please be polite to Jayjg! :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The more people bow to WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:NPOV the closer we get to long lists of attributable data and quotations with no logic structure or order (a google result). The value of Wikipedia is the structure organization and evaluation of this data. That is why people come to the site, and that has very little to do with WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:NPOV. Bensaccount (talk) 02:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

This is not a "compendium of quotations", and it's WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:NPOV that converted it from this. IAR and CONSENSUS played little or no role in it, that I can tell. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The page was edited by a number of different people, and has quite a lot of discussion associated with it. Community best practices went hand in hand with encyclopedia best practices. It showcases the best of both Wiki and Pedia. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC) In short, you both have good points. :-) Can we move on?

Quotes and NPOV

In the peer review of the folk metal article I've worked on, someone has expressed strong objection to the use of quotes that precede some of the sections in the article. Each of the quotes are from a member of a band that is subsequently discussed at length in the paragraph that immediately follows the quote. The significance of each band to the genre of folk metal is explained in that ensuing discussion. When I added those quotes, I was really just trying to make the article look more attractive. None of the quotes except for the last one is really important and they can all be discarded without effecting the substantive quality of the article. I do not have a problem with doing that if it should be done but I'm curious to know whether the objection being made has any merit. The objection rests on the notion that the quotes "places special emphasis on the sources being quoted" and "elevates a particular source's views and gives in implicit value above any other views, and is thus inherently un-neutral." I do not quite understand however how the use of any of these quotes is contrary to wikipedia's policy on having a neutral point of view. There's nothing controversial about folk metal nor is there anything controversial about anything mentioned in the quotes or the person being quoted. The quotes are inoffensive remarks that primarily serve as mere eye candy. I can understand it if an objection is made because the quotes are mere eye-candy but not this argument that they are inherently un-neutral.
I also note that other articles on wikipedia also contain quotes in a manner that I believe is similar to that found in the folk metal article. The Battle of Greece opens with a quote from Mussolini and there's no explanation as to why his viewpoint should be prominently quoted at the opening instead of the viewpoint of some other individual like Hitler or Metaxas. The article on U2 also contains quotes very prominently by the band members as well as other sources like Brian Eno, The Rolling Stones and an author named Caroline van oosten de Boer. No explanation is provided as to why the (positive) viewpoints of U2 from these sources should be quoted at length. None of the quotes I used in the folk metal article give that kind of positive spin in my view. They are just tantalising brief comments to open a section more attractively. Both the Battle of Greece and U2 were promoted to featured article status with all those quotes which indicate to me that there's nothing wrong or inherentely un-neutral about using quotes in such a manner. I would like to hear what others think though so please give me some feedback. Cheers. --Bardin (talk) 11:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Although NPOV is often an editor's all-purpose weapon of choice, it doesn't actually apply here because this is not a question of conflicting perspectives on a topic. It is a question of opinions preceding facts. I would refer you to facts precede opinions. Bensaccount (talk) 16:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. --Bardin (talk) 01:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

sympathetically

The neutral point of view is a point of view that is neutral, that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject: it endorses nor discourages viewpoints. Debates within topics are described, represented and characterized, writing sympathetically about each side; but they are not engaged in. (diff)

I would like to re-include the phrase: writing sympathetically about each side.

It is important that we realise that we should not give one side a hostile treatment, and one side a sympathetic one. If you all agree, will someone make that edit? (I am currently involved in an ArbCom case on neutrality, so I feel I should not edit policy myself)  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 10:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I think most people would find it sickening to read an article that shamelessly promotes every single opinion. It is best to just present the opinions neutrally and let the reader be the judge. Bensaccount (talk) 19:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The Wrong Version

Oi! Folks, you don't need to rv back and forth, that's taking one bridge too far. We can discuss like reasonable people, eh? --Kim Bruning (talk) 07:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I like Erachima's solution very much. Are there open issues that are not covered by this approach? --Kim Bruning (talk) 08:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

In a move that will doubtless earn me gifts of pavement from both sides, I've attempted to rewrite the sentences being argued over.[2]

• I have left in the "must"s, as NPOV in articles is considered cardinal, so "should" doesn't quite cut it. (If we wish to explicitly recognize that Wikipedia's eventualist nature makes it so that even a "must" doesn't mean "must AT THIS VERY INSTANT", I would suggest putting eventually in front of one of the lead's musts.)
• I have taken out the "non-negotiable"s, as they were at best redundant and at worst misleading. To explain: the principle of NPOV is non-negotiable, but its application to any individual article has to be hammered out, often through considerable discussion. So, if the reader correctly assumes the non-negotiability applies to the principle, then the words did nothing more than repeat yet again that all articles must use NPOV. If the reader incorrectly assumes, they are likely to be left confused. Or worse still, they may interpret the statement maliciously as a tool in content disputes or to suppress discussion. All in all, it was a whole lot of trouble for words with no unique contribution to the policy.
• Finally, I replaced the statement that NPOV "is non-negotiable and expected on all articles, and of all article editors." with the statement "All Wikipedia editors must strive to uphold this principle.", since the first half about articles was a direct repetition of the previous line of the intro, and I believe the new wording is an equally strong statement of the same idea, but worded positively rather than harshly.

I think I also might have made a grammar change or two. Anyway, I'm going to bed now. Hopefully this'll stop the issue before 3RR blocks and page protection start rolling in. --erachima formerly tjstrf 08:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Resolution

Martinphi has attempted to make his point. It was rejected for numerous reasons. Looks like we're done here. Move on. Consensus to keep the NPOV guideline as is stands. Martinphi should move on before he is reported for being tendentiously disruptive to the project as a whole. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Far from resolved- even if this is as far as we can go, there has not been a resolution- as you showed by your anti-NPOV post above. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Controversy and NOR

This policy is perhaps OK if there is no controversy on the subject. As soon as there is controversy this policy completely breaks down. Any argument advancing a point of view must be original research whether it is verifiable or not. This causes all controversial articles to be slanted in the direction of which side can control the editing of the article.01001 (talk) 00:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Um... if it's verifiable in reliable sources, then it isn't original research, by definition. "Original research" means conclusions that haven't previously been published, before showing up on Wikipedia. If something has been published, then it's not original research, even if someone disagrees with it. Am I missing something here? -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The logic of the argument that the article presents must be OR. It becomes original research once it is published in Wikipedia. To claim otherwise is to claim that one cannot do original research using published material.01001 (talk) 02:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, can you cite an example? I think that would make this a lot easier to talk about. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Any article on an historical subject is OR for example, but in actuality every article in Wikipedia is OR. I am not sure that there is a solution to this logical fallacy inherent to Wikipedia, but it certainly cannot be proper to ignore it.01001 (talk) 02:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

You have no clue what OR means, do you? The WP:NOR policy refers only to original research by Wikipedia editors, not the research done by someone somewhere else which has been published in verifiable sources. --erachima talk 07:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I think you're defining "original research" in a way quite different from the way we do here. We clearly don't ban articles on historical subjects. Repeating what sources have said does not count as original research. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Books in the library on historical subjects are original research since they distill the information found in various sources into one source. Wikipedia does exactly the same thing and by some logic it is not be original research. This is absurd.01001 (talk) 01:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Books are supposed to contain original research. Wikipedia isn't. --erachima talk 01:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Look again at the section of WP:NOR on synthesis. Darkspots (talk) 01:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

That section is a study in absurdity. In a controversial article every word and puncuation mark advances a position.01001 (talk) 01:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not certain that there is an answer to the logical absurdity in the policy, but I do think that the policy should address its intrinsic absurdity.01001 (talk) 03:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm with GTBacchus. Get concrete here. An example could help a lot. You're throwing assertions out to us but those assertions contradict the way that I've observed that Wikipedia works. Darkspots (talk) 03:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, just ignore him. He has serious issues with Wikipedia policies, especially WP:NOR. Look at previous, similar posts like this one, or this one to WT:NOR, or, well, pretty much anything else in his talk page contributions.

I do find his comments at Talk:Height and intelligence funny though, since he's apparently been whining for months about OR despite the page having more references than it does article text. --erachima talk 03:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I find this last comment mildly insulting at best. The IP may be having trouble communicating what he's trying to say, but I think it very possible that he's raising a legitimate issue, although perhaps not using the Wikipedia jargon in such a way as to be understood here. I did look at the talk page referenced above; did you actually read the article? I find it rather distressing that the fact that there are more references than article text seems to be offered as proof that since everything in the article is properly sourced, any problem he might have with the article can legitimately be dismissed as "whining." In fact, he is only one of a number of people raising legitimate questions on the talk page about the quality of the article. This article is one of a family of articles, including Race and intelligence, Brain size and intelligence, and Neuroscience and intelligence, for starters, that are written from a particular POV and do not reflect an accurate, unbiased assessment of their topic. The fact that the assertions in these articles are all carefully (and very selectively) sourced is not particularly relevant, since the articles as as they now stand are an embarrassment to Wikipedia, in my opinion. I think I understand what he's trying to say, but he's trying to put it in terms of OR and synthesis and being misunderstood, when the real problem with these articles is POV and undue weight. But I can see how someone might think that writing an article to reflect a particular point of view by cherrypicking fringe sources rather than giving a balanced view of the whole body of literature constitutes synthesis, because in a way it does. But the fact that he's using the wrong jargon to try to talk about the problem doesn't mean there's no problem. Woonpton (talk) 05:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

01001 isn't an IP, he's a user who's been here more than a year and a half and still doesn't have the slightest clue what policies mean despite repeated attempts on various people's parts to explain them to him. As for height and intelligence, I have indeed read the article, or at least the versions from last time 01001 brought it up (and the present one does not seem significantly changed). When he first brought it up, it was indeed much less sourced, thought not extraordinarily so, and editors went out of their way to track down additional references for his sake. When 01001 heard that people were getting sources, guess what he did? Thank them? No. He responded with accusations of sockpuppetry towards User:WilyD-- a respected user who had never edited the page before in his life, nor edits pages in the "X and intelligence" series, and showed up specifically to help remedy 01001's complaints about the state of the article. Throughout the entire discussion, 01001 also refused to look for sources for his view, instead insisting that his were "common sense", "obviously true", or making vaguely conspiratorial allusions to gangs of elitist tall people.

In conclusion, there are new editors and IPs, who may be ignorant of policy but it cannot be held against them, and generally will be fixed by a friendly nudge and explanation, and then there are people who either are incapable of or refuse to understand the policies. 01001 is in the latter category. --erachima talk 06:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I think 01001 might be trying to award WT:NOR with more meaning than it deserves. He doesn't realize WT:NOR is an exact duplicate of WP:V. Bensaccount (talk) 02:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Motion to have it retitled Wikipedia:You are not a verifiable source, then? --erachima talk 06:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer if there was only one page for that policy. Make a subsection for Wikipedia:You are not a verifiable source on verifiability if people can't figure that out themselves. Bensaccount (talk) 03:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

undue needs a good example of a minority view page

The example given is flat earth which reads like a history article rather than a minority view page. This section could use a few examples of excellent minority view pages. Also, if the minority view regards concept A, does the minority view inhabit A in the name space, or should the article on A represent the majority view and there be an additional article A (minority view) that restates the majority view (as is required)? Pdbailey (talk) 23:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if this would serve as a good example per se, but the Bates method is a minority view I am familiar with, which has generated considerable controversy on Wikipedia. I'm not quite sure whether it would be considered a "significant minority" or "tiny minority" viewpoint. PSWG1920 (talk) 01:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

It definitely is an article that could use the eyes of more editors. Dlabtot (talk) 02:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm working on Radiation hormesis and think there is too much of a minority POV for it to pass the undue standard on this page. Another editor suggested that perhaps the article is a minority point of view article and I do not know how to proceed (for now I'll go with it and agree that he may be right). But there is no great outline for what to do in this case (see my questions above). What could help me is this: is there an example of an excellent minority POV article--that is one that editors agree is good if representing a minority point of view? The one you linked to does not appear to be such an article (because it has "multiple problems" according to the top of the page). I would also point out that that page already never states Bates method as a fact, but always attributes the ideas to him. Should minority POV articles with multiple supporters use a name for them and attribute all statements to that name? Should this be another minority POV standard? Pdbailey (talk) 02:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The "multiple problems" are one person's opinion, and even the main skeptical editor has expressed disagreement with this evaluation. As for your final two questions, I don't think it's necessary in general to attribute all statements supporting a minority viewpoint to one individual; the Bates method article tends to do that because Bates was and remains the central figure in the movement. The main thing is to never state a minority viewpoint, or any potentially controversial claims made by its adherents, as fact, and to reference the majority viewpoint whenever relevant. I actually think the Bates method article now does this nicely, if you read it through. PSWG1920 (talk) 02:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

What you describe makes sense, and appears to be the de facto rule at Wikipedia. Can I include it in the main article in addition to the "Bates method" article as an example? Pdbailey (talk) 03:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by the "main article". What is it that you want to include, in what article? PSWG1920 (talk) 03:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I mean in the document for which this page is a discussion of. Pdbailey (talk) 03:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

You mean WP:NPOV? What is it that you want to include in it? PSWG1920 (talk) 04:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

proposed change

(backdent) I propose changing,

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 spelled out in great detail, it must make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view.

to

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 spelled out detail, must make reference to the majority viewpoint whenwhere relevant, and must identify minority view points as being those of the adherents to the minority view. An example of a minority view point page is Bates method.

Pdbailey (talk) 04:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• I would support such a change, though I don't know that Bates method is the exemplar right now because it appears to be in flux (and heavily tagged). Perhaps Time Cube is a more stable example (but the theory is so minority that this is probably not the best example, either). Antelan^talk 04:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

comment: I agree Bates method is not ideal, and would be happy replacing it with time cube. The problem is that there should be an article with a status similar to time cube, and an article with a status similar to Radiation hormesis (other than radiation hormesis) where there are many adherents, but there is also strong agreement not to use the idea. It is also possible that all these articles are in a constant state of flux. Pdbailey (talk) 04:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• I would support adding "where relevant", so that it reads "But on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it must make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint where relevant". Because there may be some points of a minority view which are not specifically addressed by the majority view but which are nonetheless suitable for the article. I'm not sure about the other changes you've suggested. And I would agree that the Bates method article probably is not an ideal example at this time, but maybe when the issues are resolved and the tags are removed it will be. PSWG1920 (talk) 05:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

This is certainly a tricky issue. The reason I think Flat Earth is a good example is that there aren't too many people on WP trying to push that POV. More "current" issues tend to have more partisan editors and less stability. Anyway, rather than linking to a page (that has probably already changed), a more effective example might be to copy portions of the page that show how the principle was applied. Of course, this may take up too much space. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 20:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, both good options; or we could link to a specific version that we agree adequately gets the point across. Antelan^talk 20:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

OF course we could. Good thinking. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 20:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

SheffieldSteel, I think that it is a bad example because it doesn't meet Jimbo's second requirement (a prominent supporter), which is really a much more interesting case. But then again, so do the above linked articles. Pdbailey (talk) 21:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

You're right that Flat Earth is a rather sterile issue. Anyway, in case I wasn't clear, I have changed my mind thanks to Antelan's post. I now think we should use a contemporary example, since we can link to a stable version of the text even if the article does not remain stable. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 22:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Y'all do realize, don't you, that this means that in the article on Creationism, you would have to refer to Evolution as a minority view. And same in Evolution itself. This is a change which would be beloved of fringe people, as they would really get to contextualize as minority a great deal of scientific and scholarly work. I think most Americans, at least, still think the sun goes around the earth. Even if it isn't a majority, you get my drift. Now, if you are going to say that "only experts count," you will have to deal with the fact that in some areas such as Parapsychology, you would have to refer to the idea that Psi (parapsychology) is a minority viewpoint. Or if you say "only experts count, but in some cases 'experts' means the entire scientific community as a whole'" the you would have to deal with the fact that most scientists believe in some form of ESP. So think of the consequences of this. I would create a good deal of fun, though.

According to believers, inheritance in organisms occurs through discrete traits – particular characteristics of an organism. In humans, for example, eye color is believed to be an inherited characteristic, which individuals are said to be able to inherit from one of their parents.[14] Believers say that inherited traits are controlled by genes and the complete set of genes within an organism's genome is known in this minority view as genotype. [3] ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Please explain why you think this to be true. I think you have misread the suggested changes, but I'm open to being enlightened. Antelan^talk 01:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

 status: I made the changes.

POV considerations before starting a new Article?

Please comment as to whether a future POV War can be limited by careful framing of a new article. Here's an example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nukeh/Sandbox/ObsceneProfits - Doug Youvan (talk) 14:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

internal conflict

This project page says, "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 spelled out detail, must make reference to the majority viewpoint where relevant, and must identify minority view points as being those of the adherents to the minority view. An example of a minority view point page is time cube or Bates method." And then also says, "A POV fork is an attempt to evade NPOV policy by creating a new article about a certain subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. This is generally considered unacceptable. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major Points of View on a certain subject are treated in one article." These appear to be in conflict with one another? Which is the real policy, and how can the text be changed to reflect this? Pdbailey (talk) 02:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that it comes down to the questions such as, whether the minority view is notable enough to merit an article of its own, whether the parent article is too long and should be converted to summary style, etc. But it comes down to, just like everything else, a matter of editorial judgement and consensus. See also WP:POVFORK which discusses these issues. Dlabtot (talk) 02:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Please consider taking the AGF Challenge

I would like to invite you to consider taking part in the AGF Challenge which has been proposed for use in the RfA process [4] by User: Kim Bruning. You can answer in multiple choice format, or using essay answers, or anonymously. You can of course skip any parts of the Challenge you find objectionable or inadvisable.--Filll (talk) 14:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Why?

There's no reason having this policy if we blatantly flout it on so many articles, and attempts to fix them are met with opposition to the contrary by several experienced Wikipedians, including admins. Sceptre ^(talk) 09:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Concrete examples? Thanks, Darkspots (talk) 12:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Paranormal ArbCom

The ArbComs on Pseudoscience and Paranormal were recently added to a sub-page of WP:FRINGE [5]. The one on Pseudoscience was already in the FAQ, and I added the newer Paranormal one. I made a change in the wording, because "mainstream" and "science" were being equated. That happened for historical reasons: the Pseudoscience locus was around pseudoscientific views in mainstream scientific articles [6], and the wording may have come from that. Or perhaps it was merely an error: but think how many people believe in Creationism, and you'll see my point about the word "mainstream." But the FAQ did not make the distinction between mainstream science articles and others, such as those on fringe topics. Here is the edit [7]. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 07:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you really quoting multiple findings verbatim from arbitration cases in the NPOV FAQ? Antelan^talk 07:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I followed the format already in place within that section of the FAQ. I think that is best, as POV might creep in to a summary. I won't be able to carry on this discussion tomorrow (or the rest of tonight), but one way or another, this information needs to be in there. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 07:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Problem: those are content findings from the Arbitration Committee, a body that almost universally eschews content decisions. I don't think that belongs in the NPOV FAQ. Better would be links to the arbitration cases. "POV might creep into a summary" - that's not the attitude we take on Wikipedia; we summarize all the time, and to good effect. Antelan^talk 07:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem, at least not of mine. The Arbitration committee is the last stop in dispute resolution, and if -if- they did rule on content, that is their prerogative. We follow it. But we could summarize. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I removed Martinphi's FAQ additions as instruction creep, needlessly extensive, and advancing his peculiar POV in an untoward way (see WP:POVPUSH). Martin should be more careful as he is under restriction from Arbcom against making such disruptive edits. ScienceApologist (talk) 08:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

That was not appropriate. Instruction creep does not apply to decisions of the ArbCom. I know you don't like that ArbCom, but you have to follow it anyway. Also, you can't censor it. Instead of accusing the arbitrators of "extensive POV pushing prose," you should, perhaps, give a summary of what they say. Seriously, POV pushing by inserting the words of the ArbCom? That's rather rich. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The generally self-accepted role of the ArbCom is to resolve disputes, not to create content policy. Feel free to ask Newyorkbrad or another arbitrator. Antelan^talk 02:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom does not make policy, rather, they apply it to behavioral disputes. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Right. And they did, and the Pseudoscience ArbCom is in the FAQ, and the Paranormal ArbCom needs to be in there as well. Either that, or we could link directly to the sub page of FRINGE where they are listed [8]. The Paranormal ArbCom is more complicated than the Pseudoscience one, so it may not be appropriate for this FAQ. Yet, it is necessary to take the two together, else one does not get the whole picture. Sources on "pseudoscience" cat for example (thus, jossi, I don't really think that your small extract was enough).

In addition, equating science and majority is just wrong, as I explained. That needs to change. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

So if there are no objections, I'll either put in the whole thing, or link to Fringe or delete the section. It can't stay as it is, and I'll go all the way on this one- mediation, whatever it takes. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 18:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

<undent> There are objections. Reading and interpreting arbcom cases is not a FAQ, and the current policy stays. In view of this wikilawyering Martinphi appears to be the last editor who should be trying to impose policy changes. .. dave souza, talk 19:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

There are definitely objections; I agree with Dave in total.Woonpton (talk) 19:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's great. I guess I had to edit the article to get attention. But including one ArbCom and not the other is not on, as Brits say. It's neither, or both. Both was reverted. Neither was reverted. One and part of the other was reverted. So, what do you suggest? No, it just can't stay like it is. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

What are you on about? Rather than worry about clairvoyance, worry about clarity in writing. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 19:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Fact vs contingent fact

For example, in Knotwork (talk)'s opinion, the following might well be more factual than the paragraph it might well be a more factual replacement for:

By value or opinion, on the other hand, we mean "a matter which is subject to dispute." There are many propositions that very clearly express values or opinions. That stealing is wrong is a value or opinion. That The Beatles were the greatest band in history is an opinion. That the United States is the only country in the world that has used a nuclear weapon for military purposes is a fact, contingent of course upon what exactly is meant by the term 'use' in the context. (Not all uses of weapons necessitate expending them, many significant military uses of weapons, such as their use in psychological warfare, cold wars, and such, permit using them whilst nonetheless also retaining them for continued or future use.) That the United States was right or wrong to drop the atomic bomb over Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a value or opinion. However, there are bound to be borderline cases where it is not clear if a particular dispute should be taken seriously and included. Knotwork (talk) 09:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Lies, Controversies, and NPOV

In another discussion related to appropriate reliable sources for use with "statements of beliefs" (see here[9] if interested) the following potential NPOV scenarios were raised. I would appreciate knowing the current consensus on how NPOV applies in such circumstances ?

The following text is extracted and edited from the aforementioned discussion.

Some examples of problems:

1. Organisations that are widely agreed to lie about some of their beliefs. For instance, for legal reasons, the Discovery Institute are known to claim their views and goals are not religious in "official" channels, but have been documented (partially in leaked secret documents) and otherwise shown in secondary sources as having a strong religious purpose.

1. Cases where an organisation or individual's belief attacks some other belief system are dangerous, as unmoderated versions of their comments might be misleading about the other belief system unless great care is taken. Using [quotes from primary sources] would make NPOV very difficult, particularly if we're required to give their official beliefs IN A QUOTE, including all the false attacks on another group.

I am not the expert on NPOV policy (thats why I am asking you folks) but I would expect that while such articles would be controversial, as long as WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:SYN were strictly enforced then including even offensive comments or blatant lies would still be encyclopedia appropriate as long as any verifiable available contrary facts were given equal weight in the article. How does this work here? -- Low Sea (talk) 08:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The example in Undue weight

For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept

This is true. However the shape of the Earth is discussed in summary style and the main article is Figure of the Earth which links Flat Earth Society in the see also section. Taemyr (talk) 12:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

How can NPOV be easily enforced on a contentious article?

How can NPOV be easily enforced on a contentious article? I'm talking about Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed in particular, but wondering what to do in general. I'm getting the feeling that one can't do more than their time and willingness to edit war will do, but maybe there's some system that works that I'm not aware of. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 10:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

NPOV and criticism

I am writing to challenge critism pages as I believe they should be avoided to keep NPOV. "Critical evalutation" would preferable or a more balanced approach as I believe wikipedia is becoming a a very negative place and like trivia I think they should be depreciated in returne for a more nuetral approach. for example

• Criticism of the Space Shuttle program

PheonixRMB (talk) 13:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Adhering to NPOV standards if very difficult if one is trying to challange conventional wisdom. For example I believe that the current analysis used to advocate for drastic CO2 reductions is fatally flawed. My attempts to post my explanation of these concerns on Wikipedia has been deleted because it didn't meet NPOV standards. How is one to present this argument in a "neutral" manner. I chose to relate my concerns to an old fable about "The King has no Clothes" becaus, I believe, it also represents a case where the few are trying to fool the many.CO2 doubter (talk) 00:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC) I guess fables aren't allowed either.CO2 doubter (talk) 00:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The fable you're looking for is The Emperor's New Clothes, which Wikipedia allows. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 10:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

You have Wikipedia confused for something it is not. Wikipedia is not a platform for you to "challenge conventional wisdom". It is not a venue for advocacy or agenda-driven editing of any sort. Other venues would be more appropriate for what you hope to accomplish. You may want to refer to What Wikipedia Is Not. MastCell ^Talk 04:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

SPOV

I have been informed many times that NPOV and WP:SPOV are the same things. There are many editors who wish to write articles which are under WP:FRINGE from an SPOV perspective (I could give plenty of quotes in case someone tries to deny it). Those editors are congregated here. I would like community input as to whether or not they (many of them) are correct that NPOV and SPOV are the same, and that SPOV is not a rejected principle from which to write Wikipedia articles.

To illustrate, in my opinion, editors wish to re-write this:

Please be clear on one thing: 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;

as

Reliable descriptions of material reality are only made through the expert consensus of the scientific community. While Wikipedia is charged with reporting on various alternative viewpoints, the fact that these alternative viewpoints are not reliable descriptions of material reality must be made clear for Wikipedia to be the best encyclopedia it can be.[10]

I could find many other statements from other edtors along the same lines, but this is clearest. For example [11][12].

Depending on the outcome of the debate, I would like to suggest that WP:NPOV be altered to specifically deal with this issue so editors may be told specifically whether NPOV and SPOV are the same, and in what ways they differ.

If SPOV does not equal NPOV, I would also like some guidance to be given as to how to discern when an article is being written from an SPOV viewpoint- that is, I want the community to develop a general understanding of propriety on this issue. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

This is little more than an antipathetic misrepresentation of the discussions of NPOV and SPOV. Antelan^talk 17:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Would you care to provide a more neutral summary of the two positions, for those unfamiliar with the issue's history? -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I really don't know how to do better than I've done. You've seen enough to do it yourself, though. Could you provide such a summary of the positions? OH!! You were talking to Antelan. I still think you could do a good job, if you think it's needed. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Martinphi, I didn't feel in a very good position to summarize the positions involved in this dispute, or I wouldn't have asked. I'm pretty new to it. Antelan is the one who described your summary as "antipathetic", and I was really hoping to find out what he meant by that. I guess I should have asked more concretely. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "SPOV". Perhaps you mean the POV of certain scientists. Bensaccount (talk) 23:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Usually WP:SPOV is used to mean "mainstream scientific POV." You can find good summaries of the positions here and here, and a general debate here. There are some disagreements, but the interviews are a good introduction. I'm happy to answer questions if there are more.

But this is a very long, large, and intense debate, even if most people don't know about it. It needs to be dealt with in policy, it needs to be debated by the larger community. Thanks (: ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

We do not have a policy on SPOV, although attempts to have it have been made in the past and failed. NPOV is not SPOV, as they are very different. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes jossi, but Lord Almighty, all my problems stem from having editors constantly pushing either SPOV or its debunking swamp-cousin. We need to put the difference, along with the reasons, right out where people can see, because people want to say that the notability and Weight are always relative to mainstream science rather than to the subject of the article. And of course, I'd be happy if SPOV became polity, it's the POV pushing under the current system I can't stand. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 07:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually we don't really have a good definition of NPOV, and cannot point to an example of it, except as it is observed to occur in the unconscious or the dead. To be alive and conscious, is to automatically have a POV. No writing could occur without a POV, since writing one thing and not some other thing, implies, and requires, a POV. The idea of a "neutral" POV, which means no particular POV in writing, is self-contradictory, since somebody is writing. Not only is it self-contradictory, but it's even meta-self-contradictory, since the very idea that there is such a thing, or can be such a thing, as "NPOV," in writing, is itself (of course) somebody's POV. In fact, existence of NPOV in writing is the official Wikipedia policy POV. With which you are supposed not to disagree, because holding otherwise, and attempting to work that way, is to have a non policy POV (see wrong POV). Thus, we endlessly natter about it, because it actually does not make sense. The only permitted POV is that we strive for NPOV, which is decreed to be possible. This would be funny if not so tragic in practice, as there's no zealot quite like one who is certain he's acting perfectly without bias. SBHarris 04:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

:) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Amen. A lot of times people say to me with a straight face "science has no POV." But they don't seem to mean science as an abstract. I get laughed at when I say others ouside the SPOV group tend to agree with me. This is a good intellectual starting point, and at least I hope that we can take some sort of policy stand against SPOV and debunking, and perhaps -my suggestion- making it more obvious that weight and notability are relative to the article's subject?

WEIGHT and Notability are relative to the subject of the article. Just as Creationism is a notable minority view in Evolution, Evolution is a notable minority view in Creationism. Notable minority views must be noted to the extent that their position is understandable, but need not be explicated at length.

That's what's being challenged by SPOV. With SPOV, you'd have mainstream science as the most notable and WEIGHTY view in every article which deals with material reality even to any extent at all.

However, there is significant support for SPOV, even among editors outside the group, and I think it would actually not be a bad thing to embrace that. It would help make WP a much more reliable source. People would know what they're getting. I'd actually love it. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 07:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

GTBacchus, you have asked me to provide a better summary of the NPOV/SPOV discussion. You asked, Would you care to provide a more neutral summary of the two positions, for those unfamiliar with the issue's history? At the moment, I think that my fellow editors would best be served by reading the extensive discussion. This is largely because there are not "two positions", as you suggest, but instead a multitude of positions, all of which are in healthy tension with one another. This is not a situation that is easily dichotomized. However, it is trivially easy to be more neutral than Martinphi has been. Instead of giving you a specific example that will only be useful in one discussion, I will give you a rule that you can use any time: when a participant in an argument tries to summarize the argument, the neutrality of the summary is inversely proportional to its length. Martinphi's summary is quite long, filled with many opinions that only represent one side of many in a complicated series of arguments. Antelan^talk 07:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Antelan, thanks for your reply. When you say, "my fellow editors would best be served by reading the extensive discussion, it's not really clear which discussion you mean. If you mean the one that's spread out over scores if not hundreds of articles, talk pages, guidelines, policies and archives, then I'm going to have to plead mortality. I can't do that, before I'm much older. If there's some specific extensive discussion to which you're referring, I'd like to know that.

I absolutely agree that there aren't "two positions" and that it's an issue that isn't easily "dichotomized". We can probably take that as an axiom. The question isn't "does NPOV=SPOV?"; the question is "What does a neutral point of view look like for a topic about which there is a scientific view, and an opposed view with some level of popular or mainstream support?" I don't know where that summary sits on your inverse-relation scale. Did I succeed in the "trivially easy", and say something more neutral than Martinphi did? I'm pretty new to this debate, which is probably an advantage and a disadvantage. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, GTB has read it all and so can correct me if I'm wrong, but I do think that with modifications of application and how extreme one should be (ScienceApologist is as extreme as you can get without invective, others are usually more moderate), it does boil down to "SPOV is mainstream scientific POV and has greatest WEIGHT in all articles or places which touch on material reality." Being neutral is why I provided quotes. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 08:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, Martinphi, until there are a lot of people on the "other side" saying, "yes, MartinPhi understands our position," I'm going to take your descriptions of their position with so much salt, that I won't be able to taste anything but salt. People who are involved in protracted disagreements are typically very bad at describing their opponents' views. That's why I'm trying to persuade someone who isn't you to summarize what they think. No offense; it's just that I think you've already been clear. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll let GTB speak for himself regarding the extent of his agreement with your opinions; after his comment, I'd like to see what he thinks. Clearly, when I say that your summary is a mischaracterization, I'm speaking of your editorializing and lopsided summary, not the direct quotes. Antelan^talk 08:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not so much about agreeing or disagreeing with his opinions, it's about which ones are his to describe and which ones aren't. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Although I disagree with Martinphi and his fellow paranormal proponents about many things, I have to agree that we are probably too vague in describing NPOV for FRINGE areas. Having read the text describing it, it appears somewhat contradictory and confusing and inconsistent to me. I only know what it "is" or purportedly is from having senior editors "teach me" or "train me" or even "spoon feed me" in the area. And that is what I take to be NPOV in these FRINGE areas now and what I try to abide by. But I did not come to this through just a simple reading of the policies.--Filll (talk) 11:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, because of the venue here, I'd like you -on this page at least- to stop insulting me by calling me a fringe advocate. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you should stop insulting your opponents by calling them "SPOV". ScienceApologist (talk) 13:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Guys, don't worry. Neutral editors will ignore as irrelevant all labels applied to people. We're here to talk about edits, not about each other. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't be silly- they call themselves SPOV or advocate it, often in those words or equivalent. You said it yourself, and I've got the quotes on hand. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

You guys are too much. Martinphi, if you're insulted because Filll has called you X, a very good reaction is to explain why you're not X, and then return to the substantive point as quickly as possible, before we start talking about each other, because that way lies madness. Oh, and if SA says that he finds it insulting to be called "SPOV", don't call him "SPOV". If you wish to provide quotes where he called himself that, don't gesture towards your ability to do so, just provide them, saying "that's not what you said here or here; I guess you changed your mind." If SA suggests that Filll finds it insulting to be called "SPOV", just ask Filll. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Olive

• NPOV and SPOV should not be considered equal to, or even aspects of, the same level of Wikipedia policy/guideline, if considered at all. At the risk of stating the repeated obvious, NPOV is the over-arching, mother-policy in Wikipedia that sets a tone for the encyclopedia as a whole, does not refer to editors of whom there are no, truly neutral ones, or to articles which are not meant to be created as neutral, but are expected to exhibi aspects of notability, and to allow the reader to read and make decisions for themselves.

• SPOV, if it existed would have to be considered a subset of the mother policy, not an equal policy, and notably does not contain anything in this acronym that implies neutrality, a concern since I assume its use is to increase neutrality and decrease POV. Science, and scientists, as human beings, are not neutral either, nor is science some kind of fixed and unchanging field.

• The sense I have on Wikipedia these days is that there is some immutable level of science that should referenced. By definition science is not a frozen field of study but is a constant search to define phenomena through repeated observation and experimentation, relationships between cause and effects, but in all, must be considered organic, moving, changing, growing. I suspect scientists who really thought science was truth, or was stable would not be actively publishing, and would be out of jobs.

• Given this, fringe theories, today, are the possible proven theories of tomorrow, and if notable should be included in the encyclopedia. Notable has multiple layers of meaning. In its widest sense, notable does not mean necessarily notable to science obviously, but notable to human knowledge. There is no reason to expect that theories or ideas that have not been through rigorous scientific scrutiny would be notable to science. However, they may be notable in terms of general human knowledge, and should be included, even if considered fringe to science. Wikipedia takes a wide view to what is considered human knowledge. I see no reason to have a subset of Wikipedia, SPOV, that deals with a narrow view of science, and that doesn’t take into account or that excludes the notable edges of the undiscovered, and not yet proven.

• On again, another level, in an article itself, notability must be evaluated as per the weight of the article itself, not as per the weight to science in general or to weight in the even more general and larger world of knowledge. Use of SPOV, as I understand it, would reference “weight” to the world of science, not to the article where our concerns must be, and not of world the notable human knowledge. And think. If we have to include SPOV as a subset of NPOV, maybe we also have to have APOV (art), LPOV (literature), MPOV (mathematics), and so on. A thought or two.(olive (talk) 03:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC))

Right- you've worked in at least one fringe article I know of. We're working on the phrasing to establish SPOV within policy below. How would you phrase policy to reject SPOV in such a way that it would actually help in writing fringe articles?

Just so people know, I'm almost neutral as to whether WP adopts SPOV. I would slightly prefer WP to adopt SPOV, but I don't think it is very likely. But I want policy to be very clear and strong on the point, one way or another. So you know where I stand on it. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I would not prefer it to be adopted, to the exclusion of other viewpoints, as that is affirming the mainstream view must be correct, period. No real scientist would believe even the best theory is absolute truth. Therefore, at least a peep about something else, if notable enough, should be heard. Especially considering the point of WP is not to promote a specific viewpoint, but to allow the reader to come to his/her own conclusions. Trying to force the reader into accepting the SPOV (or perhaps "MPOV" -- mainstream point of view -- is a better term) does not allow for that. The reader should be able to use his/her own rational faculty to decide what they wish to believe. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for the promotion of any viewpoint. That is the spirit of the NPOV policy. mike4ty4 (talk) 04:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but to make it clear, SPOV would not exclude other views entirly, merely give mainstream science the greatest weight. This is already what a lot of editors are trying to do in fringe areas. That's why I brought this here. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Truzzi

Any thoughts on how the following (especially the bolded part, which is my emphasis) might relate to OR and the incorporation and use of fringe claims here?:

• "In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new "fact." Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything. He just goes on using the established theories of "conventional science" as usual." - Marcello Truzzi [13]

I suspect that with a substitution of some words, we could get this turned into something useful for understanding the application of some policies here. -- Fyslee / talk 16:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd be a bit wary there, as Truzzi's theories on what makes a "true skeptic" aren't widely accepted. In fact, his group (zetetics) is becoming is a distinct minority compared to the mainstream skeptics. The consensus among most skeptics is that there indeed is a point where it's reasonable to say a claim is disproved. I could get into that a bit more, but I'm drifting off-topic. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Please don't focus on the pseudoskeptic/skeptic discussions of the quote, but the bolded part and imagine substituting. -- Fyslee / talk 18:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

However, disproof of a claim is not the same as lack of proof for that claim. Lack of proof is not disproof. That is what is being said here. (Nor, conversely, is lack of disproof proof.) So yes, there is such a point where a claim can be disproven, but lack of proof alone is not it. mike4ty4 (talk) 04:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's a try at substitution, making the principles apply broadly to Wikipedia's attitude toward OR/fringe POV:

• "Wikipedia must continue to build its descriptions of falsifiable reality (IOW, scientifically relevant matters) without incorporating poorly sourced OR/fringe/wishful thinking claims as new "facts". Editors are expected to just go on including the well-established and sourced theories of conventional science and mainstream medicine as usual."

Something like that. Try playing with it. -- Fyslee / talk 18:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

No need for this. We never claim facts anyway, we attribute. This would not be a change. For SPOV, you need a stronger statement, along the lines of Mainstream science is considered to have the greatest WEIGHT in articles related to material reality. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Attributing is claiming it to be a fact that someone said something, so yes-you do claim facts. Bensaccount (talk) 23:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

In that case rephrase:

"Wikipedia must continue to build its descriptions of scientifically relevant reality without incorporating poor or fringe sources. Editors are expected to use only well-established sources speaking about standard theories of conventional science and mainstream medicine." ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Pretty good. Of course NPOV still would require mention of notable fringe POV, but not in an advocacy tone, or as if they were equally valid POV. -- Fyslee / talk 02:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we would need to ammend WEIGHT as well, to state specifically that mainstream science always has the greatest WEIGHT in articles which touch on material reality, even in articles on fringe subjects. The way the current policy is phrased, I believe it is best interpreted as above, WEIGHT is relative to the subject of the article, and mainstream scientific POV needs to be noted just enough that the reader knows what it is, but does not have WEIGHT. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

That is a science-specific rewording of what WEIGHT already says. Weight is not relative to the subject of the article, as you say, but is instead "in proportion to the prominence of each (significant viewpoint published by a reliable source). Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all." Antelan^talk 03:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

For articles dealing with purported elements of physical reality-- or non-accepted aspects of real elements-- which are the object of attention primarily by proponents outside the conventional academic world, the SPOV has to be clearly stated, but there is no reason for ti to get the majority of the article. It is inappropriate--the article isn't about science; it is unnecessary--a simple statement of scientific views is enough to place it into proportion; and its often impossible because few with a SPV would have bothered much with the subject. The net effect would be to decrease the coverage of these subjects altogether. I think thats wrong--there are many sources for information on the net about good science, but finding a clear explanation of just what is meant by the usual pseudoscience is very difficult, and it needs attention here to provide reliable information about just what is being claimed. As I see it,"weight" is already unfair and not NPOV, because it prevents giving an adequate encyclopedic treatment of minority viewpoints. All we need is accurate articles about them.

I'm somewhat disappointed by many of my fellow scientists here. They seem to think that the way to combat error is to hide it, not expose it. You'd think they were afraid that a presentation of the nonsensical position of these things would be less convincing than the scientific. Don't they think they can prove that a fair presentation will prove the SPOV? DGG (talk) 04:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

DGG, you write above:

• "The net effect would be to decrease the coverage of these subjects altogether."

Well, that's the whole idea of WP:NOR!!! Wikipedia doesn't want OR while editing, and Wikipedia is not to be used as a publishing house for novel, real world OR. This is not a soapbox. Such ideas deserve little mention unless they have become very notable, which often means controversial. Then, because Wikipedia documents pretty much the sum total of human knowledge, it should be mentioned, but not advocated or treated as of equal worth as subjects that are well-proven. Short mention should be enough. Note that I'm still speaking of our subject matter - scientific and fringe matters - not other stuff. -- Fyslee / talk 04:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Fyslee, a small mention, if any, is correct in articles where the fringe idea is not the main topic. And not all notable topics have generated enough controversy to produce scientific sources. DGG doesn't mean we should do OR, he means that we should fully explicate the fringe topic with the sources avaliable, while telling the reader exactly where it stands relative to mainstream science. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 08:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

DGG - you always bring a thoughtfully inclusionist perspective, which I have long appreciated. I think that what you are saying largely works - but there are specific instances where I think there would still be trouble. For example, I'd be interested to get your thoughts regarding some fringe-science articles where no SPOV material has been published on the subject. What would be a fair presentation of SPOV for such a subject, keeping in mind WP:NOR? Antelan^talk 05:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

There is the option that one would trust the reader a little more. One would get less caught up in trying to make every sentence NPOV, and instead try and make the article as a whole NPOV. Let's take a primary example where there is little SPOV sourcing available: EVP. In that case, you would have to do two things: you would have to depend on the reader to look at the small amount of mainstream information which we could put together, which would not really make for a large amount of reading (in my own opinion, the reader is more likely to read small sections). Second, you would have to depend somewhat on sister articles which would be linked right from the lead, like spirit, paranormal, telekinesis etc. Unless the reader does not understand the basic terms (and also can't be bothered to read their definition), there is no chance of misleading the reader. One can fully explicate the beliefs by using sources from within the field, which, as User:Tom_Butler says are often self-published. And as DGG says, there is really no doubt that the reader will leave with a thorough knowledge of where the subject stands relative to mainstream science.

Where you would get into trouble with believers and also people like me is in the details: do you have to define the thing in a basically sneering way...... to paraphrase ScienceApologist, "EVP are static on the radio which some believers styling themselves "paranormal researchers" believe are the paranormal voices of spirits." Or do you depend on the reader's common sense "EVP are defined as paranormal voices or voice-like sounds which investigators believe are the voices of spirits." Or some such difference, I forget the exact wordings (but the SA one is pretty accurate).

Alternately, one can do SPOV, which would (as advocated by ScienceApologist and Fyslee and a few others on the wtbdwk? page) require that we allow just a little OR, in that standard textbooks which don't actually mention the subject of the article would be tapped to fill in the missing information.

Also, the fringe sources like the AA-EVP would (as SA is indeed advocating) be eliminated as unreliable and non-notable, even when fully attributed.

We could make good articles this way, because it would be fine if the reader knew that WP is a mainstream science source. It would be fine. In fact, is the easiest and most straight-forward way to go. Also, it is probably the way which will give the most reliable information to the reader, because mainstream science, taken as a whole, is the most reliable soure of information about material reality. The only thing that we don't want is the current situation where we haven't chosen which way to go. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 07:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

DGG wrote:

I'm somewhat disappointed by many of my fellow scientists here. They seem to think that the way to combat error is to hide it, not expose it. You'd think they were afraid that a presentation of the nonsensical position of these things would be less convincing than the scientific. Don't they think they can prove that a fair presentation will prove the SPOV?

I think one thing that you are missing, David, is that the point of our encyclopedia is not to "combat error" but rather to present reliable, verifiable information. Sure, if our intention was to write "debunkopedia" then we might want to do exactly as you outline. But our intention is to write an encyclopedia that, at least naively, is supposed to be something of a comprendium of human knowledge. Be that as it may, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. That is, most oddball ideas that come down the pipe are considered unworthy for inclusion in our encyclopedia. I see you voting delete on many of these subjects at the article level when they come up. It is up to the collective consensus of editors to decide how to handle them when they come up in articles that definitely should exist (e.g. ghost).

You seem to be convinced that what I and my allies are doing is "hiding" errors. This isn't quite true. Errors that are notable should be explored completely. But part of what establishes the notability of an error is whether it has received notice outside of the small cohort of individuals who advocate the error. You may think that the axis of the Earth has shifted, but unless someone else notices your "error", it does not belong in this encyclopedia. This is why it is so important to remember that it is the experts in the scientific community who determine what is notable about material reality. If an idea about material reality is noteworthy, then there will be verifiable and reliable independent sources that either point out its veracity or falsehood. However, if there is no notice of the idea outside the small group of advocates, then we exclude this idea from the encyclopedia. That's why we have an article on time cube but not on divulgence.net: we're ultimately publicity whores at Wikipedia in that publicity is ultimately what establishes whether we discuss erroneous ideas and consider them worthy of inclusion in our encyclopedia's articles or not.

The concern of certain Paranormal Wikiproject members has been that we might start excising mythology and even religion from articles or including silly statements like "it is physically impossible for water to turn into wine" in every reporting of that particular story. I have to say that this is a ridiculous strawman argument. Religion has its place as religion and mythology has its place as mythology. What does get problematic is when editors use mythology or religious exceptionalism to make claims about material reality. For example, if an editor started an article on water into wine transformation and used the story from the gospels as material evidence for the veracity of this occurrence, this would be unencyclopedic. It is this kind of advocacy that is being resisted by myself and those who agree with me. A myth need not make any claims on material reality in point-of-fact, but as soon as it is identified as an accurate description of reality, it is necessary for us to evaluate whether the source is reliable enough to make such a claim and, if it isn't, whether reporting that claim should be done in light of the fact that the source isn't reliable. That's where mythology/religion crosses the boundary into fringe theories, and that's where science wakes up and takes notice. If the claim is notable, then there will surely be plenty of sources agreeing with it or disputing it. If there are no independent sources dealing with the claim, then it is questionable as to whether the claim should be in Wikipedia at all.

The issue is that many fringe claims about material reality are so obscure that no reliable sources about material reality (read scientific community) has taken note to discuss them. That's when deleting/excising becomes necessary in order to maintain the integrity of our encyclopedia. You can consider it an extention of no original research mixed with sourcing rules. The issue is that if all the sources possible about a subject are written by true believers, the idea does not meet the threshholds required for inclusion at Wikipedia. Independent notice of the idea is really all that is required. If none exists then removal of content is required. The burden of proof is on the person wanting to include the material, not on the person that wants to exclude it. If the person wanting to include this fringe claim can find an independent source that identifies the claim, then we can proceed in describing it. If not, then we have to consider it not encyclopedic. That's the trick: that's the thing that bugs the hell out of the Paranormalists, and it's the activity in which I engage for which I am most hated here.

ScienceApologist (talk) 09:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

"If an idea about material reality is noteworthy, then there will be verifiable and reliable independent sources that either point out its veracity or falsehood." Except that isn't true. There are some notable subjects with no RS critical sources, though I think you would have us accept avowedly biased sources like the Skeptic's Dictionary. Yet, you contradict yourself: "The issue is that many fringe claims about material reality are so obscure that no reliable sources about material reality (read scientific community) has taken note to discuss them." IOW, notable enough for WP, but with no scientific community sources.

However, we are well aware of the notability guidelines, which you are in large part just repeating here. You confuse me on this issue, because the real issue is that there are issues with mainstream notice, thus notability, but no scientific refutation.

But, it isn't really the important thing- notability is not the question, and notability has not really caused any problems in the past.

You have yourself advocated that:

I think that it is not unreasonable to take every claim about observable reality that is contrary to science (no matter how small) and point out, plainly, that it is contrary to science.... Plainly stating this and referencing a standard text[book -MP] on the subject… ScienceApologist (this was about a movie review article) [14]

and

Editors who think that SPOV is somehow contrary to NPOV and use the religious exceptionalism argument haven't really thought through what exactly SPOV is. ScienceApologist [15]

So people can be forgiven for thinking you mean this.

Anyway, I really see no problems with notability- if it hasn't gained mainstream notice, just exclude it. The problem arises with the perspective from which we make the articles, and when the subject has notability, but no really scientific sources. In other words, the issue is really SPOV. If you ever need help deleting a non-notable article, just let me know, you are not using all your allies in this. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Your rejection of perfectly legitimate sources like Robert Carroll is one of the things that makes you such a problematic editor, but that's irrelevant here: it's an issue for WP:RS. Carroll will continue to be used as an excellent source for framing notable nonsensical claim. He is someone we rely on heavily, is an excellent scholar, and has never been discredited by anyone except for those who have sympathy for the fringe. As a mainstream source, he's often as good as it gets. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Carroll

Overall, SA's post just above strikes me as worthy of a new section. SA said:

Your rejection of perfectly legitimate sources like Robert Carroll is one of the things that makes you such a problematic editor, but that's irrelevant here: it's an issue for WP:RS. Carroll will continue to be used as an excellent source for framing notable nonsensical claim. He is someone we rely on heavily, is an excellent scholar, and has never been discredited by anyone except for those who have sympathy for the fringe. As a mainstream source, he's often as good as it gets. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I never rejected Carroll as a source. I reject Carroll as a source for flat statements of fact. Perhaps you don't, but then you don't need sources for flat statements of fact [16].

Why mention irrelevant things?

Carroll will continue to be used as an excellent source for framing the skeptical opinion of notable nonsensical claims.

"He is someone we rely on heavily..." Who's this "we?"

Carroll is mainstream? No. Carroll is a hardened skeptic, and says himself that he is not mainstream. He also says he is biased, and doesn't even try to take a balanced view.

Carroll does not try for balance:

The reader is forewarned that The Skeptic’s Dictionary does not try to present a balanced account of occult subjects. [17]

Carroll is biased:

My beliefs are clearly that of a hardened skeptic. [18]

Carroll's online Skeptic's Dictionary (most often used here as a source) is a self-published personal website.

The main drawback is the one which comes from self-publishing. There is no peer or professional review process. [19]

This is just the kind of source that you would rain derision on if it wasn't in accordance with your POV. As Carroll says,

As already stated, the one group that this book is not designed for is that of the true believers. My studies have convinced me that arguments or data critical of their beliefs are always considered by the true believer to be insignificant, irrelevant, manipulative, deceptive, not authoritative, unscientific, unfair, biased, closed-minded, irrational, and/or diabolical. (It is perhaps worth noting that except for the term “diabolical,” these are the same terms some hardened skeptics use to describe the studies and evidence presented by true believers.) [20]

Indeed. Those are the words used for sources SA doesn't like. Heck, I saw the NIH and AMA described thus. SA's little post above is just the kind of thing I have to deal with all the time in fringe articles. It's why SPOV is dangerous to WP. Carroll is fine for a skeptical opinion. He is not very good as an RS:

"Organizations and individuals that are widely acknowledged as extremist, whether of a political, religious or anti-religious..." [21]

——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Carroll's website is the online version of a published book, and Carroll is an academic in any case which I believe can make a difference in the case of self-published websites. [by Dougweller]

I know. That's why he can be a worthwhile source at all. Otherwise, it's just like some blog. The site contains much more, and some portion different, than the book, it isn't just an online version. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

That's like claiming that 2+2=4 is the "skeptical opinion" while 2+2=5 is another opinion. There are people that have different opinions about material reality, but Carroll is someone whose opinion about material reality is actually verifiably the only one that deserves any WP:WEIGHT when dealing with the actual point-of-fact (non)existence of the craziness idiots believe in. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!! That is such a perfect statement. Please, everyone, note that there are a lot of editors who agree with ScienceApologist ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I've been puzzling over this last statement for days. I asked Martin a week ago in another place for a specific example of what he means by the distinction he's making between SPOV and NPOV, so I could understand it, as it seems a false dichotomy to me. He has ignored the question there, and I find the discussion here as incomprehensible as the discussion over there, as it's still unclear to me what he means in a practical sense, what an article would look like if edited by his version of NPOV and how that would differ from how it would look if edited by what he calls SPOV, and why policy should be changed to accommodate the difference. I don't know anything about Carroll, but yes, I'm proud to be counted among those who agree with ScienceApologist that 2+2=4 and that the encyclopedia should say so if the topic happens to come up. Surely Martin isn't meaning to suggest that 2+2=5 is an equally valid "POV" and should be included in the encyclopedia if sources can be found where this erroneous conclusion has been drawn? Woonpton (talk) 02:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

See, you're new to these, ah, discussions. And that's good, because it means you haven't gotten entrenched. If you read DGG above, well, he said it better than I would, and much more convincingly because of his history. (Search for the post starting "what else can you expert? last thing I heard, we were edited by humans, which".) The difference boils down to whether we are going to make derogatory statements, or statements which are not ATTributed, or whether we are going to try to juxtapose things in a way which shoves the reader's mind in the direction of science, or mainstream science. Specific examples.... OK, but forgive me for using another SA example. He just gives the best examples, that's all [22]. Note how derogatory the lead sounds "interpreted by some people who believe in the subject and call themselves paranormal researchers as voices speaking words. Some of these people attribute these noises to ghosts or spirits." ScienceApologist wanted to be very sure that the reader couldn't really believe these people were "researchers," [23] but rather that they called themselves that (see talk). That's SPOV. At other times, I believe SA or others actually put the criticism of EVP above the explanation of EVP so that you didn't know what it was that was being criticized. That's SPOV WEIGHT. In reality, it doesn't have anything to do with science, it has to do with what seems to be fear that the reader will go away with the wrong idea. That is the most basic statement I can think of. SPOV, as practiced, is not science. Rather, it is trying by any means- whether WEIGHT or order of words, or derogatory words, or re-writing WP:FRINGE or whatever, to denigrate fringe topics. Notice the current edition of FRINGE. It was recently edited by SPOV editors to include the ArbCom they agree with... and to leave out the ArbCom they don't agree with. SPOV, as practiced, is POV pushing for the POV of mainstream science, and doing it in the name of NPOV. And the stupidest thing is that it just makes the scientific side look prickish. But I digress. Read what DGG said, and then maybe hearing it from him you'll believe it.

As I say above, though, SPOV would be OK if WP were honest about pushing the POV of mainstream science. Then the reader would expect that, and it wouldn't be pushing, it would be like reading an editorial.

SPOV naturally refutes fringe ideas, by disagreement. Simply telling the reader, "here is what mainstream science says about this" isn't SPOV. Or rather, it is the good kind of SPOV which is also NPOV. But telling the reader in a pushy way, or larding articles with huge amounts of criticism, or refuting every sentence or two, or putting doubt words at every mention- that's the bad kind of SPOV. And don't think dumb people are that dumb. Even if they don't know it consciously, they will sense the fear which caused the article to turn that negative. They will know that those who edited feared the fringe idea. They will therefore feel deep down that the fringe idea is more powerful than they otherwise would. The best refutation is genuine and relaxed laughter or calm and succinct statements. The best confirmation of the power of a fringe idea is fear or vitriolic disgust, or underhanded casting of aspersions. And that's what SPOVers try to do. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

This last statement by Martinphi is a blatant personal attack on me. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Martin, a couple of observations:

• The way I read it, both you and DGG (and most reasonable people, I would think) object to a certain tone people sometimes take when insisting that an article follow policy. But DGG doesn't call that tone "SPOV" as you do, nor do I see him calling for a change in policy as a way of eliminating the tone. You here seem to be defining SPOV as discourtesy, in which case your call to adopt SPOV as official policy has to be considered disingenuous, at best.
• You didn't answer my question about 2+2=5, but the example you give seems exactly equivalent to 2+2=5, in that it describes a belief that doesn't follow well-established understanding or normal rational thought processes, and is easily refuted by simple critical thinking or observation. And it occurs to me that people who have been arguing for years against 2+2=5 and its corollaries might get a little short-tempered after a while, but the fact that people are sometimes rude when trying to ensure NPOV doesn't mean NPOV should be scrapped.

Thank you for your answer; I think I finally understand where you're coming from. I personally would not like to see WP:NPOV policy altered to better suit your purposes. Woonpton (talk) 16:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

SPOV/NPOV wording

Suggestions:

WP is SPOV

Suggestion 1:

Wikipedia must continue to build its descriptions of scientifically relevant reality without incorporating poor or fringe sources. Editors are expected to use only well-established sources speaking about standard theories of conventional science. In all articles which make claims about material reality, the group that has by far the most significant viewpoint and must be given the highest prominence in the article is the scientific community. last sentence paraphrased from here ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 08:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

A fundamental policy about neutrality shouldn't base its mission statement off an idea that has its own set of detractors, especially when it favors one side of a philosophical debate that is necessary to define the 'S' in the POV to begin with. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 11:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

SPOV may not be perfect, but it is the best general arbiter of truth we have. Anyway, WP needs to specifically embrace or reject this, in policy. Else we continue to have problems with it. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

NPOV may not be perfect, but it is the best model for an encyclopedia anyone can edit. WP doesn't need to embrace or reject SPOV. It's already embraced NPOV. Editors and all their baggage determine by consensus whether NPOV and SPOV are one and the same on a topical basis. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 03:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

PS. Unproven claims are not necessary unfalsifiable. Different things. mike4ty4 (talk) 04:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

WP is not SPOV

Suggestion 1:

WEIGHT and Notability are relative to the subject of the article. For example, just as Creationism is a notable minority view in Evolution, Evolution is a notable minority view in Creationism. Notable minority views must be mentioned to the extent that their position is understandable, but need not be explicated at length. Fringe sources, when properly attributed may be used in articles about fringe subjects. Mainstream science is a notable viewpoint when dealing with fringe views that make serious claims about material reality, and articles on fringe subjects must make appropriate reference to it. Also, fringe articles must not reflect an attempt to rewrite mainstream scientific content from the perspective of the fringe view. On the other hand, fringe topics are not written from the perspective of mainstream science, but should written with the tone that all positions presented are at least worthy of unbiased representation. (wording adapted from current NPOV article) ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 08:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

This says it is adapted from the NPOV policy but it's actually not. WP:NPOV doesn't talk about prominence relative to other subjects, nor context-gaming so that a topic becomes more prominent by selecting the right conditions. You can create the right context so that either Evolution or Creationism is more prominent than it is under other conditions, but NPOV doesn't do that. NPOV simply talks about prominence in general, as it should since it is a non-negotiable core policy not subject to editorial discretion. It's the WP:FRINGE guideline that inteprets NPOV and prominence as context-dependent, which is fine because it's a guideline. NPOV doesn't. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 11:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's what I said- what you're calling general prominence is the same as prominence relative to the subject of the article (general relative to the subject). The alternatives are absolute prominence, in which case Atheism needs to be redone in relation to its absolute prominence- that is, mainly talked about from the Christian, then from the Hindu and Chinese perspectives, etc. The other alternative is "prominence relative to truth," that is the religious truth, the SPOV truth, etc. etc. General proinmence is the same as prominence relative to the article. We're saying the same thing. And it isn't fine for a guideline to subvert a policy, if that's what it does. If FRINGE really interprets prominence as dependent on social or truth context, it needs a rewrite.

I practice, prominence relative to the article works well, because the subjects don't interfere with each other too much, and the notable alternate views are merely noted. This is what is being subverted, and either WP needs to embrace the truth-context of SPOV, or it needs to specifically -and in policy- say that prominence is relative to the subject. We seem to agree on that, and that is what a lot of editors get wrong: they want to interpret prominence relative to the higher truth-value of science. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE doesn't need a rewrite and it doesn't contradict the NPOV policy. It's only a guideline, and the prominence-context it covers as a guideline mentions that prominence is relative to "[a topic's] particular field of study", not "social or truth context". There's nothing wrong with either the NPOV policy or the FRINGE guideline. If anywhere, a statement that SPOV is not NPOV necessarily belongs in either WP:SPOV or WP:FRINGE. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 03:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but as you see above, that isn't the change I'm actually suggesting. It makes the current policy clearer without changing it, and as a side effect deals with the problem. Everything but the last sentence would be good without our current situation. Just to make it clearer. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Dissent

Note: This is a dissent to the whole concept of putting in a clause covering SPOV vs. NPOV. This debate doesn't belong in a policy. At best it belongs in an essay or guideline.

Call me a purest or minimalist, but Wikipedia already has excellent policies regarding neutrality and already addresses all of the above, "fairly represent all significant viewpoints" in "proportion to prominence". It doesn't need a clause regarding the scientific point of view and non-scientific point of view. Sometimes science is more prominent and sometimes it isn't... it's a case by case basis. On each topic editors must decide for themselves what is more prominent, and no other criteria beyond prominence matters except fairness. This is a "non-negotiable" policy, and it's meant to be simple and basic. The rest is regulated to guidelines and essays designed to help editors along, but provide no hard rules. You have groups of what I guess could be called "wiki-political" editors looking for sweeping changes to be made to policy so they can edit the way they want to. That's fine as far as guidelines go, but I'd like to see the fundamental policy of NPOV protected from them. This proposal should be moved to the WP:FRINGE guideline and away from the WP:NPOV policy. The basic fundamental policy that runs Wikipedia should be abstract and non-specific (especially on this politically charged topic). Of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia it is the only one that describes a "tone of voice". With the multitude of tones one can choose from, and the multitude of topics Wikipedia covers, I'd argue that the whole topic of SPOV vs. non-SPOV is not prominent enough to be covered in a basic fundamental policy that is meant to cover everything under the sun. I'm sure everyone who disagrees with me will say something along the lines of it's a make or break the project issue, but it's seriously not. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 07:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but sometimes editors say that "proportion to prominence" means "in proportion to their reliability as descriptors of material reality." Rather than their notability per sources and relative to the subject of the article. We need to either embrace SPOV, or make that clear. You say "each topic." Well, people who believe in SPOV have been saying "in all topics which touch on material reality, science has WEIGHT." If it's simple and basic, it ain't simple enough. Yes, this is also my interpretation of current policy, but that is not what a lot of editors want to do. And, since there are good options either way, there is no reason not to make a good firm statement about the subject which one can point to when needed. And I don't see why we'd want to weaken it by making it a guideline instead of policy. We need clear policy dealing with science and fringe topics. SPOV is fine. And NPOV is fine, but needs to be clear and needs to be firm specific policy. No reason WP:NPOV can't have a little section on fringe and pseudoscientific subjects- that's all it would take. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 07:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

So? They interpret NPOV one way and you interpret it another. Happens all the time on hundreds of topics not related to SPOV/non-SPOV as well. That's not surprising considering number five in the WP:FIVE is "Wikipedia does not have firm rules". You're arguing for a firm rule, in fact a modification of the prime directive in order to cover one group of articles that are fringe and by definition of little importance. Wikipedia works off basic non-negotiable policies, of which there are few, and then "suggestions" in the form of guidelines that can be completely ignored depending on editorial discretion. That shouldn't change as it's a fundamental characteristic of Wikipedia, and certainly shouldn't change just to cover low-importance articles. If someone wants to interpret NPOV as SPOV on certain articles, well that's their right as an editor. Consensus decides what actually makes it into the article and what remains "sticky". Consensus varies depending on the topic. Sometimes SPOV is NPOV. Not always, and not never, but that's why Wikipedia does not have firm rules. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 10:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't agree in any way to include SPOV as a policy or guideline. NPOV is a statement on neutrality and is non-point of view driven, and as I said above is the mother principle on Wikipedia. SPOV is point of view driven and at best is a sub-topic. As Neal says consensus drives decisions, not the addition of a policy or guideline that allows for point of view driven decisions. What is considered fringe is a whole other topic but fringe material is not just on the fringes of science but on all information. There is a element of simplicuty in the policy of NPOV as it now exists . Certainly, it depends on the mature, intelligent environmets created but Wikipedia editors, hopefully we can all come up to the mark in that area. As well SPOV refers to science point of view as a whole not to articles on science.Within an article what is "weight" must reference the article itself, and not the whole of science. Collaboration does not work well with the systematic clamping down of rules for operation, but allows for trust in the editors, and in return requires a certain level of responsibility from the editors themselves.(olive (talk) 17:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC))

I agree with Neal on all counts. NPOV provides suitable guidance here; "prominence" is prominence, and its interpretation on specific articles is best hashed out on those articles' talk pages. Most editors are able to work with this level of abstraction; those who cannot often have a specific non-prominent viewpoint which they hope to advance. Changing this fundamental policy at the behest of a small group of editors (on whichever side) who seek to advance specific points of view would be a mistake. MastCell ^Talk 23:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

So basically what you're saying is that per basic policy, it would be OK to interpret prominence to mean that the Atheism article should be 95% from the perspective of religion, and the EVP article should be 95% from the perspective of EVP advocates. Or anything inbetween those extremes. It's totally up to the common sense of the editors. Well, people don't have that much common sense, and it would be easy to fix this little problem without doing any major tinkering with the current system. This isn't about NPOV per se, it's about Weight. To you both- this is the stupidest thing I've ever heard around here. You're saying that NPOV is a matter of opinion, and that everyone's opinion is valid, while at the same time we know that NPOV is not negotiable. That means that you can have editors who quite validly decide not to compromise. Then, at the same time, you say that NPOV is determined by consensus.

If you want to have a WP where the bias of editors is the way of the wiki, well then say that anyone's interpreatation is valid. But that is in fact not NPOV at all. That's APOV, Anarchy Point Of View. It will not produce NPOV. Such an interpretation is antethetical to NPOV, it tosses NPOV is completely out the window in favor of whatever any editor wants to make of it. It institutionalizes gang editing. In fact, it says that everything everyone has been doing, including me and the SPOV group, and the 9/11 people and EVERYONE is just A-OK.

New motto for WP: What I think is NPOV, and NPOV is not negotiable. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

You put a lot of words in my mouth that I never said, including "everyone's opinion is valid". There's a hierarchal structure that makes some opinions better than others. The hierarchy: WP Policy (WP:NPOV) and then -> WP Guidelines (WP:FRINGE for example). Policy is a hard rule. Guidelines (as every guideline says) are "a generally accepted standard that editors should follow, though it should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." Non-negotiable means no exception. Guidelines allow for exceptions. But by no means are all opinions equal. An opinion based on WP:FRINGE is more valued than one that's contradictory to it, because WP:FRINGE is a "generally accepted standard" built by consensus. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 03:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

what else can you expert? last thing I heard, we were edited by humans, which are known to have certain weaknesses -- as seen by the uninvolved --0when defending things they care about. The reason I stopped editing articles on evolution was the attitude of some other pro-evolution editors, who did not want the views of the other side presented as well as the could have been, and accused me of treason. But to my understanding, the best defense to to oppose the true case, as the other side would have stated it had they been able. And then there was the problem of some of these same uninformed defenders of SPOV, who did not understand the difference between strong and weak arguments from their side, and wanted to include everything. I suppose I could have formed an sockpuppet as a creationist--if anyone is wondering, I didn't. The problem with NPOV is "merely" that of good editing. There's nothing special about it.

I continue to hold that. To summarize, this is a recurrent and difficult question. Basically, there is almost always some SPOV material available. It's OK if it takes 5 paragraphs to present an absurd idea so it makes as much sense as it's going to make, with one paragraph at the end to give the information that shows to any reasonable person that it's nonsense (along with having this also in the lede paragraph) Balance doesnt have to be measured in words. It doesn't after all take much science to clarify most of this stuff. If the SPOV is the valid one and well presented, anyone not committed to the idea will understand after even a short presentation. In fact, strategically it's even better.

So the problem shows up mainly where there's no science at all Most of the time, either t here is not enough pseudoscience to make it notable as such, in which case we don't need an article on it at all, or it is so ridiculous that just explaining it makes it clear what the status is. Nobody thinks we endorse the ideas in our articles. Neutral editing is a technical task, and some people involved in a subject simply are unable to do it. I consider the call for a principle of SPOV as admission of their inability to handle the subject adequately in a truly objective spirit. If you want to encourage the forces of unreason, an admission that we don't have people here who are prepared to handle the medium effectively will do it nicely. More benignly, it's the frustration of reasonable people who are not used to opposition from the unreasonable and ignorant. To work here one must get used to that. This is WP, and those who want to write a textbook of science should do so--elsewhere.

Personally, I simply do not se the problem in the first place. I think we do have enough people. All the major absurdities are being dealt with. We just need to search out the articles that have been hiding from the light in obscure corners. DGG (talk) 01:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, you know I agree with you completely on these issues. And that's a really interesting story! The only thing I'm trying for here is a way to say "look, that really isn't what WP means by its policy." I'm looking for something to point to, anything that will work, whether SPOV or clearer NPOV. I don't want a policy change, but I do think that if people helped we could come up with something which would not change current understanding, practice, and policy, but which would help prevent POV pushing both in fringe and general articles. I think the general policy can afford to deal with the issue, and doesn't need to change.

I think the formulation "WEIGHT is relative to the subject of the article and minority views need to be clearly stated but need now be dwelt on" or something similar, would help a lot. I don't think that is a change from current understanding, general practice, current policy, or common sense. As I said, I'm also fine with SPOV, but I'm not fine with constantly being told I mis-interpret policy and having people be unwilling to help make policy so clear that even a dunce like me can understand it. No, I don't want to take away the flexibility. Maybe people could just help with the wording?

But I disagree that we have enough people who want to edit along the lines you describe. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Interpreting policy is done through guidelines. I would start there (with a new or existing one). Guidelines represent a consensus on how to interpret policy without being stuck with a "rule" everyone has to follow no matter what, which is what it sounds like you're asking for. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 04:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's why not: change to SPOV is not something you do from the fringes, but it is a modification of a core policy. But my clarification of the NPOV policy is so gentle that it is not even a change, yet deals with the problem by making things clear. We are not looking to change NPOV at all in the "WP is not SPOV" version above. We are only looking to change WP in the SPOV version, which can't be done from the edges except by subversion as it is now being done.

Making NPOV clear is what this is about:

WEIGHT and Notability are relative to the subject of the article. For example, just as Creationism is a notable minority view in Evolution, Evolution is a notable minority view in Creationism. Notable minority views must be mentioned to the extent that their position is understandable, but need not be explicated at length. Fringe sources, when properly attributed may be used in articles about fringe subjects. Mainstream science is a notable viewpoint when dealing with fringe views that make serious claims about material reality, and articles on fringe subjects must make appropriate reference to it. Also, fringe articles must not reflect an attempt to rewrite mainstream scientific content from the perspective of the fringe view.

It doesn't say anything new, just makes current policy and general practice clear. And it takes care of the problem. Look at the current WEIGHT wording, and you'll see it isn't really a change. But it would help things. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure it's a change. All the examples of what your addition will effect are not uncontroversial interpretations of policy. You say it doesn't say anything new but it actually does. For example, "WEIGHT and Notability are relative to the subject of the article". That's one interpretation, sure, but not one that's written anywhere. It's not in NPOV, and not even in FRINGE. FRINGE sets it as relative to "the field of study", not the subject of the article, and that's just what editors have come up with over time as a good idea or general rule, not a hard rule that editors must follow. If one convincingly argued that the "field of study" for both Creationism and Evolution was a simple "Origins" field, then Evolution would have the greatest prominence in both articles because both scientific academics and religious academics generally agree that Evolution is accurate. Religious academics see Creation as part of the mythology of Christianity rather than how it actually happened. Only by switching the field of study to general religious adherents (not academics) do we get a group of people who take the Bible as a literal account. Throwing all of this into the core policy is making editorial rulings on something that should be discussed, debated, and developed into a consensus on how those topics should be covered.

Also, your mention of fringe sources belongs in WP:RS and WP:FRINGE (if anywhere), not WP:NPOV as it little to with neutrality. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 14:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to amplify on what Neal said, one problem with the proposed change is that it's highly prescriptive. Policy works best when it describes what works and when it grows out of common practice. The proposed text, on the other hand, seems intended to influence or coerce people to stop doing X and start doing Y. Also, the first sentence is actually a major change in policy: "WEIGHT and Notability are relative to the subject of the article" is absolutely different from the current text, which specifies representation among experts on a subject as the basis for determining due weight. WP:FRINGE specifies the "field of study" as the context for notability; again, your proposed text would override this. I don't think this kind of major change should be considered without much wider input. And what is a "serious claim about material reality"? Does the paranormal deal with "material reality"? I think this is a layer of obscurity we can do without. MastCell ^Talk 16:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

---

As to whether I can summarize the situation neutrally, the answer is that you won't find anyone who stuck with it very long without being invested. That's why I gave quotes. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

As I said, the quotes are fine, but the summary does the topic an injustice. Antelan^talk 02:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

And you refused to give one yourself, and told people to read the equivalent of a book or two. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

SPOV- response to all reactions

This is to everyone here, Wikipedia in general. We have a situation in fringe areas in which editors are (in their own words) promoting SPOV. There are other editors promoting other things. There are next to no editors who are not promoting anything. The policies are vague enough that each side can, without getting absolutely and completely caught, act as if their interpretation is obvious and correct. You have an ArbCom decision which fixed most of this being ignored and reviled [24].

I'm tired of fighting the good fight. I have tried my best to promote exactly the style and content recommended by DGG above. His an my position are exactly the same in terms of content. For this, I have gotten a reputation as a fringe POV pusher.

I mostly stopped editing, but tried for a while to influence things in a way which would try to resolve this situation. I mean what I say above: it doesn't matter what angle WP chooses. But pretending to be NPOV while actually being SPOV (which is what we're heading toward) or any other POV is a betrayal of the reader.

I hear from DGG, an SPOV advocate in his personal outlook (I mean that I believe his basic outlook is more or less that of conventional science): "what else can you expert? last thing I heard, we were edited by humans, which are known to have certain weaknesses -- as seen by the uninvolved --0when defending things they care about. The reason I stopped editing articles on evolution was the attitude of some other pro-evolution editors, who did not want the views of the other side presented as well as the could have been, and accused me of treason." His experience on Evolution is reflected in every fringe/paranormal article.

That is the situation. I have presented my best suggestion for improving the situation above. The only other possibility I know of would be if the community started acting like it really means the NPOV thing.

I don't hear much in the way of suggestions for fixing the problem. Almost the only creative suggestions I have heard are SPOV promoters trying to solidify their position [25].

The closest thing to a creative suggestion here was "You have groups of what I guess could be called "wiki-political" editors looking for sweeping changes to be made to policy so they can edit the way they want to. That's fine as far as guidelines go, but I'd like to see the fundamental policy of NPOV protected from them. This proposal should be moved to the WP:FRINGE guideline and away from the WP:NPOV policy." By Nealparr.

If anyone would like to help in some way, perhaps by formulating in FRINGE some change or other which might actually stick and help, let me know. I generally sense no interest. Otherwise, my work in WP is done. I might drop back once in a while to see the changes. Good luck being taken seriously while making unsourced or anti-sourced unscientific statements like this and this- the last being against the cited source. I could give many other examples, but they mainly involve bias created through WEIGHT or tone. Good luck making an NPOV, reliable encyclopedia when sources such as the NIH, the AMA and mainstream chemistry journals are rejected as basic sources for Homeopathy because they aren't SPOV enough.

The funny thing is, I am usually able to prevail where I try hard, because when my arguments are heard the NPOV editors from outside agree with me. But my efforts are overridden in the general fringe scheme, because I am alone there. Those who believe as I do, for instance such skeptics as Northmeister and DGG, and editors like Nealparr and jossi, and a few others, edit fringe articles very little or not at all. NPOV skeptical editors are traitors to the cause.

So- any suggestions? Anyone want to do anything? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

An official SPOV on all articles will never be adopted because Wikipedia covers more articles not related to science than they have articles related to science. It will always be NPOV on all articles, by necessity. Wikipedia couldn't even adopt an Academic Point of View (APOV) on subjects not necessarily related to hard-science (like Psychology) because Wikipedia covers Pop Culture too. Perhaps a guideline related to SPOV will be adopted for science-related articles under the argument that in those cases SPOV is NPOV, but that's unlikely since in those cases it would still be NPOV, so SPOV would be redundant (though as a guideline it could still be useful). Strictly speaking, in those cases SPOV is really neutral, if actually SPOV. By "actually" SPOV I mean that SPOV describes the world in flat terms, matter-of-factly, not the derogatory snide commentary that sometimes appears in WP articles. That tone isn't really SPOV, but designed to mock the subject (MPOV). Some of the folks who feel they are editing from a scientific point of view really aren't, they're just mocking the subject. In those cases, NPOV could be applied per usual. Basically my "useful suggestion" is to identify MPOV when it occurs and apply NPOV as always. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 15:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

LOL. Yes, it is unlikely that SPOV can get through. However, I truly believe that it would not be a bad thing. What I'm asking the community here is, There is a terrible situation in FRINGE articles. You get POV pushing from believers, but you get even more from the SPOV side- as shown by the fact that in general SPOV is winning. So let's do something about it. I don't know what to do. I need help from the community. I think that the community would be rather horrified if they really knew what was going on, and studied some of the examples of MPOV you mention. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that the fault here is not in the policies, but in ourselves (to paraphrase the words of Francis Bacon). Changing policy to be more prescriptive won't fix the problem, and it will have significant unintended consequences for the rest of the encyclopedia. I think Neal is right; the best we can do is to draw a distinction between a tone which asserts a mainstream view with appropriate prominence from a tone which mocks minority views. This is already codified in policy. If the problem is that we're not living up to the existing policy, then amending the policy further won't address that problem. MastCell ^Talk 16:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Um, one moment- isn't that the problem? Isn't that a statement of SPOV? Tell me where it says that WP adopts a tone which "asserts a mainstream view." ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Nicely quoted. I said "a tone which asserts a mainstream view with appropriate prominence." Which is the basis of WP:WEIGHT. It makes more sense if you don't try to contextomize it. MastCell ^Talk 16:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to an SPOV statement on Wikipedia, at least not in theory. Nor am I clamoring for one. However, I am opposed to this statement of SPOV. My reasons for opposing this particular approach have already been said by Nealparr and MastCell, particularly: (1) WP covers nonscience subjects; and (2) we aren't fully applying current policy, so we don't know if an SPOV statement would be helpful or necessary. If we successfully and consistently apply NPOV but still see areas that are problematic, then we will have a much better idea of what kind of SPOV policy, if any, would be helpful. Antelan^talk 20:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes.... It wouldn't have to be for all articles. As Nealparr says, we could move this to FRINGE. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

My sense is that no one has stated a clear SPOV theory here but rather that there are multiple ideas as to what this SPOV could possibly mean. Although I do not support SPOV because it by definition cannot be neutral, I do support any editor who can solve the dilemas described here. How do we exploit the full potential of NPOV? Does civility refer to something as isolated as swearing at another editor or does it also refer to POV pushing which is anti- collaborative, because it is thoughtless and selfish in regards to a larger project and the input of other editors? Does SPOV refer to the article itself, or top the whole of science, and of it does refer to science as a whole it is misplaced as a guage in an article. Does "fringe" refer to just science? Are there any times when an article can be notable, and yet be fringe in terms of its information, and in terms of references available. Does this kind of article have a place in Wikipedia and if so how is it referenced. How important is weight in terms of determining material in articles. I think Martin is making a relatively heroic effort to deal with these and such questions and if he can write some kind of policy or guideline that deals with this good for him . At the very least these questions have here, been explored and aired out. Not a bad thing.(olive (talk) 21:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC))

Thanks olive, you're right, me a hero, see me shine. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

You have proposed many thoughtful questions, but none of them are best answered by making a hodgepodge SPOV proposal. IMHO, we would do better to focus on some of your questions (especially how do we make full use of NPOV?) instead of this specific proposal. Antelan^talk 21:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

It's both SPOV and clearer NPOV- and hodgepodge is something other editors could help with (: ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, Thanks for the responses. Can people brainstorm a bit to see how the problem might be solved, one way or another? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Which of many "problems" are you asking about? Dozens have been listed here, by different people. Antelan^talk 02:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a battle between SPOV and various other POVs, which leaves NPOV out in the cold, not to mention NPOV editors, who are often hated by both sides. I've been branded a paranormalist, but also as part of the SPOV group by various editors. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as how this is the NPOV talkpage, I was hoping you could shed some light on what the problem is with the NPOV policy? Antelan^talk 03:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Where are you coming from here, Martinphi? One moment it sounds like you're arguing pro-SPOV the other pro-NPOV. Which is it? (I argue for pro-NPOV, by the way.) mike4ty4 (talk) 02:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

lol. Well it's good to see someone noticed that. Both positions could work for Wikipedia, IMHO. What doesn't work is pressing mainstream scientific POV as if it is NPOV, which as practiced sometimes means denigration. In other words, we are supposed to be writing NPOV, but articles are pressed to turn out SPOV. That betrays the reader, who has been told that we're NPOV. It also betrays the reader to have articles pro-fringe-theory. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

SPOV vs NPOV

I didn't read everything above but wanted to comment and get opinion. SPOV is NPOV when we are talking about such basic building blocks such as "1+1=2" and things that build on that. There is little disagreement on this and I doubt stating this in the NPOV summary would help much. Issues arise when trying to interpret science or apply it. Then SPOV is not NPOV. Example is Global warming, (very poor article in my opinion). For articles that have a raw science and technology to them, such as nuclear power it would be good to keep POV out of the article and just talk about raw science, hopefully undisputed science. POV issues either positive or negative should become mostly subarticles. What do you think? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 19:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds about right. On nuclear power, you could have a few different sections with just a paragraph about the various political debates, summaries of the articles on debates and protests, the articles on the accidents, etc. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 19:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I keep reading this stuff, and I've got to tell you that science has no POV. It's not a belief. Now, there is an anti-science POV, and that is not NPOV. NPOV can include science where it matters (for example, the history of Germany has no science involved, unless DNA testing shows that Adolf Hitler is alive in the Bronx. That might lead us to utilizing science to form the NPOV. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

If science has no point of view, then you wouldn't have dozens of philosophy of science articles. One point of view employed by some scientists is that the social sciences (which would include things like the history of Germany) doesn't involve science, and that only empirically based "hard sciences" have a claim to being science. That demarcation of science is in itself a point of view. The scientific method is a point of view which correctly says it's better than just making things up. There are multitudes of points of view in, related to, surrounding, and stemming from science, all about the driving belief that science is the most capable method we have of developing truth-claims. Yes, Virginia, there is a scientific point of view. In my opinion, thankfully. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 01:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Science most certainly has a POV (usually materialist and empirical). The assertion that science, as a whole pursuit and as a collection of individual disciplines, has no point of view is as much pseudo-philosophy as the study of productive cold fusion using kitchen sink battery cells is pseudo-science. Vassyana (talk) 01:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

You might as well say that science enjoys movies and long walks on the beach. Science is not a person, it is an abstract concept. It can not form opinions. Perhaps you are referring to the opinion of specific scientists. Bensaccount (talk) 01:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

There are many editors who agree with OrangeMarlin that conventional science is not a POV, and attempt to edit articles to that standard, no matter how far the article is from mainstream science (even religion). Which is why I have a bad rep, and why I call them SPOV editors. Not realizing that mainstream science is a POV, and not NPOV, is a fundamental mistake. However, on mainstream science articles, NPOV and SPOV are about the same thing. In a situation like Global warming, the contentions that it isn't real are just that. They should be covered, but should be a rather minor part of the article. Daniel.Cardenas has it right. On nuclear power, you would have cold fusion as notable. But, a very minor part of the article, linked to its sub article. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Bensaccount, concepts that are formative or defining units of a social grouping cannot be considered or discussed in any practical fashion apart from the social and philosophical forces that define the concept. The belief that empirical and rational study of observable and testable physical phenomena is the best way to approach the pursuit of truth is most certainly a point of view. It's a very logical and probable point of view, but it is still a point of view nonetheless. Vassyana (talk) 02:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

For the sake of argument, lets say science is a point of view. Who do you attribute it to? You can not attribute an opinion to another opinion. You have to attribute an opinion to a person. Bensaccount (talk) 02:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Whoever holds it. Like, the people whose article you're sourcing to. Or a statement by a scientific institution. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Therefore what you have is the POV of scientists. Call it that. It will save a lot of confusion. Bensaccount (talk) 02:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

History

POV is the bane of many a history-related article here, and not just because of contentions between Wikipedia's editors. The religious encyclopedias that have provided information for numerous articles are copious with POV backing the sponsoring religions (Catholic Encyclopedia, Jewish Encyclopedia, etc.). — Rickyrab | Talk 16:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It's even worse when people are allowed to copy the contents of something almost 100 years old, and that's about all the article has. Quite a few of the shorter religious articles are little more than copy and paste.--Doug Weller (talk) 05:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

{{sofixit}} :) Vassyana (talk) 15:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

POV forking between wikipedia

I have been developing Fiador (tack) to make it global. This has produced objections from other editors who seem to think the English wikipedia should address this topic only as it is known (and called "fiador") by English speakers. See Talk:Fiador (tack). In short, the other editors seem to be advocating a preference for POV bias along language lines. Has this issue emerged before, and if so where is it discussed and what was the outcome? --Una Smith (talk) 05:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I've commented there. Basically, if they're so different, my thought is: split the article into fiador (X) and fiador (Y), and make a fiador (disambiguation) that points to both. Antelan^talk 06:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Hm. That might work. Splitting and a disambiguation page is exactly what some editors want done with Hackamore, for exactly the same reasons. The downside would be a very fragmented view of the collective topic. These objects are related by descent, so it may become necessary to write an article about their collective cultural evolution. --Una Smith (talk) 06:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

ONE editor, Una. You (and possibly that friend you have who always agrees with you). Please cease misrepresenting the issues. Now, I do agree that an article on the collective contributions of Spanish culture to a variety of horse equipment would be an interesting new article. However, the problem is that there are longstanding terms of art used in the English language for a number of these things and the problem is that you are trying to ignore these conventions and invent something that is a wholly new synthesis of information that is a violation of WP:NOR and may be approaching WP:FRINGE.

There is more of this meta-discussion here. --Una Smith (talk) 06:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

This whole issue of terminology used for horse equipment, particularly the individual parts of headgear, is the subject of an ongoing series of edit disputes between Una and I that have now carried across several articles. So far I think we have avoided full-blown edit wars, but our disputes are definitely heated and contentious. Also we have a situation here on this page of Una "asking the other parent" after failing to achieve consensus for Una's viewpoint elsewhere. Una is the only editor actually seeking a disambiguation page at hackamore (I think she has a friend who always agrrees with everything she says weighing in on occasion), and it is my humble opinion that she is inserting a POV throughout these articles that is completely at odds with the mainstream understanding of the topics involved, which is why I have felt the need to dig in and stay with the issues, even though they are on pretty obscure topics. There has already been one mediation over one article, and this whole thing is rapidly approaching the ridiculous. Montanabw^(talk) 22:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thinking about multiple possibilities using averaging algorithms is a recipe for disaster

Two or more possibilities should not be averaged together, they should be thought of separately and distinctly. Including all points of view should be encouraged as long as editors follow the concept of neutral presentation. If someone is truly open to the possibilities their beliefs/opinions are wrong or incomplete then they will present their views neutrally. Convergence Dude (talk) 16:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Um, right, but what brought this on? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

China article

Hello, there is a naming dispute at the China article. User:SchmuckyTheCat altered one of the rules here in order to help out his viewpoint (at 3:43 May 12). Just wanted to bring that to everyone's attention. I wanted some discussion of whether such a change in policies should be implentmented. T-1000 (talk) 11:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

This user has a long-running grudge with SchmuckyTheCat (talk · contribs). Good luck getting a useful discussion out of this. --slashem (talk) 11:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Anyone can go to the China article and see for themselves. Editing Conflict is very common, it is not a grudge. Standard practice to have disscusions before altering the rules. T-1000 (talk) 11:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Standard practice is to discuss all controversial edits before making them. T-1000 only follows this practice when he wants to, see this very controversial edit which was made without discussion. --slashem (talk) 11:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I made a non-controversial change, except this user is purposefully mis-reading the policy and my change stops allowing his loophole. Here is the diff: [26].

The policy has three paragraphs on naming conflicts, and specifically defers summary style to WP:Naming conflict. The second paragraph summarizes policy on naming conflicts with descriptive names: the problems we have with article titles like Allegations of state terrorism by the United States which have resulted in deletion and move wars forEVAR. The third paragraph summarizes policy on proper nouns: titles like China and Bill Clinton.

Because there are contradictory ways of handling the two types of article titles, there are slightly different policies in play. T-1000 is misquoting the descriptive summary in an argument about proper nouns in order to create an NPOV conflict where there isn't one. All my change does is make it explicit that the second paragraph is talking about descriptive article titles, something that was already implicit by all the examples used. Since this paragraph is also a summary of part of naming conflict, the change is a more accurate summary and reconciliation between the two. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Well, what is implict is your opinion only.T-1000 (talk) 16:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

But I would still like to purpose the question to the administrators and Jimbo Wales: Are proper noun article names allowed for suggest a "for" or "against" with is issue? Is redirecting China to PRC a violation of the NPOV policy? Thank you. T-1000 (talk) 16:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome to ask other contributors to chime in. Note though that administrators are just contributors with more tools. Their opinion doesn't mean anything more than anyone elses. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

What if an allegedly NPOV prohibited word such as "propaganda" is accurate within a definition?

What if an NPOV prohibited word such as "propaganda" is accurate within a definition? For example, I tried to specifically note in the scientific racism article that that phrase is used as an accusation of alleged propaganda but someone reverted it claiming the word "propaganda" is NPOV, this seems wrong. I have appropriately caveatted the use of "propaganda" with "alleged" I believe. It seems odd that the claim of a neutrality violation can be used to prevent increased accuracy within an article. Definition wise within Wikipedia how should someone go about describing possible or an accusation of propaganda as possible propaganda? Convergence Dude (talk) 01:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think either of you should be acting based upon "accuracy" or "neutrality". NPOV is quite simply presenting a topic as it is generally presented in reliable sources. The introduction to the article should simply be a brief intro to the topic, generally summarizing the information in the body of the article. Unless most reliable sources make the observation you are inserting into the lede, it's inappropriate for the initial statements to introduce the topic in such a fashion. The best thing I can recommend is to discuss what the body of reputable references states about the topic on the article talk page. Vassyana (talk) 02:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

NPOV only deals with opinion. First figure out if the statement is a fact or an opinion. Bensaccount (talk) 03:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not a matter of whether it's fact or opinion, or at least should not be. It's a matter of how the collective body of reputable sources presents the issue. Vassyana (talk) 04:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Vassyana, if you keep telling people to avoid differentiating between fact and opinion and advising them not to act based on accuracy and neutrality I think it would be best if you stopped giving advice. Bensaccount (talk) 19:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll take that friendly advice with a grain of salt. We stick to the sources, not some editor's idea of accuracy or neutrality. Vassyana (talk) 15:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean to be unfriendly but you are placing too much value on attribution. Wikipedia is not a compendium of quotations. Facts are always more valuable than opinions. Only when it is absolutely impossible to make a factual statement should one attribute the statement as an opinion. Including masses of opinions does not improve the article. Aiming for accuracy and neutrality does. Bensaccount (talk) 17:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe it to be a fact that the phrase "scientific racism" is used as an accusation that a publication or something is allegedly racist propaganda. Though I agree the phrase has other contradictory definitions and I noted as such in my changes to scientific racism that were reverted, shouldn't we specifically note that the phrase "scientific racism" has contradictory uses and definitions? A wikipedia article should present all viewpoints, including the critical viewpoint, consensus does not mean average (especially when there are 2 contradictory definitions involved). Convergence Dude (talk) 05:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Is anyone going to respond directly to my question of whether "propaganda" might be ok when used caveatted inside a definition as in: "One among multiple definitions of the phrase scientific racism is describing alleged propaganda masquerading as scientific research"? Has anyone taken a look at scientific racism? Convergence Dude (talk) 20:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Take it to the articles talk-page. This page is for discussion of the NPOV policy not for your unique article-related concerns. Bensaccount (talk) 20:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

This is actually an opposite situation. Someone claimed, while reverting my changes, that it was NPOV policy that the word "propaganda" is always prohibited. I came here to clarify whether this alleged policy applies to definitions, I assume it does not. Convergence Dude (talk) 20:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

That's a silly argument. Presumably, given the context here, the word "propaganda" appears in a definition of "scientific racism" in a reliable source. Quote the definition and cite the source. --Una Smith (talk) 06:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

How is my argument "silly"? I am asking for clarification whether there is an alleged policy that the word "propaganda" is somehow always banned even if necessarily used to describe alleged or actual propaganda. Surely the wikipedia article for propaganda uses the word propaganda. Convergence Dude (talk) 12:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Ask the person who claims a policy exists to provide a link to the policy. --Una Smith (talk) 15:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I never claimed a policy existed. I have no interest whatsoever in the article. His edit just popped up at the top of the recent changes. All I did was ask him to take it to the talk page because he was told by another user that his edits were viewed as against the consensus established on the talk page. Frankly, after the editor accused me of having an agenda and sockpuppetry for repeatedly telling him to take it to the talk page, I couldn't care less. But I thought I'd throw out...I never claimed a policy existed. This is just a person making a big deal because they didn't want to discuss their edits with the people who edit an article. --Smashville^BONK! 05:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

It is a big deal when the claim of a rule violation fails the common sense test, of course the word propaganda is ok in the propaganda article and ok when cited or caveatted. I came to this discussion page precisely to discuss the issue so your other claim that I am uninterested in discussion is false. Convergence Dude (talk) 14:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Again. No one claimed a policy violation. Take it to the article talk page. You are making a huge issue out of the fact that I had to condense my edit summary because I ran out of room. First of all, you didn't edit the propaganda article, so that's a completely fallacious argument. I have referred you repeatedly to the two week discussion on that talk page specifically related to removing the word propaganda from the article and have told you repeatedly that if you wanted to add it back in, you need to go to the talk page and get consensus. --Smashville^BONK! 16:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

This from the history/change log of scientific racism is not condensing an edit summary: "Words such as 'propaganda' non-NPOV" it's flat out wrong. If person A claims person B is creating or perpetuating propaganda then a neutral encyclopedia has to use a word like "propaganda" that might in OTHER situations be inappropriate. It would be a violation of the principle of neutral presentation to omit the fact that some people believe historic and current examples of scientific racism to be nothing but propaganda masquerading as scientific research. Also, I have all too often seen the claim of consensus be used for the duplicitous purpose of excluding critical or non-mainstream viewpoints from an article. Convergence Dude (talk) 17:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, my entire edit summary was: "Undid revision 210697008 by Convergence Dude (talk) remove per talk page. Words such as "propaganda" non-NPOV". Take it to the talk page where they removed "propaganda" from the main article because several felt it was non-NPOV per this discussion where they agreed to remove it. So - for what I feel is the same thing I have repeated in every single response to you - you need to discuss this on the talk page before making sweeping changes that reflect the opposite of their consensus. And, I hate to tell you, but you're not in my brain. You don't know what I would have written if I didn't have to condense it. --Smashville^BONK! 17:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

A previous talk page alleged "consensus" is not an automatic justification for a revert, you have to actually indicate the specifics of why you think someone's changes are wrong. Wikipedia has warped the fundamental concept of consensus, consensus means everyone and does not mean average nor majority, if just one person disagrees you no longer have a consensus by its true definition. Convergence Dude (talk) 17:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia's definition of consensus is what matters, since this is Wikipedia. Anyway, you are now just arguing for the sake of arguing. --Smashville^BONK! 17:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

If something is wrong everyone should correct it. Convergence Dude (talk) 17:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

And if you feel that way, again, you should go to the talk page, instead of coming out with the "everyone is wrong but me" attitude and refusing to accept what the other editors have agreed upon as their content within 5 hours of registering a Wikipedia account. --Smashville^BONK! 17:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Your characterization of my position is inaccurate, I am trying to convince you that Wikipedia policy is wrong/incomplete. It's not that I refuse to accept previous agreements I choose to expand and improve upon them which might include pointing out when previous agreements were wrong/incomplete. Convergence Dude (talk) 20:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

If you disagree with a policy, take it to WP:Village Pump. It is not my place or anyone else's here to change policies. --Smashville^BONK! 21:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

A good first step in changing policy is trying to convince people a policy is wrong/incomplete at the places the policy is being used. Convergence Dude (talk) 00:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, go to the Village Pump. Individual users cannot change policies. --Smashville^BONK! 02:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Thats incorrect. Individual users can change policies, so be bold and make your changes and if they get reverted we will discuss them here. Bensaccount (talk) 02:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

A complete change to Wikipedia's definition of consensus would most certainly need to be discussed...and not on the NPOV talk page. We can edit and tweak policies. We can't completely change them. Especially one that is one of the core Wikipedia policies. What's more pertinent here is that this discussion should be over and never should have been here in the first place. --Smashville^BONK! 03:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect. Anyone can edit Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, Wikipedia:Be bold and Wikipedia:Silence and consensus. Bensaccount (talk) 04:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say they couldn't edit it. I said you can't change it. I can't go into WP:BLP and edit everything to be the opposite of what it says now and expect that to be the new policy. It will get reverted because it is a major change with no discussion. --Smashville^BONK! 13:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Calling something a "major change with no discussion" is not a valid reason for reversion. There actually has to be voiced disagreement to the change in question. Bensaccount (talk) 02:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I would say completely changing Wikipedia's definition of consensus without discussion would be a pretty clear revert. --Smashville^BONK! 17:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I, on the other hand, would say any edit, regardless of size should be evaluated based on its merit. Wikipedia works by encouraging everyone to make as much change as they can. Bensaccount (talk) 19:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)