Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Archive 32

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 25

←

Archive 30

Fairness of tone

I propose an adjuct to this section to deal with something I call "devilishly flawed":

Avoid devilishly flawed reasoning

A great example of devilishly flawed reasoning can be seen at Hangul, I am borrowing the meat of it here:

Pronunciation and translation:

[mo.tʰa.nɯn.sa.ɾa.mi]

a person who cannot do it

Phonemic transcription:

모타는사라미

/mo.tʰa.nɯn.sa.la.mi/

Morphophonemic transcription

못하는사람이

//mos.ha.nɯn.sa.lam.i//

Morpheme-by-morpheme gloss:

	못-하-는	사람-이
	mos-ha-neun	saram-i
	cannot-do-[modifier]	person-[subject]

Modern orthography

못 하는 사람이

The code looks like this:

<!-- vv These transcriptions are correct; please see the talk page. vv -->
*Pronunciation and translation:
:{{IPA|[mo.tʰa.nɯn.sa.ɾa.mi]}}
:''a person who cannot do it''
*Phonemic transcription:
:모타는사라미
:{{IPA|/mo.tʰa.nɯn.sa.la.mi/}}
*Morphophonemic transcription
:못하는사람이
:{{IPA|//mos.ha.nɯn.sa.lam.i//}}
*Morpheme-by-morpheme [[gloss]]:
{|
|     ||못-하-는||사람-이
|-
|  ||mos-ha-neun||saram-i
|-
|  ||cannot-do-[modifier]||person-[subject]
|}
*Modern orthography
:못 하는 사람이
<!-- ^^ These transcriptions are correct; please see the talk page. ^^ -->

So, you can see the author anticipates challenges to what is otherwise a rather straightforward looking example. What this does, in effect, is it injects a negative bias into the example that matches an instance where someone reading up on Hangul and wanting to learn or having difficulty, sees a defeatist message. This deflates morale, and cannot be tolerated in any neutral text.

— robbiemuﬃn ^{page talk} 15:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Have you actually checked they weren't challenged or modified inaccurately? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

What is "mainstream?"

There is a claim going on at WP:fringe which people might want to look in on. Essentially, as I explain in my last post there, people are using the REDFLAG section, and also the FAQ on Pseudoscience to say that when you are dealing with articles which are about exceptional claims, the mainstream scientific view is the viewpoint of Wikipedia, and always carries the greatest WEIGHT in articles. Where the scientific POV cannot be determined through non-partisan sources, it may be derived from logical inference from standard textbooks on the general subject of the article (this is usually thought to be Original Research).

I think this is a good enough view, and if taken literally it is what the FAQ at NPOV says [1]- and the FAQ holds the status of policy. However, if this is what is intended, then the rest of WP policy needs to make it clearer. There are a lot of people who think that the scientific POV is usually notable, but not necessarily dominant in terms of WEIGHT and the POV the article is written from. The FAQ seems to contradict this view, by equating "mainstream" with "mainstream science," saying Pseudoscience is a social phenomenon and therefore significant, but it should not obfuscate the description of the main views, and any mention should be proportionate and represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view. This means that non-scientific views are always held in WP to be the minority per WEIGHT. If it were clear that articles on fringe subjects are written from the POV of mainstream science, then things would be much easier. But the FAQ is probably the only place we say that.

See also discussion here and here and here. All are relevant places to discuss this, not sure what is usually done in such a case. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I happened to come across your discussion on Wikipedia_talk:Fringe_theories (don't ask me how ...) and found it interesting. You mentioned that the sentence

Pseudoscience is a social phenomenon and therefore significant, but it should not obfuscate the description of the main views, and any mention should be proportionate and represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories.

originally read

However, pseudoscience should not obfuscate the description of the main views, and any mention should be proportional to the rest of the article

i.e. that it covered the differing amounts of weight editors should give to various viewpoints within an article on something else. The present wording of the sentence still seems to suffer from having originally been created in that context. It needs a rewrite.

Regarding pseudoscience: It is often claimed that some pseudoscientific ideas are so outlandish that there is no academic literature bothering to refute it. It's a standard justification for seeking recourse to skeptics' sites who do bother refuting these claims. But the result is that articles sometimes spend more words on refuting the pseudoscientific claims made than on describing them, and that there are interminable POV wars between skeptics and believers. (I'm afraid these articles are often kind of boring too, in an "I've heard it all before" way.)

I think we might get some more interesting articles if we didn't actually meet pseuodscience on its own terms, as the skeptics do, but used such academic literature as is available. For example, here is a scholarly article by Andreas Grunschloss on Ancient astronaut theories: "Ancient Astronaut" Narrations: A Popular Discourse on Our Religious Past. While it is mentioned in the Literature section of our Ancient astronaut theories article, not a single statement in that article is cited to it. Instead, we cite skeptics, Däniken himself, etc.

I propose that we alert editors in the Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Pseudoscience section to the fact that there often is academic literature available, but that it must be sought in the realms of sociology, religion and psychology. That in itself speaks volumes for the relevance of these theories to hard science, so that maybe we don't even have to bother calling the skeptics in. Jayen 466 19:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

As phrased it was rather odd in that it gave priority to scholars of religion while excluding biologists, for example. To point the obvious, Cardinal Schönborn was clueless about creationism, while Ken Miller and PZ Myers are amongst the most knowledgeable. So I've tweaked it to "scholars working in the fields of history, sociology, religion or psychology, not just those of physics, medicine or biology". Also, what's wrong with chemists? . . . dave souza, talk 14:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your tweak. The previous wording was a reflection of how the question that the passage answers is formulated. The question implies that a pseudoscience may be so outlandish that no scientific publication has mentioned, refuted or commented upon its claims, which leaves Wikipedians with an apparent lack of scholarly sources for rebutting the claims. So the idea was not to exclude hard scientists, but to answer the question "What to do when physicists, biologists etc. don't even discuss the idea?" As with the Däniken paper above, it's in fact possible to find academic sources rebutting the pseudoscientists' claims to be "scientists", but they may have to be sought in other fields. Däniken, for example, is not usually discussed in journals of archaeology. But it's fine with your tweak. Chemistry could certainly be mentioned, but so could archaeology, meteorology and a host of other disciplines. The list should not be too long. Jayen 466 15:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if you guys read the section directly above this one [2], but your wording is problematic for several reasons which are already being discusssed above. Particularly, "By definition, pseudoscientific theories represent a minority view" is incorrect. The definition of "pseudoscience" doesn't have anything to do with majority and minority views. It is purely whether something is or isn't science, and if not science, whether it misrepresents itself as science. The statement is also incorrect depending on the context. Pseudoscientific theories are enormously popular in culture at large, for example, and Wikipedia covers cultural phenomena. The pseudoscientific belief in some form of paranormal phenomena, for example, is shared by 70% of the US population according to Gallup. So it's not a minority view, just a minority view in science. What you guys put in is an SPOV (scientific point of view), and Wikipedia doesn't just cover the scientific point of view. We've been working on a wording above that works, feel free to chime in. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

There was also a request to shop wording changes to this section at the Village Pump, so I was waiting for feedback to the changes I suggested before taking it to the Village Pump and later into the the FAQs.--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 21:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, wasn't aware of this. :-) I accept what you say about pseudoscience not necessarily being a minority view. What was and is important to me is that the section should point editors to the academic discourse within whose purview the theories in question are actually being discussed. For example, astrology was mentioned above. Astronomers stopped discussing this a long time ago, but for sociologists and psychologists it is an up-to-date area of study. The mainstream scientific view will come out naturally in the way that any influential (demonstrably well-cited) sociological or psychological study approaches the topic.

I don't like editors going to skeptic sites for pre-fab rebuttals, or adding OR sentences like "it contradicts the law of gravity"; that's lazy research and does not make for intelligent, interesting articles. Jayen 466 00:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Part of the problem with creative rebuttals of crackpot ideas is that it's like feeding the trolls: it encourages people to use Wikipedia to debate their wacky ideas. Being "no fun" for zany theories is actually something I would encourage. If they have a legitimate beef with the science, this isn't the place to put it. Somedumbyankee (talk) 05:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

You may have misunderstood me. I am not in favour at all of someone making up creative rebuttals based on the physics they learned in school etc. I'd rather have a pre-fab rebuttal from a skeptics' site. I think we can and should, as an encyclopedia, do better than the skeptics' sites. I am in favour of researching mainline academic treatments of pseudoscientific ideas. Really, the paper mentioned above ("Ancient Astronaut" Narrations: A Popular Discourse on Our Religious Past), about the ancient astronaut theories, is a beautiful case in point. I submit it is a far more interesting and insightful analysis than what could be found on a skeptics' site merely concerned with rebutting Paleo-SETI claims, yet it still states in a quite clear, matter-of-fact way, why Paleo-SETI isn't science. It's just that it's not falling over itself to do so and instead highlights the psychological and cultural factors involved in these beliefs. There's hundreds of papers like that on these topics. Jayen 466 13:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Many of the "skeptic" pages read like WP:SOAP anyway, so there are issues with automatically adopting their statements. I'd just hold that the base arguments of a "canned" rebuttal are fine for these articles. I agree that inclusion of cultural background and psychology ("meta-arguments" like the cite you mentioned) makes for a better article, but this shouldn't be "required" to demonstrate that the mainstream view is that the topic is pseudoscience.Somedumbyankee (talk) 15:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it shouldn't be required. But I believe we would ultimately profit from encouraging it. Jayen 466 22:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Undue Weight

The emphasis placed on majority views in this section is a problem. The majority view is that God created human beings, not that they evolved from other primates. Nonetheless, that view has no place in an article on the origin of homo sapiens. Life.temp (talk) 12:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

As the section makes clear in the opening statement, it is about the views found in the body of reliable sources. Whether or not people generally hold a certain opinion or whether polls indicate a certain proportion of opinion simply has no bearing on undue weight or NPOV as a whole. Vassyana (talk) 21:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I tried to make that point somewhere recently and my argument was dismissed out of hand, (I'll assume I didn't communicate it clearly enough to be understood) so it's reassuring to see that I'm not alone in my interpretation that NPOV (and its corollary, WEIGHT) depend on the prominence of a view as reflected in reliable sources, not on public opinion polls). Woonpton (talk) 22:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Creationism is found a large body of reliable sources, so that's beside the point. And, while the opening statment says one thing, the discussion refers merely to majority/minority views for the next four paragraphs. Life.temp (talk) 06:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget that NPOV shouldn't be taken out of context. It has to be interpreted in conjunction with the other pillars. I'm thinking particularly of verifiability in this case. While reliable sources might document creationist beliefs, they do not state them as fact. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. I looked at the Human article, and the only bits I found relating to this were in the Spirituality and religion section—which section is devoid of supporting cites and makes only a passing mention of creationism, with a wikilinked mention of "creation myths". The article contains some detail re evolution, etc., but no balancing creationist viewpoint. (if it matters,I am not myself disposed to creationist beliefs)-- Boracay Bill (talk) 14:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that we can, or should, "balance" statements such as DNA evidence indicates that modern humans originated in Africa about 200,000 years ago. We just don't have reliable sources stating viable alternatives to the consensus scientific view. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a scientific approach because of the focus on challenging verifiability, so a certain bias towards science is probably unavoidable. We may "assume good faith," but faith is not a "valid" argument because it is, by nature, not verifiable. "DNA evidence indicates" is probably about as good as it'll get. If you said "humans originated..." and just tagged it with a cite, that would be more heavy-handed POV.Somedumbyankee (talk) 03:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

For those not familiar with the guideline, WP:FRINGE explains how prominence and weight works with fringe science theories. Undue weight is contextual. While creationist views may be popular in culture at large, in science articles like human the context is scientific, with weight shifted in that direction because creationist beliefs are a minority view in science. Weight doesn't refer to balance. It's refers to weight. In science, evolution weighs more than creationism and the scale is appropriately leaning. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 05:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the reasoning, though I do agree with the result. It's not a matter of pop culture vs. science. It has nothing to do with any judgments on the validity of science or judgments about whether or not a topic is scientific. It's a matter of what reliable works state. Science has the clearly predominant view, such as in evolution, because the vast majority of reputable references supports and/or is written from the mainstream scientific point of view. Vassyana (talk) 20:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that's circular. If asked what makes the science-supporting references more reliable than the Creationist ones, you have to say "They are more reliable because they are science." Life.temp (talk) 20:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It's only a half-circle. The circle ends after context is determined. If the context is a science discussion, science-supporting references are more reliable than creationist ones. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 21:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not circular at all and "they are science" is not the rationale. It's simply reporting what the body of reliable sources states. Reliability is not determined by subject content, but rather by the reputation of the author and publisher. For example, reputable academic and major mass market publishers are considered to be some of the most reliable sources. This may introduce a systematic bias towards science, but it's not the purpose of Wikipedia to correct systematic bias in the publishing world. Vassyana (talk) 22:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

... what the body of reliable sources state [in propotion to its prominence], hence why it is inherently context-dependent. Weighting (it is a discussion of undue weight, after all) dictates that one must evaluate the prominence of the view, and that can only be done in context. The context of Pokemon isn't the same as the context of hydrogen. In science related discussions, "they are science" is a rationale for placing greater weight on the view of scientists. In religious discussions, not so much. Context. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 00:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

So to get back on topic, the human article is currently written as the description of a species, Homo sapiens. I agree that "reclaiming the article from pure science" is very appropriate. Mostly I'd recommend giving human evolution a separate page (the human article is morbidly obese anyway), toss a couple lines at "origins" regarding mainstream scientific views and toss a couple lines at major religious views, especially non-Western ones (with a link to Creation myth at the very least). I agree that the scientific view is given undue weight in an article that is not inherently scientific.Somedumbyankee (talk) 01:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

On a multi-view laden topic such as "human", I'd tend to agree. It has multiple discussions to cover, some science, some not. My comments about context and science is about when the discussion turns to science. Not that it's all science, just that in the context of science creationist views aren't appropriate. When the discussion moves from science to cultural views (again, all about context), then the notable view of creationism in turn comes to a heavier weight. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 02:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

It definitely deserves a mention and a link to its own article, but by NPOV we would have to give proportionate coverage to every other creation myth and that's just too much to add to an already overweight article. It's hard to neutrally argue that Judeochristian creationism is more notable than the Chinese creation story. Buddhism rejects the concept of even thinking about it, so that's easy to cover. Hindu beliefs, Classical (Greek-Roman) beliefs, et cetera. It's probably best to send the discussion to the Creation myth article or Creation (theology), articles that discuss religious views on creation in general rather than a specific religion. Christianity is one of the heavyweights in world religions, but it's far from alone.Somedumbyankee (talk) 03:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Right. Of course, that's what WP:SUMMARY is about. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 11:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

How could you show that the origin of humans is a scientific question rather than a relgious one? That seems to take your conclusion as your assumption, namely, that humans weren't created by a deity. Life.temp (talk) 07:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

No reason it can't be a scientific question and a religious question at the same time. The two aren't necessarily contradictory. From a scientific standpoint, there's a relatively strong consensus, with some fringe ideas like Aquatic ape floating in from time to time, so it's easy to report neutrally. Religious views are all over the map, though there are major groups that share common creation myths (Abrahamic religion is the group that most English speakers are familiar with).Somedumbyankee (talk) 09:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

^What he/she said, but I'd go one further and say there's every reason why it should be both, it is an encyclopedia after all. It's merely a question of what goes where, when one idea is appropriate and when it isn't, based on categorical differences. Wikipedia doesn't excluded notable information, just places it where it should be.

Btw, not my conclusion, science's conclusion. When the discussion is about science's conclusion, that's where it's appropriate to cover science's conclusion, prominently and to the exclusion of non-science conclusions, per WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE, and WP:PSCI. When the discussion is about something other than science, the article may virtually exclude science as well, because it's not a view relevant to the discussion. Eg. Creation myth, a list of various worldviews independent of science. There is one problem with that article, however, in the lead. The second paragraph is contrary to WP:LEAD, which calls for summarizing the article's content -- which isn't about creation myths vs. science -- and doesn't give science it's due voice in the matter, the discussion having inappropriately turned to being science-related. If the article were actually about creation myths vs. science, the paragraph should be augmented with science's view, because it's now a science-related discussion. Since the article isn't about that, the paragraph really should be removed, or placed in the body of the article and subsequently augmented. I started a discussion about that if anyone's interested [3]. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 11:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Not every article dealing with human beings has to discuss their evolution/creation. This works both ways. Not every article dealing with a biblical character has to discuss the question of whether of not the Bible was inspired. People pushing their general POV have been known to do each of them. I'm going to pick some examples, deliberately without checking actual Wikipedia articles. An article, for example, on Neanderthals does not have to discuss whether or not they lived before 4004 BC, and the religious implications of this. But somewhere there has to be an article dealing with the creationist views of human fossils. the article on Moses should discuss the question of his historicity--unless it becomes worth a separate articles. An actual good example of how to handle this, is the various articles on Jesus. DGG (talk) 01:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Question about WP:NCGN

Looking at the policy, it talks about using the "local authority". In some cases, who the authority is can be rather controversial (for example, Liancourt Rocks, or the source of my concern, Burmyanmar). "Local authority" has, as far as I've seen, been interpreted to mean "local government."

Is taking the local government's side fair to a neutral point of view?Somedumbyankee (talk) 02:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Huh? The only time that in even mentioned is for when "English discussion of the place is [very] limited", which is certainly not the instance in either case you mention. Vassyana (talk) 04:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, some of it is spillover from WP:NCON, should have listed that as well. The "minor names" section mentioned is an extension of the main policy, specifically:

"A number of objective criteria can be used to determine common or self-identifying usage:

* Is the name in common usage in English? (check Google, other reference works, websites of media, government and international organisations; focus on reliable sources)

* Is it the official current name of the subject? (check if the name is used in a legal context, e.g. a constitution)

* Is it the name used by the subject to describe itself or themselves? (check if it is a self-identifying term)"

In this case there are two common English equivalents and there is no consensus whatsoever on which one is more common (most google tests are evenly split, other official sources don't show a consensus). For a country, this policy leads to using the government's name, but this is not a particularly neutral choice in this case since the name change has a lot of political baggage.

More or less, what I'm trying to determine is if WP:NPOV and the naming policies contradict each other in cases like this. If they do contradict, WP:IAR could be less controversially applied, the naming policy ignored, and some other method would have to be used to deal with the dispute. If they don't, then I think one of the major objections to one name can be overruled and the issue can get closer to being settled. I may very well be rambling and making very little sense, it wouldn't be the first time. If this analysis is just too far out there (WP:SNOWBALL), just say so.Somedumbyankee (talk) 05:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe they contradict each other. On the contrary, I think the naming policy is a pretty good extrapolation of the principle of NPOV. I would point out in this specific instance that news sources and current academic sources generally refer to the country by one of the names in particular. (As a side comment, I tend to believe that search engine tests are an extremely poor tool, for a variety of reasons.) Vassyana (talk) 05:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

They are, but they're easy to do. For the most part I'm just looking to find a peaceful resolution to the conflict, I think I've "switched sides" in the debate about four times now. Trying to convince anyone that there is a common usage on that page is... difficult, and let's assume for the purpose of this question that there is no consensus on the name. Assuming we have to use the name policies, I'm not sure I follow that the two obviously agree. Can you explain in more depth? I've read the main and the FAQ for this article, and most of the sentiments about balance are impossible when you only get one word.Somedumbyankee (talk) 06:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

NPOV is more about the presentation of information in an article than about an article's name. However, by deferring to body of reliable sources (as the naming policy does) the intent and principle of NPOV is well-served. In the case of a failure to have a clear name or consensus, the use of the official name and the well-sourced detailing of alternate names (and preferably the naming dispute itself) in the article seems appropriate. Simply accepting the official name is not an endorsement of one side of the dispute; on the contrary, it is simply following standard convention. In the absence of a clear majority or consensus in the body of reliable sources, disputing the official name is by its nature a statement of disapproval and opinion (regardless of conscious intentions). Using the lens of NPOV's principles, the option that defaults to standard conventions instead of taking a stand is the preferable one. Vassyana (talk) 06:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

So in short, the policy is neutral largely because it is an arbitrary application of pre-defined principles, not because the authority used is "correct". More or less what I expected. No guarantee it will convince anyone, but I'm still kinda new at this and wanted to make sure I understood the sense of the policy before relying on it too heavily.Somedumbyankee (talk) 06:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not actually arbitrary. There has to be some naming policy. There were originally every extensive discussions about this sort of question, and the eventual view was in the view of most of the people here the consensus that complied best with our general principles. Once it has become adopted, it is extremely nonconstructive to try and change it. DGG (talk) 01:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

I've restored a comment that was in the faq from at least 2004 [4] to about late 2007, when it got removed in a text cleanup. I think it clarifies the scope of the Pseudoscience section in a way that the revised, 2008 wording does not. To whit, "The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science." Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

See section below. Sorry I didn't cross post it here before. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

A policy should not make content dictates, such as the majority view concerning pseudoscientific topics is always the mainstream science view. From a sociological view, this is seldom the case. Pseudoscientific topics are often enormously popular, sometimes to the point that the majority view isn't the scientific view. Sometimes the majority view is even borderline anti-scientific. The NPOV policy dictates that we present views according to their prominence. This does not automatically mean that an article should take a scientific point of view. When talking science in a pseudoscientific article, we are directed to point out that it isn't the mainstream view, describe clearly what is the mainstream view, and then make editorial decisions about what's the most prominent view. That's it. We don't automatically default to the scientific view. If, for example in the astrology article, the historical-cultural aspects of the topic are more prominent than the fact that it's pseudoscience, that's what gets most coverage, per WP:UNDUE. As worded before I reverted to the long established consensus version, it read that we are supposed to spend more time talking about how it's not science than talking about astrology's history, cultural impact, beliefs, and so on. That's contradictory to WP:UNDUE. SPOV is not always the majority view, or the most prominent aspect to a topic, even when the topic is pseudoscientific. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 04:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

POILICY HAS MADE SUCH STATEMENTS FOR FOUR YEARS. DEAL. Shoemaker's Holiday ([[User :I'm sorry, but the Pseudoscience faq statement on policy is the one that keeps Crreationism from being described as a viiable alternative to evolution, that keeps alll the utter woo-woos from having their statements presented as fact simply because they're popular. I am NOT going to stnd by and let Wikipedia be killed by people who want to make us Fringipedia. A recent arbcom case said that respected encyclopedias seek to describe things from the perspective of mainstream science, and wWikipedia seeks to be an encyclopedia. In other words, this is a basic requirement for being an encyclopedia. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

First, check your hostility. Then, check the history. Even in the Creationism article, there's other aspects to cover. For example the legal issues and separation of church and state. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 04:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I've edited pseudoscience articles. That, and WP:REDFLAG, are the main policy statements that keep editing there sane. I am completely and totally unwilling to have them hacked apart and removed by people who don't realise their importance. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The version I reverted to is more or less the version that's been there since July 2007. I have to go out for a bit, but I'll be happy to come back to this tomorrow. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 05:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

...

Goddammit. I misread the text. Sorry. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

That's OK, I misread it too. I thought you added the "(scientific)" next to majority, but apparently that was already there in the previous versions, just towards the bottom. I reverted mainly to go back to the traditional version and get people to stop tinkering with it, but my comment about SPOV was regarding that. The new version also adds new judgement statements such as "pseudoscience were on a par with science", which is definitely SPOV and biases Wikipedia. As a social phenomenon or even from an entertainment viewpoint, frankly, pseudoscience kicks hardcore science's butt at ever turn but actual science, since mainstream science is somewhat stuffy, hard to follow, exclusive, etc. Qualifying statements like "on par" are totally unnecessary and incorrect depending on the context. Science is not "on par" with pseudoscience when it comes to entertaining gullible people. That statement wasn't there in the older consensus version, and likely with good reason. As I said above, I don't think any of that really needs to be there to accomplish what the clause is meant to accomplish, and in some cases it is even incorrect to say the majority view is always the scientific view. When talking about science, yes, but it's not all about science. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 13:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[Unindent] Well, we are trying to write a mainstream encyclopedia. If something is mainstream science, (I'm going to simplify quite a bit here) we can write about the basic concepts of it as factual. Obviously, this is a simplification, but the core of any field tends to be relatively unchanging, with revolutions to the core tending to be more of a "but also!" refinement. For instance, in evolution the history goes: Darwin: We can explain things through natural selection. 1900: Mendel is rediscovered. Biology split into two camps of Natural selection and genetics. 1918-1930: Fisher (and others): Mutations cause small changes that natural selection can act on! We can combine natural selection and genetics. 1937-1950: Dobzhansky (and others): But if you look at my experiments on bacteria, you can see that random chance has a role to play as well. Things that have no selective value at the time will change randomly, but these differences might become important later. Hence, genetic drift is the other major driver of change in populations.

The core tends to change through an additive and refining process. Another example: Kepler's laws of planetary motion are a special case of Newton's laws of motion, which are themselves a special case of Einstein's relativity.

I've gotten a bit off track. My end point was that the core tenets of science can usually be presented as fact safely. There is little to no dispute over them. The core tenets of pseudosciece should not be presented as factual, as they are usually greatly in dispute, sometimes even within the pseudoscience itself. (e.g. the issue of the journal Homeopathy on water memory presents dozens of mutually exclusive views as to how water memory could work. This when there's no real evidence that water memory exists in the first place. (I'm afraid said journal isn't discussed in that article at the moment. A section on it was added, but it was added by the editor, and then a lot of drama happened, and noone's gotten around to rewriting an NPOV discussion of it yet.

So, in a rather roundabout qway, I guess what I'm saying is that pseudoscientific articles take more care, and require some commentary on the scientific view of them in order to be NPOV, but science doesn't require pseudoscientific views to be NPOV, so it's probably uncontroversial, through the very definition of pseudoscience, that it's not at the level of science. Presuming we really are talking about pseudoscience here, and not, you know, MOND or string theory or some other... I'm hesitant to use the word protoscience here, as it's a very abused term, but you take my point.

Anyway, um, I'm a bit ill today, sorry. My point is that all that - well, not exactly new statement, I took it from the version that was in effect from 2001-2007. - in my opinion, is saying that there is a difference between the two by definitions, and we need to be careful of writing it so that, say, it looks like the Pseudoscience is, in fact, science. That's it. Nothing more. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The question posed by the Frequently Asked Questions is: How are we to write articles about pseudoscientific topics, about which majority scientific opinion is that the pseudoscientific opinion is not credible and doesn't even really deserve serious mention?

Recently I used the science education standards book Science Framework for California Public Schools, from the California State Board of Eductation, as a source in an article. Regarding pseudoscience, they said:

"... science educators must be careful to separate science from pseudoscience and to explain the criteria for distinction."

I think that's a great way to answer our FAQ. It's simple, to the point, and doesn't pretense that science is the only aspect of the topic to cover, or that the scientific view is necessarily the majority view regarding the topic as a whole. I would replace the paragraph beginning with "The task before us..." with:

:::"Pseudoscience is a social phenomenon and therefore notable, but Wikipedia editors must be careful to clearly separate science from pseudoscience in articles and to explain the criteria for distinction. Pseudoscience should not obfuscate the description of the main views when mentioned, and pseudoscience should always be accompanied by the corresponding scientific view. All applicable views should be described in proportion to their prominence. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly." Rephrased below taking suggestions into account. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 23:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I think just the "clearly separate science from pseudoscience... and to explain the criteria for distinction" will help make this clause stronger and more effective. It also directs us to explain what's pseudoscientific about it, something that often doesn't happen in articles. Many times and editor will drop "so and so says it's pseudoscience". It's far more educational to say "so and so says it's pseudoscience because it violates the law of gravity" or something similar. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 14:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out that "pseudoscience is ... therefore notable" might be better said "pseudoscience is ... and pseudoscientific subjects may be notable". Not every last bit of pseudoscience will be notable, though much of it is. Antelan ^talk 14:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

First off, let me say that much of that suggestion is quite good. I do think "Pseudoscience should not obfuscate the description of the main views when mentioned, and pseudoscience should always be accompanied by the corresponding scientific view" is an excellent suggestion, and would be a very acceptable replacement for the part you dislike. However, the unqualified "prominence" could lead to difficulties. I suspect that faced with your wording, pseudoscience promoters would simply claim that the scientific criticism has no prominence among practitioners of X and should not be included, or should be minimised. For instance, have a look at this diff: [5].

One thing that is a must for any phrasing is a clear statement that insists that NPOV applies to pseudoscientific articles, and that mainstream science cannot be excluded from them. Pseudoscience still has a lot of articles that have no resemblence of NPOV, particularly in alternative medicine: Reiki, for instance, is a 100% criticism free article on what I believe is one of the two most criticised alternative medicines, and one that is usually said to lack any possible scientific basis. Since livelihoods are based on altmed, I have no doubt that there are going to be a lot of entrenched editors determined to keep them criticism-free, and, if we want to deal with alt-med nicely, we need a clearly-stated policy that can be pointed to, detailing why criticism and science must be included. The alternative involves a lot of administrators with ban sticks leading a charge of scientific editors, and, um...

Okay, the idea is tempting, but let's instead just have a clear policy statement we can appeal to, and be nice, gain consensus, and insist on following NPOV. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree in that what we need is a clear statement, which everyone will understand basically the same way. My personal interpreatation of policy is that science/mainstream science needs to be there somehow. We won't necessarily have as good sources as we would like, but we can trust the reader to understand the context of the pseudoscience if we state that context clearly (or else the reader is a lost cause). I think that is done in the current Reiki article. Have you read it recently? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

If I may speak bluntly, the article on Reiki seems to think that one sentence of criticism allows it to give 20 sections of pure, unbiased promotion. It then has criticism section which makes some very weak critical statements, promptly rebutted by OR and Synth [6] in the last section. I notice it doesn't include the famous study on Reiki, done by the youngest person to be published in a major peer-reviewed journal, and highly covered by newspapers, etc. I suppose that counting positive studies in journals specialising in promoting pseudoscience left everyone too worn out to check mainstream journals. It is terrible. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Reworded my paragraph, including suggestions:

Pseudoscience is a social phenomenon and therefore may be notable, but Wikipedia editors must be careful to clearly separate science from pseudoscience in articles and to explain the criteria for distinction. Pseudoscience should not obfuscate the description of the main views when mentioned, and pseudoscience should always be accompanied by the corresponding scientific view. Not all views on pseudoscientific topics may be science related (eg. Astrology may have epistemological, historical, or cultural views to cover as well), but we shouldn't misrepresent science when mentioning pseudoscience. All the applicable views should be described in proportion to their prominence, which in science and medicine related discussions is weighted to the majority view among experts in the field of study. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly.

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 23:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

One minor tweak: I think that "All applicable views should be described in proportion to their prominence, which in science and medicine-related discussions refers to the mainstream view in the relevant scientific field." reads a bit better. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Updated. See if anyone rejects/supports this, and then we can include it in place of the second paragraph. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 23:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that should be "weighted to", not "refers to". Prominence doesn't refer to a single view, but rather a weight scale for handling multiple views. Updated. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 14:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

You know, I took the time to make this section so that we wouldn't be editing from the hip on the policy page. *sigh*

………………..,-~*’`¯lllllll`*~,
…………..,-~*`lllllllllllllllllllllllllll¯`*-,
………,-~*llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll*-,
……,-*llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll.
….;*`lllllllllllllllllllllllllll,-~*~-,llllllllllllllllllll
…..lllllllllllllllllllllllllll/………;;;;llllllllllll,-`~-,
…...lllllllllllllllllllll,-*………..`~-~-,…(.(¯`*,`,
…….llllllllllll,-~*…………………)_-..*`*;..)
……..,-*`¯,*`)…………,-~*`~.………….../
……...|/.../…/~,…...-~*,-~*`;……………./.
……../.../…/…/..,-,..*~,.`*~*…………….*...
…….|.../…/…/.*`......……………………)….)¯`~,
…….|./…/…./…….)……,.)`*~-,……….../….|..)…`~-,
……/./.../…,*`-,…..`-,…*`….,---…...…./…../..|……...¯```*~-
…...(……….)`*~-,….`*`.,-~*.,-*……|…/.…/…/…………
…….*-,…….`*-,...`~,..``.,,,-*……….|.,*...,*…|…...
……….*,………`-,…)-,…………..,-*`...,-*….(`-,…
--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 15:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

"All applicable views" was meant to cover the views that aren't science related as well (historical, cultural, etc.), which renders the statement "All the applicable views should be described in proportion to their prominence in the relevant mainstream, academic field, such as physics, biology, or mainstream medicine" back to saying that the SPOV is the main or only view we should be considering. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 15:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

That's no doubt the intent, but the effect was to open it to the interpretation that, say, a homeopathic article should be written based on the weight given homeopathic sources, Intelligent design should be done based on the weight given in ID sources, etc. I've added another tweak to that end. With all respect, racing to add your section while there were still objections and still discussion ongoing was not the right way forward if you wanted it not to be edited when it hit the article. II've tried to fix it, but realised that the changes were causing it cally SPOV than the old one, and far more SPOV than I was comfortable with, so I reverted back to the old version. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

With the same respect, you made the substantial changes after agreeing with the text here, raised no objection that wasn't incorporated, and added no additional concerns, so it really couldn't be called "my section". It was "our" section. Revert to the original is fine if we have some more to talk about.

To the actual changes you made, the problem with presenting a comma delimited list of example fields is that one could just easily say, "Well it's not physics, it's paraphysics, so here's our paraphysics experts." But when you say "in science and medicine related discussions is weighted to the majority view among experts in the field of study," the editor must first meet the burden that it's actually a science and medicine discussion, which according to the rest of the section it isn't, because it's pseudoscience. Once it is established that it isn't science, then of course there's other views and discussions to cover, each with their own "experts". Again, it's just not about the science. One the topic of intelligent design, for example, once it is established that it isn't science, and all arguments to the contrary are pigeon-holed by weight, then it's a legal topic. Once it's established that it isn't legal to allow ID into schools, per the courts, and all arguments to the contrary are pigeon-holed by weight, then it's a cultural topic, or a religious topic, and so on. On this sliding scale, yes, there experts and talking heads along the way (defined as "reliable sources"-context-dependent), but it's not a science related discussion anymore and no longer in the scope of the pseudoscience policies. The section clearly directs us not to try and slip a "religious expert" in as a "science expert".

If you'd like to make that more clear, we could say "majority view among experts in the field of scientific study". That may help. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 16:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

There is a problem with that that I thought of just before I reverted - Technically, a simple description of the views of pseudoscientific proponents on a page about the pseudoscience would be excluded on those grounds, as it would have no acceptance in the relevant scientific field. OF course, common sense would prevail, but... I think, perhaps, that we should just cut that sentence, and keep some clarified form of the "Any mention should be proportionate and represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories." lines, as the effect is actually less SPOV. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not excluded in how I wrote it, just weighted less, and only in a scientific context. The way I worded it was "in science and medicine related discussions is weighted to the majority view" not to the point of exclusion because the preceeding words are "in proportion to their prominence". A minority view with a sliver of prominence would get a sliver of coverage, their due weight. In a non-scientific context, sympathetic views may have more prominence. Eg. Creationism, not scientific. Creationism, popular in religious circles. Any mention of the view that creation science is scientific in the creationism article would be less prominent and be weighted towards the opposing view. However, none of that science vs. pseudoscience discussion would obfuscate main views like the scholarly discussion surrounding Creation (theology) (which after checking just now suffers from that -- second section needs bumping down in the article, among other problems) --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

This is getting confusing. Think we're likely to get any other views? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Dunno... ScienceApologist seemed to say it should say "scientific consensus". Ultimately what I'm looking for is something clear and fair that can be pointed to as policy. Since this is a hot topic all over Wikipedia, with a lot of confusion surrounding it, you'd think there'd be some input. Maybe post some notices in a few places? I'll take a step back and let others chime in for a bit. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 21:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

My hope is that you will bring this before the community at a widely-read noticeboard (perhaps village pump) before trying to insert it into policy. The reason that I hold this hope is that (1) I'd like more eyes to scrutinize the suggestions, and (2) the policy will be essentially invalid if modified by fiat (no offense intended) rather than by consensus. And what better way to build community consensus than to bring it before the regulars at villagepump/etc? Antelan ^talk 22:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Where are we at on this? Any other input, or should we post to the Village Pump for feedback? Current text being evaluated is as follows:

Pseudoscience is a social phenomenon and therefore may be notable, but Wikipedia editors must be careful to clearly separate science from pseudoscience in articles and to explain the criteria for distinction. Pseudoscience should not obfuscate the description of the main views when mentioned, and pseudoscience should always be accompanied by the corresponding scientific view. Not all views on pseudoscientific topics may be science related (eg. Astrology may have epistemological, historical, or cultural views to cover as well), but we shouldn't misrepresent science when mentioning pseudoscience. All the applicable views should be described in proportion to their prominence, which in science and medicine related discussions is weighted to the majority view among experts in the field of scientific study. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly.

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 21:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd post on the Village Pump as well, but if I might make a suggestion, how about something along these lines (as an addition):

"Articles on a pseudoscientific topic should, of course, describe the pseudoscientific views that make up the subject, sometimes in a good deal of detail, but care should be taken to clearly attribute these beliefs to the proponents of the pseudoscience."

It's probably obvious, but let's make it explicit that the proponents views should be discussed on the articles about these views. The opposite is a form of SPOV that noone wants to advocate. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

How about adding "In the interest of describing topics fully, pseudoscientific concepts may require a fair amount of detail in the article about the topic, but care should be taken to clearly attribute these views to their proponents. By weight, less detail (or none at all) may be required in mainstream science discussions if the concept is not prominent in the mainstream science field" before the last sentence? This version explains why and reminds editors that by weight pseudoscientific concepts may not warrant much detail in the main article if it is a science article (eg. creationism being slipped into biology). So the new version as I'm proposing is:

Pseudoscience is a social phenomenon and therefore may be notable, but Wikipedia editors must be careful to clearly separate science from pseudoscience in articles and to explain the criteria for distinction. Pseudoscience should not obfuscate the description of the main views when mentioned, and pseudoscience should always be accompanied by the corresponding scientific view. Not all views on pseudoscientific topics may be science related (eg. Astrology may have epistemological, historical, or cultural views to cover as well), but we shouldn't misrepresent science when mentioning pseudoscience. All the applicable views should be described in proportion to their prominence, which in science and medicine related discussions is weighted to the majority view among experts in the field of scientific study. In the interest of describing topics fully, pseudoscientific concepts may require a fair amount of detail in the article about the topic, but care should be taken to clearly attribute these views to their proponents. By weight, less detail (or none at all) may be required in mainstream science discussions if the concept is not prominent in the mainstream science field. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly.

Stronger? Confusing on what is and isn't a science related discussion? Other comments? I'd like it to be pretty airtight. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 16:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I posted it to the Village Pump for more feedback here [7] --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 15:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

New proposal

Here is a new proposal:

I am working on an article about a pseudoscience. Mainstream scientific opinion is that the pseudoscientific opinion is not credible and doesn't even deserve serious mention. How am I supposed to write an article about it, and state the mainstream scientific view, if this pseudoscience isn't even discussed by scientists?

If a pseudoscientific theory makes claims related to a field of natural science, for example, and these claims are not even seriously discussed by present-day scholars in that field, the presentation must clearly state that the theory has found no scientific acceptance. Also check if the theory has been discussed by mainstream scholars of history, sociology, religion or psychology. If it has, then scholarly source material from these fields should be used to present the ideas' history, as well as their standing within the scientific community and within society at large. For a more detailed discussion, see WP:FRINGE.

Comments? Jayen 466 11:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone have an objection to my dropping the above wording in? The wording we have at present does not properly answer the question "How are we to write articles about pseudoscientific topics, about which majority scientific opinion is that the pseudoscientific opinion is not credible and doesn't even really deserve serious mention?". For example, the clause "Pseudoscience ... should not obfuscate the description of the main views, and any mention should be proportionate" is just absurd. If the article is astrology, we can't help but "mention" the history, teachings, cultural, even linguistic impact etc. of astrology. What is a "proportionate mention" here? Surely, a large part of the article should be about those. And telling people that in writing an article on astrology they should take care that the description of astrology "does not obfuscate the description of the main view" just does not make sense. Perhaps "does not fail to state the scientific view" would do. Even if the above proposal doesn't fly, perhaps we will at least get some fruitful debate resulting in a better wording. Jayen 466 14:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

How will you deal with the potential problem of giving undue weight to pseudoscientific theories? For many readers more detail = more credibility which is why we have an undue weight provision. Attention to views should be in proportion to their notability, no? Slrubenstein | Talk 14:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, if the article is ancient astronaut theories, to come back to the other example, the article should describe these theories, ideally based on a mainstream scholarly treatment like the one I posted a link to earlier. Any mainstream academic paper will also comment on its status as a pseudoscience and explain why it is a pseudoscience. Now, as for astrology, this has a history going back several thousand years; the days of the week are named after the planets in many languages, there are innumerable literary influences ("star-crossed lovers" in Shakespeare etc.), and there is a historical body of teaching that was of major significance to Western culture for centuries. As an encyclopedia, we should describe these. The Encylopaedia Britannica article on astrology runs to four densely written pages, with a complete historical outline. It ends with the words: "In short, modern Western astrology, though of great interest sociologically and popularly, generally is regarded as devoid of intellectual value." I have no objection to our article stating the same. Please remember, the question asks "How are we to write articles about pseudoscientific topics, about which majority scientific opinion is that the pseudoscientific opinion is not credible and doesn't even really deserve serious mention?" We are talking about articles that are specifically about these pseudosciences. Nobody is saying that in Ronald Reagan we should slip in that "it is believed that Reagan's talks with Gorbachev didn't go well because Mars was in the 4th house of his birth chart that week" or that "Lewis Hamilton won in Monaco because Uranus was in a good position". I believe we are all agreed on that. But if the topic of the article is a pseudoscience, it should be scientifically described -- not based on primary sources, as happens all the time around here and is a real problem, but based on sober, mainstream, scholarly analyses. Jayen 466 14:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

In fact, it might be worth adding something that pseudoscientific primary sources should not be used, period. If there is no secondary literature on a pseudoscience, then perhaps we should not have an article on it. Something along those lines might address the concern you have about undue weight, might it not? Jayen 466 14:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

In writing the proposal, you don't really want to reinvent the wheel. WP:FRINGE already covers many of the issues you're describing, for example the level of detail and how to use primary sources. Primary sources aren't excluded on Wikipedia, they're "excellent sources for describing what they believe". However, they're only reliable for that. Secondary sources are used to determine the prominence and notability of the subject, that's not to be determined at the primary level. I want to stress this again, it's all about context. In the context of describing astrology, for example, the description of so-called planetary influences (eg. being born under Mars is supposed to mean X) is likely to come from fully attributed primary sources. Secondary sources would be less reliable and possibly misrepresent the ideas and beliefs of the primary source. We don't want to misrepresent science, but neither do we want to misrepresent the pseudoscientists. So yes, primary sources are useful for determining what a group believes when they are attributed to the group. Wikipedia doesn't endeavor to censor notable and prominent pseudoscientific views. Wikipedia simply doesn't want to misrepresent science while describing notable and prominent pseudoscientific views. Regarding WP:UNDUE, that too is contextual. In the main article Earth, no mention is made of Flat Earth. That doesn't mean that in the Flat Earth article there is no mention of Flat Earth. In that article the main topic is Flat Earth. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 16:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Fringe already seems to cover most of this. I also agree that undue weight is contextual but any change to any policy needs to be very clear and explicit about this. Obviously an article on astrology will provide lots of information on astrology, just as the article on creationism provides lits of information on creationism. But that amount of information in the articles on astronomy or personality, or evolution or natural selection, would definitely violate undue weight. I feel strongly that no change to any policy weaken this situation. In some articles it is a constant battle as is. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Nealparr, I agree that WP:FRINGE covers this, by saying that notability has to be demonstrated by a secondary source for the topic to warrant an article, that the level of detail brought in from primary fringe sources should not exceed the level of detail presented in reliable secondary sources, etc. (And I accept that quoting from a handbook of astrology is okay when describing astrological theory, I went a bit over board there.)

SLR, when you say But that amount of information in the articles on astronomy or personality, or evolution or natural selection, would definitely violate undue weight, you do know that this is not the issue addressed in this FAQ, don't you? This FAQ is about how to write articles on pseudoscientific topics; it is not about how much pseudoscience to include in articles on general topics. Sorry to harp on about this, but it seems to me the issue you raise – which is of course a valid issue – has nothing to do with this FAQ question (unless we reword the question to address it). Jayen 466 17:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying this. I see I misunderstood. I read "Pseudoscience topics" to mean any topic for which there is a body of pseudoscience (which includes evolution, for example). Now i understand what you mean. That said, given the wide range of understandings people bring to Wikipedia, I wonder if you can clarify this. I cannot suggest anything off-hand - now that I understand what you mean, what you wrote does make perfect sense to me. Still, I feel on this matter we need to bend over backwards to avoid any possible misunderstanding. Maybe "Articles that are primarily and explicitly about specific forms or types of pseudoscience?" Think about it. best, Slrubenstein | Talk 19:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Good, thanks. I know one often reads what one expects to be there. I'll see if I can dream up a wording that will get the reader's train of thought sufficiently derailed. ;-) Jayen 466 21:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I've changed it in the proposal above, and made some tweaks in the response. See what you think. Any better? Jayen 466 21:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Anglo-American

What is meant by Anglo-American in Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Anglo-American_focus_and_systematic_bias? Americans with English ancestry? Americans with European ancestry? Americans who are white or Caucasian? Americans who speak English? Something else? It's not clear (to me at least) from the context. JCDenton2052 (talk) 03:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

"All of the above" is probably the clearest answer. More or less it's "include perspectives of people who probably aren't editing the English Wikipedia." An article about the Spanish Armada, for example, will probably include a fair amount of information about British perspectives, but is unlikely to have reasonable coverage of the Spanish perspective since there probably aren't that many people in Spain that are editing the English version. Since it won't happen by default, we have to make a conscious effort to include perspective from "the other side."Somedumbyankee (talk) 04:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Would English speaking be more accurate? There are plenty of editors from English speaking countries other than the US and the UK. JCDenton2052 (talk) 19:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that the WP:NPOV section which you referenced accurately points up, "Wikipedia seems to have an Anglo-American focus." I happen to edit a lot of articles related to the Philippines, and these are now seeing increasing contributions from Filipinos with English as a second (more probably third or fourth) language. English as spoken in the Philippines has its idiosyncrasies, which I see more and more often of late. WP guidelines on national varieties of English do say that the English Wikipedia has no general preference for a major national variety of the language but, as a practical matter, but guidance beyond that general declaration is pretty much limited to spelling differences between the anglophone countries of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, UK & Ireland, and United States. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 01:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Undue Weight?

Howdy. Having a bit of a disagreement on what is UNDUE over at Circumcision. The latest addition to summary a source from University of Chicago is in contention. Any thoughts would be appreciated. Garycompugeek (talk) 19:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

"Criticism of foo" articles

It's possible that I'm being overly literal in interpretation of the policy, but is an article that exclusively contains criticism of a topic capable of meeting the expectations on neutrality? For example, the criticism of Bill O'Reilly article is substantially longer than the Bill O'Reilly article. At what point is the "criticism" article just an excuse to only cover one side of a topic conveniently outside of an otherwise neutral main? A more carefully chosen article title, such as Michael Moore controversies, would give the expectation of a neutral coverage, whereas a "criticisms" article invites one-sided coverage. Somedumbyankee (talk) 04:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

If the subject matter of an article is a verifiable and noteworthy source of polarization, critique or dispute within a given society, subculture or institution, and writing about it is otherwise consistent with WP policy, then the motives for maintaining the content may not really be important.

It's definitely an "edge case" scenario, but the mere existence of an article that is primarily or even exclusively devoted to "criticism" does not by itself constitute a violation of neutrality. As for determining when the line has been crossed, that's a matter of case-by-case discernment, no? dr.ef.tymac (talk) 06:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess it's partially a question of whether an individual article is neutral or whether Wikipedia's treatment as a whole of the subject is neutral. All of the "criticism of foo" articles I've read show a clear bias against "foo", and the name of the article more or less condones that bias because "it's about criticism." Just glancing through the group, many of them are thinly disguised WP:SOAP, even if it is well-sourced. Naming disputes on these articles are common. This one is currently is in "move-pong" mode. This one is basically a WP:POVFORK.

I cannot see any case where a "Criticism of" article could not be recast as a "Controversies" article, a title that does not imply negative coverage. Somedumbyankee (talk) 15:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps. Those articles you linked to (especially the latter one) do seem to cross the line. Appropriately, the latter one is flagged as needing attention and may even merit removal or merging.

Nevertheless, replacing the terms "Criticism of" with "Controversies" seems like the kind of subtle distinction unlikely to dissuade people who are inclined to POV push. If the article content remains unbalanced and poorly referenced, a re-title offers little or no correction. dr.ef.tymac (talk) 17:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

American (i.e. the United States, and not Anglo-American) POV

In the first paragraph of a recent featured article, Oil shale, you (roughly) read "Oil shales are located around the world, including the US." I read on to see if the US is particularly important as a resource. It isn't. For that reason I believe it is a NPOV violation and should be deleted from the article. It is probably caused by the common tone in the U.S. national surveys and reports that are--quite naturally--U.S. focused, but still a main part of the world's scientific literature.

The average English Wikipedia reader, who may or may not be a native English speaker, is not necessarily from the U.S., or particularly interested in where the U.S. stands re every subject. --Farzaneh (talk) 21:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

What the article does not say is that the US has tried to treat its oil shale reserves as a potential back-up in the event that it has no access to Middle East oil, and has spent gazillions of dollars to develop oil shale technology that has been exported worldwide, in the hope of becoming a number-one fossilfuel producer worldwide/energy independent. Some of the largest reserves in the world are in the US. All highly relevant to people around the world who want to know about oil shale.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 04:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Fake images in aviation accident articles

I have started a thread on WT:NOR about fake images which involves both NPOV and NOR. Opinions are welcome. Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 12:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Moved to Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research/Archive_35#Fake_images_in_aviation_accident_articles --Enric Naval (talk) 03:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Undue Weight Criteria

Concerns about Undue Weight have been raised in the article about trophy taking during World war II. American mutilation of Japanese war dead A free downloadable scholarly paper on the topic is available here. Now despite the topic being well known at the time, see for example Life Magazine Picture of the week May 22, 1944, it "appears" that many authors of WWII literature either don't know about it, or consider it unimportant, or prefer not to mention it for other reasons, such as for the protection of veterans image.

Another example of possibly similar downplaying is another uncomfortable topic: rape:

An estimated 10,000 Japanese women were eventually raped by American troops during the Okinawa campaign. H-Net review of The GI War against Japan: American Soldiers in Asia and the Pacific during World War II. According to Peter Schrijvers, rape was "a general practice against Japanese women".H-Net review of The GI War against Japan: American Soldiers in Asia and the Pacific during World War II According to a New York Times article from June 1, 2000 regarding the 1998 discovery of the corpses of 3 U.S. rapists killed by Okinawan villagers after repeated rape-visits by the group: "rape was so prevalent that most Okinawans over age 65 either know or have heard of a woman who was raped in the aftermath of the war." "3 Dead Marines and a Secret of Wartime Okinawa" New York Times, June 1, 2000

Okinawan historian Oshiro Masayasu (former director of the Okinawa Prefectural Historical Archives) writes based on several years of research:

Soon after the US marines landed, all the women of a village on Motobu Peninsula fell into the hands of American soldiers. At the time, there were only women, children and old people in the village, as all the young men had been mobilized for the war. Soon after landing, the marines "mopped up" the entire village, but found no signs of Japanese forces. Taking advantage of the situation, they started "hunting for women" in broad daylight and those who were hiding in the village or nearby air raid shelters were dragged out one after another.

Japan's Comfort Women: Sexual Slavery and Prostitution During World War II By Yuki Tanaka, Toshiyuki Tanaka, page 111

Especially the New York times article is interesting for trying to understand why so little is mentioned of such massive raping in "war books for western consumption".

An even better example is the fate of the book on the suppression of the book on U.S. troops rape in Europe. (Publisher book summary available here) It is a disgusting topic, and it is understandable that "greatest generation" authors such as Stephen Ambrose seem to have chosen to ignore it completely.

But.... It raises an interesting question. Since it is a topic that most writers seem to choose to ignore for whatever reason, does it mean "Undue Weight" to write about it, and how should "Undue Weight" policy be interpreted in relation to such topics?

I may be stretching it with this comparison, but nevertheless. Imagine Germany had won World War II. Perhaps not much would have been written in scholarly literature about the Holocaust in the U.S., for example due to political and economic pressure not to antagonize the German superpower. How would "undue weight" then apply to the Holocaust article?

Or take this example: American troops 'murdered Japanese PoWs'. There are a number of works from the last decades or so that have started facing up to this topic. But if you look at the full body of literature written since 1945 they probably are a distinct minority, with the others either blissfully unaware or deliberately avoiding the sensitive topic. Does that mean writing about it on Wiki can be considered Undue Weight?

I would be very much interested in knowing how Undue Weight policy relates to "suppressed" topics, perhaps the policy needs finetuning?--Stor stark7 ^Speak 03:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I've considered a similar problem with Burmyanmar, where the change in name to Myanmar has been alleged to be part of an ongoing campaign of revisionism. What happens when all official documents reflect a history that the outside world knows to be false? Do we report the "official" history along with the "real" history? Frankly, I'm not qualified to make that decision. We have to rely on historians for history the same way we rely on scientists for science. Mainstream history has an opinion on these events, and since we are simply gathering information and not passing judgment on it, we must report what mainstream history has to say. Victor's justice is a longstanding problem for history, and wikipedia cannot fix it. We can only report that some historians have suspected that mainstream accounts are tainted by that problem, and let people make their own decisions on what to believe. Somedumbyankee (talk) 03:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Intesting, but isn't my question here not so much about contradicting statements from different scholars, but more about about some sources saying something that other sources says little or nothing at all about. I.e. not one opinion against another, but more a recently developed "new opinion" versus a possible larger accumulated body of "no opinion"?--Stor stark7 ^Speak 03:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

This topic is discussed in scholarly books on the experiances of Allied servicement in the Pacific published over the last 20 years: it's just not accorded much space, presumably as the relevant professional historians consider it not to have been all that commonplace. There seem to be only two scholarly papers on this topic which in turn heavily draw on the handful of pages in professional historians investigations of combat experiances in the Pacific War. It's not correct to state that historians have only started to write about the killings of Japanese POWs in the last decade - this has been discussed in histories for several decades, and was even included in the Australian official histories of the war which were written during the 1950s and 60s. Again, given that few Japanese ever tried to surrender prior to August 1945 (which is proven in countless histories of the war and attributed to the Japanese military's attitude towards surrender), it's not a major part of the war. Nick Dowling (talk) 07:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I presume you are here referring to the topic of mutilation of the dead and not the topic of mass rapes, or the policy of killing surrendering Japanese.

I think we should make it very clear that we represent two very different standpoints on the mutilation issue here. Ever since I started that article you seem to have been very antagonistic against it. And you have also made a number of very strange claims, such as ""In 1984 Japanese soldiers remains were repatriated from the Mariana Islands. Roughly 60 percent were missing their skulls" (cited, but there's no context given for this - why were the bodies being returned 40 years after the war? How many bodies were returned? Was this an example of the Japanese military custom of returning a body part to Japan rather than the whole body?). My question here is, which alleged Japanese custom are you referring to exactly? A scholar doesnt seem to be aware of any such "practice "[8]Also: "Everything I've read suggests the opposite: on the only occasions during the Pacific War when US troops encountered Japanese civilians (mainly on Saipan and Okinawa) the civilians were treated fairly well. The US occupation troops in Japan after the war also generally behaved well, and seem to have actually behaved better than the troops on occupation duties in Western Europe." This doesn't sound very convincing considering the rapes, which you later acknowledged. As to the "topic discussions" in literature that you refer to, and do some presuming about: My position is that snippets of information here and there, and the conclusions the individual authors draw based on their limited horizon, are woefully inferior to the conclusions drawn by scholars in peer reviewed journals who draw on all that information and much much more, to paint a complete and comprehensive picture. Given that we only know of 2 such articles, but that means little since we are hardly topic experts and how many on topic scholarly journals do we actually need?

As to the common practice of killing surrendering Japanese i wish to strongly challenge both your assumptions. It may have been mentioned here and there in the past, but certainly not that it was common practice, such as here[[9]. You state the following: "Again, given that few Japanese ever tried to surrender prior to August 1945 (which is proven in countless histories of the war and attributed to the Japanese military's attitude towards surrender), it's not a major part of the war." I guess this comes from your exhaustive experience with the literature. May I direct you to some sources collected here:

Allied_war_crimes_during_World_War_II#The_Pacific "Dower states that in "many instances ... Japanese who did become prisoners were killed on the spot or en route to prison compounds."[36] According to Aldrich it was common practice for US troops not to take prisoners.[42] This analysis is supported by British historian Niall Fergusson,[43] who also says that, in 1943, "a secret [U. S.] intelligence report noted that only the promise of ice cream and three days leave would ... induce American troops not to kill surrendering Japanese."[44]"Fergusson suggests that "it was not only the fear of disciplinary action or of dishonor that deterred German and Japanese soldiers from surrendering. More important for most soldiers was the perception that prisoners would be killed by the enemy anyway, and so one might as well fight on. U. S. historian James J. Weingartner attributes the very low number of Japanese in U.S. POW compounds to two important factors, a Japanese reluctance to surrender and a widespread American "conviction that the Japanese were "animals" or "subhuman'" and unworthy of the normal treatment accorded to POWs.[48] The latter reason is supported by Fergusson, who says that "Allied troops often saw the Japanese in the same way that Germans regarded Russians [sic] — as Untermenschen."[49]" It would seem that a very important factor for Japanese reluctance to surrender to the Allied troops was their tendency to get massacred if they were dumb enough to try it. Hell, there is even colour movie footage of massacres and mutilations[10]. Lets quote Harrison: Hoyt (1986: 391) argues that what he calls the ‘unthinking’ practice of taking home bones as souvenirs was exploited so effectively by Japanese government propaganda that it contributed to a preference for death over surrender and occupation, shown, for example, in the mass civilian suicides on Saipan and Okinawa after the Allied landings." I do believe all these topics deserve much attention, and statements such as "it's not a major part of the war" only reflect a very biased literature selection. To return to your first sentence "This topic is discussed in scholarly books on the experiances of Allied servicement in the Pacific published over the last 20 years: it's just not accorded much space, presumably as the relevant professional historians consider it not to have been all that commonplace." I think we only need look at the topic of rapes in Europe to get some nuance on that.[11].[[12]

"'Lilly reveals a different side to the myth of the wholesome GI of World War II. This is a well-researched and courageous attempt to throw some light on an ugly underbelly that has remained unexamined for far too long. His harrowing descriptions of numerous rapes from official records make Taken By Force an uncomfortable read. Nevertheless, this is an important book, and one that deserves a far wider readership than just those with a scholarly interest.' - Lucy Popescu, Tribune"

How much space has this topic been given in the past? What conclusion can we draw from the silence by other authors? That it was unimportant, that someone is lying through their teeth, or that certain historians have had an ugly tendency to underplay or ignore certain aspects of war?--Stor stark7 ^Speak 15:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Terrible sentence?

Anyone agree that the following is a terrible sentence?

"Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization."

-qp10qp (talk) 10:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

"radiate" isn't really lent to facts, opinions or stances.

well, terrible might be a bit strong, but it isn't great. :-) let me see if I can fix it; I wanted to clarify something in that section anyway. --Ludwigs2 20:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Headings

What excatly is the policy of NPOV in headings?

My question comes about how band articles have History sections that a divided in ways such as: ===Mainstream success: 1992–1994===. First, isn't the heading somewhat ambiguous? What is the section talking about, the span of years, or mainstream success? Second, wouldn't it be POV if you had to mention both? I mean mainstream success is subjective, and then, there are no papers that can be cited where a historian has published that the years from 1992-1994 is the Mainstream success era for the smashing pumpkins. Where as History sections such as in United States can have the the Gilded age era because historians have written published work in peer-reviewed journals, the Mainstream success era DO NOT have historians that have written published work in peer-reviewed journals, where we have another problem, wp:or. Yet we have another problem, wp:notability, since it can't be cited, it can't be included. Years are objective, why Mainstream success, and other unnecessary discriptors, mind you, are subjective.68.148.164.166 (talk) 07:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I haven't seen the article your example is taken from (if it's from an actual Wiki article), so I can't decide how appropriate the heading is for the content of the section in question. The heading in your example is not ambiguous. It conveys quite clearly that the section is about the history of the band between 1992 and 1994, and that the band enjoyed mainstream success during that period.

The purpose of headings is to allow the reader to get a quick idea of the content of different sections, and to help provide the reader a mental map of the article. It is not intended to provide details. A heading like "Mainstream success: 1992–1994" contains some degree of vagueness and subjectivity, but that's not necessarily a problem. Most people have similar ideas about what mainstream success is, but they don't have the same threshold-criteria for when a band has achieved mainstream success. It would be counter-productive to try to redefine "mainstream success" in terms of clear-cut criteria, as such a definition would correspond less well with how people actually understand the words.

Presumably, if a band achieved "mainstream success" during a certain period, the article section will contain details of their achievements, e.g. sales of recordings & concert tickets, chart rankings, awards, etc. It is perfect acceptable to leave it to the readers to get such details from reading the text, and not just the heading, of the section.

--71.162.249.44 (talk) 11:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with you because that just subjective. I has been raised that success can never be measured. In any case, this is just one case, just an excample. But still, wouldn't it be better to just list the years?68.148.164.166 (talk) 12:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

fairness of tone revision

I recently revised the 'fairness of tone' section to read as follows:

Article tone can affect neutrality, sometimes in drastic ways, even where the article is otherwise unobjectionable. Many articles end up as partisan commentary even while presenting both points of view. Word choice in individual phrases can change the meaning of otherwise factual statements to imply endorsement or condemnation of the topic as a whole, and the particular arrangement and distribution of statements throughout the article can suggest or imply conclusions, creating an implicit and improper synthesis. In general, editors should consider the following:
Necessary and sufficient sourcing

References in an article should be sufficient to establish a point, but not excessive. An over-abundance of references (even properly sourced references) adds little of factual value to the article, but can bias the topic through sheer numerical weight.

Strength of statements

The strength of a statement can be a source of bias. In general, weak statements are preferable to strong statements - i.e. He dislikes... would be better than he hates... or he abhors... - because strong statements add an emotional charge that can influence the reader. However, overly-weak statements can also impose bias. For instance, referring to anti-semitism as a "dislike of Jews" does not capture the proper sense of the term.

Precedence, order, and repetition

In general, people remember most clearly the last thing said and the first thing said (see serial position effect), statements that appear as stark contrasts (see Von Restorff effect), and statements that are frequently repeated. Placing important points in the middle of an article effectively discounts them; placing secondary points high in the article effectively magnifies them. Further, placing contrasting ideas close to each other in an article can magnify the importance of each, which may be useful or may be inappropriate.

Structural issues

In general, Wikipedia articles should be structured into appropriate topical sections for easy navigation and reading, and the comments above should apply to sections as a whole, as well as to statements. In particular, creating sections that contain oppositional viewpoints can sometimes magnify one or another viewpoint. See criticism sections for more details.
Articles in Wikipedia should maintain in tone that all positions presented are worthy of unbiased and respectful representation (see wp:weight and wp:notability for information on when views should not be presented on Wikipedia at all).

it was (of course) immediately reverted, as are most of my posts on wikipedia <sigh...> :-) so I'm posting it here for comment and revision. the improvements this version represents are as follows:

it's far more developed than the current version
it avoids the current versions overlap with wp:weight and keeps focussed on topic
it spells out particular issues that might arise in editing, and how to deal with them

comments and revisions, please? --Ludwigs2 23:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Ludwigs, you have no support. Your recent revision actually deleted long-standing policy regarding giving weight to fringe issues. Notice how no one is giving support here. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Orange, it's fairly clear that you don't like me, and that you base your responses to me more on the fact that you don't like me, and less on the question at hand. therefore, I really can't take any of your comments or actions seriously. You can continue to do and say what you like, of course, but - again - it's all just meaningless expressions of bile.

I may have to make a template of that phrase; I'm getting tired of typing it at you. lol --Ludwigs2 01:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't care about you one way or another--in other words, I have no emotional interest in you. However, your edits are troublesome. You have been reverted three times for the same thing. You have 0, zero, no support for a change, let alone consensus. By the way, three different editors of some stature have reverted your rather POV edits. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

for someone who has no emotional interest in me, you do seem to spend a lot of time berating me... ;-) regardless, I will continue to pursue what I think is correct in this matter, and hope that (somewhere along the line) I can discuss the matter with someone in neutral terms. --Ludwigs2 03:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I actually don't care about you, I care about the project and NPOV is a core ideal. Weaken it, and you may as well shut this place down. Changes to NPOV require significant discussion and consensus. What you are doing contains neither. You happen to be doing things in articles that matter to this project. So, again, your edits are what matter to me. You...I really don't care. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Everyone please take it easy. Ludwigs2, this isn't going to get sorted out at 0400 UTC. I think if you start a new thread, tomorrow, about the one thing you want to improve/refine about the NPOV policy, here on the talk page, you might have the more neutral discussion you're looking for. Please do discuss things here before editing the policy page, given how much you seem to feel the policy needs to be shifted. Darkspots (talk) 04:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Darkspots. probably a matter of my worldview, but I didn't think my changes were all that extreme. :-) plus, OrangeMarlin and I obviously have personal issues that need to be resolved (any help anyone can provide on that would be gratefully accepted). I'll come back at it tomorrow, as you suggest. --Ludwigs2 04:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

suggested changes to 'fairness of tone' section

here are the changes I'd like to make to the fairness of tone section, with explanations of why I think they are useful. I've put each in its own subsection for ease; subsections are in no particular order... --Ludwigs2 18:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

added line to first paragraph

I'd like to add a phrase such as this -"Word choice in individual phrases can change the meaning of otherwise factual statements to imply endorsement or condemnation of the topic as a whole, and the particular arrangement and distribution of statements throughout the article can suggest or imply conclusions, creating an implicit and improper synthesis." - to the first paragraph. this is a non-problematical (though possibly unnecessary) explanation of what tone is and how it can affect the sense of an article. I'm not too worried about the particular phrasing or sense, so even significant changes are welcome; I see this more as set-up to differentiate tone from more concrete characteristics of an article. --Ludwigs2 18:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

describing tone issues

this is a list of general issues that can affect tone. again, this is mostly non-problematical; it's the kind of thing I instruct students on as a normal facet of decent writing. Im not sure that the list is exhaustive of good writing points, but it's a start. the second and third statements shouldn't generate many objections (they seem pretty straight-forward); the first might stir up some issues with a particular cadre of editors who are accustomed to over-sourcing criticisms into articles. that will probably require some debate.

Necessary and sufficient sourcing: References in an article should be sufficient to establish a point, but not excessive. An over-abundance of references (even properly sourced references) adds little of factual value to the article, but can bias the topic through sheer numerical weight.
Strength of statements: The strength of a statement can be a source of bias. In general, weak statements are preferable to strong statements - i.e. He dislikes... would be better than he hates... or he abhors... - because strong statements add an emotional charge that can influence the reader. However, overly-weak statements can also impose bias. For instance, referring to anti-semitism as a "dislike of Jews" does not capture the proper sense of the term.
Precedence, order, and repetition: In general, people remember most clearly the last thing said and the first thing said (see serial position effect), statements that appear as stark contrasts (see Von Restorff effect), and statements that are frequently repeated. Placing important points in the middle of an article effectively discounts them; placing secondary points high in the article effectively magnifies them. Further, placing contrasting ideas close to each other in an article can magnify the importance of each, which may be useful or may be inappropriate.

these same issues should really apply to sections as well to sentences (that was originally a fourth point, but there are probably better ways to say it) --Ludwigs2 18:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

With regards to point 1. You're trying to invent a situation that's rare. And sometimes, it requires numerous references to make a complicated point. With regards to point 2, who's to decide what's strong and weak. That's highly subjective. 3. Maybe, maybe not. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

actually, I don't think 1 is rare at all, but regardless, the 'necessary and sufficient' thing strikes me as a good guideline. I can understand your concern, I think - you don't want a restriction that limits sourcing - but that would be covered by the 'necessary' side of the phrase. 2 and 3 are actually well documented points in psychology, and they are meant to be subjective guidelines rather than concrete rules. basically, these were intended to give people a way of talking about tonal balance in an article (as sufficient, as strong or weak, as precedence) rather than specifying exactly how they should be handled. --Ludwigs2 01:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

"Overciting" has some downsides just from a style standpoint. Spamming a claim with twenty cites makes the writer look desperate to prove a point, which isn't very encyclopedic. "Quality, not quantity" is the obvious maxim. I don't know that it's really an NPOV problem, it's more of a style issue.

The question of order is a natural one and it's definitely something that I've run into, such as POV warriors trying to bury a mainstream argument (q.v. the MCS article). More of a question of WP:WEIGHT in that case, though. SDY (talk) 02:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

respect

the first line of the (current) last paragraph should read "We should write articles with the tone that all positions presented are at least worthy of unbiased and respectful representation" (emphasis mine, to highlight addition). I have been coming to the conclusion that one of the major issues on wikipedia is that editors get so tangled up in defending, exploring, and/or attacking the effectiveness, facticity, honesty, practicality, or etc of a subject that they forget that the topic needs to be respected, first and foremost, as a topic of knowledge. honestly, if I have an agenda, it's this - I'd like to encourage editors to spend less effort trying to construct a neutral evaluation of a topic, and more effort trying to construct a neutral description. 'Respect' is the best way I can think of to snip off that evaluative urge. --Ludwigs2 18:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

All positions? No, positions that are fringe, or give weight to fringe, shouldn't be included. Sorry. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

you know I have to say, I'm having the hardest time understanding this perspective. maybe it's because I'm an academic, but it seems to me that knowledge is just knowledge, and it should be respected as knowledge. so I can easily understand you not liking fringe theories - that makes sense to me - but I can't understand why you seem to be against knowledge about fringe theories. if you could explain that to me it would go a long way towards helping me understand why you take the positions you do (because most of the time that eludes me). --Ludwigs2 01:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that the term "respect" is a dangerous one to use, because I think it will likely do more harm than good. I see a significant difference between minority scientific theories in the mainstream, such as the scientific papers on the theories and experiments on cold fusion as opposed to minority theories that have little or no scientific support, but lots of adherents, such as astrology. I am concerned that adding the term "respect" will be usable by wikilawyers as a crowbar to cause more disputes than it resolves. As a cultural phenomenon astrology is significant; as a scientific method of predicting world events, or personal events, it would have no value from an objective scientific viewpoint. I think the word "sensitive"

in the first sentence, which reads "we should present competing views with a consistently fair and sensitive tone" is sufficient. If the competing views were personified, we would expect them to have a civil discourse, just as we are having here. Also, there is the statement "all views presented" ... presented by whom, advocating what, and with what level of mainstream recognition in that area? That seems to imply all views, no matter how small the minority and in scientific fields, how little evidence supports their viewpoint, should be given recognition. I don't think I agree with that... not for a concise encyclopedia article, sorryHatlessAtless (talk) 13:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE would obviously still apply. The article would only treat it with a respectful tone if it actually mentions it. "Dispassionate", the SA/MC version's word, is actually a very good choice. "Sensitive" seems to run contrary to WP:SPADE and seems, in my mind, to endorse flowery and misleading language. The "nutshell" version of this section seems to be "the article should not be actively insulting to a reasonable reader who holds a minority opinion." SDY (talk) 14:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

delete last sentence

the last sentence of the current 'fairness of tone' revision reads "This does not, however, mean that all views should get equal space, nor that they should be presented as equal: Minority views should not be presented as equally accepted as the majority view, for instance, and views in the extreme minority do not belong in Wikipedia at all." while I don't object to the idea in itself, it does not belong in the tone section, because it has nothing directly to do with tone. it's merely a carry-over from wp:weight, where it is already thoroughly described. I'd have no objection to replacing it with something like "Article tone should be considered when assessing undo weight issues." --Ludwigs2 18:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Is there some reason why you're edit-warring to try to force these changes, which clearly lack consensus, into a fundamental Wikipedia policy? The proposed changes are overly prescriptive. They weaken WP:WEIGHT, which is the most-often-ignored policy snippet on Wikipedia. Not all positions are deserving of "respectful" presentation; if all available reliable sources treat a topic as undeserving of respect, then Wikipedia needs to go where the sources go. The bar for significant alterations to a fundamental policy like NPOV is, or at least should be, quite high. Less really is more here. I don't see these as significant improvements to the policy, even if there wasn't a distasteful overlay of edit-warring around them. MastCell ^Talk 04:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

is there some reason why you're resorting to massive hyperbole?

I don't disagree with you about wp:weight - it's an excellent policy. however, I think WEIGHT does an excellent job of saying what WEIGHT intends to say, and I see no reason to make an assortment of other policies duplicate what WEIGHT has to say. in fact, that's confusing, and that's pretty much why I replaced the repetition of WP:WEIGHT's statements with an actual link to WP:WEIGHT. if you think WEIGHT is under-appreciated, then the appropriate place to address that is in article content and talk pages, not by duplicating the content of the policy through other policies like a virus...

look, MastCell, I've given up on ever having a reasonable conversation with OrangeMarlin, but I have had reasonable conversations with you, and even though our positions are very different on some points I still feel like we can work together. maybe not on everything, but still... please don't read unnecessary agendas into my actions. I'm very up front about my agendas (as you can see from some of the other changes I suggested above); this just struck me as an appropriate kind of cleanup. you can still object to it on those grounds, mind you. but don't go bouncing off the walls about it. --Ludwigs2 05:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Not that MastCell needs me to defend him, but I didn't see the hyperbole; I saw succinct explanations of why he did not support your proposals. Mine is even more succinct (but with substantially less explanatory value), below. Antelan ^talk 05:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

oh, the hyperbole was with respect to the 'edit-warring' comment only, which was completely unwarranted. no biggie, though. --Ludwigs2 18:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Solutions in search of a problem

These are solutions in search of a problem. I don't have much more to offer; I just don't think that the suggested changes are as good as the current version. Antelan ^talk 04:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

not even the descriptions? those struck me as eminently reasonable... --Ludwigs2 05:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Those might be just fine for the Manual of Style. In fact, a couple of them, more or less, might already be there. Antelan ^talk 05:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I hadn't even thought of that. maybe I'll go and edit them in over there where they might be more appropriate. thanks! :-) --Ludwigs2 18:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Removing a sentence

I am inclined to remove the sentence about undue weight applying to more than viewpoints. I recognize what the sentence is trying to do, but there's a fundamental problem with putting this, which is basically a copy-editing and style guideline, in our most fundamental content policy. There are other issues with appropriate weighting that need to be considered in articles beyond weighing of viewpoints, but this policy is about the neutral point of view, and should not instruction creep out to handle all cases of article parts not being of appropriate length. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up - I just realized what this line is supposed to be doing, which is that it's the line we use to keep a BLP from having every little scandal or negative thing that happened to someone included. I still think this line could use a clarification - what we're dealing with here is a sort of implicit viewpoint, not just the vague statement that "all facts should be appropriately balanced in weight," which, while not untrue, isn't really a NPOV issue as such. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

interesting - I hadn't thought of that use (though it makes sense). I'd always viewed that section as a way of keeping an article from being swamped by extended explanations of minor tangents. but you're right, I think; this section (and other parts of the NPOV policy) could use some clarification. what do you think would work for clarifying it?

by the way, thanks for pointing out that particular passage - on a closer reading, that will prove useful in some arguments I'm having elsewhere... :-) --Ludwigs2 18:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the important hedge here is to switch to a readerly perspective. That is, what we're trying to take care of here is not just the weighing of things that are explicitly viewpoints, but also the weighing of the overall impression the reader will have of the subject. So what we need to do, essentially, is imagine the reader of the article and make sure that this imagined reader isn't going to get a misleading impression of what is important about the topic. A phrasing along this line would, I think, go a long way both towards fixing the odd phrasing and towards strengthening the overall policy. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

We could shove the parts pertaining to the relevant documents back to their originating documents? They only serve to lengthen this document, IMHO. (shorter is always better :-) ). That, and by having the undue weight information *here* we also get several situations where people fight much harder about where NPOV lies than they really have to (because they end up conflating the issues). Does that cover your concerns? --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Kim, can you be more specific? I don't know what you mean by "parts pertaining to the relevant documents...".

Phil - would something like this work? Undue weight applies to more than just the balance of viewpoints presented in the article; it means that the article should appear fair and balanced in the overall impression of an uninvolved reader.--Ludwigs2 23:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Things to do with BLP should only be listed under BLP, things to do with weight should only be listed under WEIGHT, and thus if you do that everywhere, pages in general will be shorter. All else being equal, Shorter==better ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

oh, man, I couldn't agree with you more. every time I make suggestions that way, though, people get upset. don't ask me why - I'm a fan of an ordered world. :-) --Ludwigs2 01:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Rather than the proposed text ("it means that the article should appear fair and balanced in the overall impression of an uninvolved reader"), I would suggest the following: It means that an uninvolved reader should come away from the article with an accurate understanding of knowledge on the subject. "Fair and balanced" (aside from its association with Fox News) is not necessarily the best formulation here. One could argue (in fact, a lengthy succession of accounts has argued) that the AIDS denialism article is not "fair and balanced" because it describes AIDS denialism as a scientifically discredited fringe view. The article may not be "balanced" - it does not treat AIDS denialists and the scientific community as if they were on an equal footing - but it does provide the reader with an accurate understanding of the state of human knowledge in the field. MastCell ^Talk 22:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Fairness of tone wording

The "fairness of tone" section needed a going over. I have done so. See [13].

Explanation

Wording "fair and sensitive" replaced with "dispassionate". The problem is that what is "fair and sensitive" to some is not "fair and sensitive" to other. Neutrality is not sympathy. Wikipedia is not Wikinfo. We are charged with being as dispassionate as possible, but the most verifiable and reliably sourced prose is not necessarily "fair and sensitive" to those who are at pains to understand reality, for example. I also removed "Fairness of" from the section header.
"We should..." is very poor wording. Describe what the best practice is instead.
"all positions are at least worthy of unbiased representation" replaced with "provides an unbiased representation of all positions". The "at least worthy" is a meaningless platitude. We are charged with writing unbiased representations. Not with writing in tones that indicate "worthiness".

ScienceApologist (talk) 21:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

For the most part, these seem reasonable. I would suggest replacing "unbiased reprsentation of all positions" with "unbiased and proportionate representation of all positions", to sync with the undue-weight portion of the policy. Also, not all positions are worthy of presentation on Wikipedia; we should probably amend it to "all notable positions". I generally agree that we need to go where the reliable sources take us, and if reliable sources consistently disparage a topic, then we should not whitewash the content of those sources in an effort to be artifically "fair and sensitive". MastCell ^Talk 21:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't like the term "notable", though, because notability because that is a policy for articles and not necessarily prose in an article. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

fascinating that this this change comes after this discussion has been raised elsewhere. unfortunately I need to revert it pending further discussion. I don't find your changes to long-standing policy acceptable. let's discuss the matter. --Ludwigs2 21:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Uh... OK. Let's discuss it. Why don't you take a look at the above two posts and elaborate on why you don't find the changes acceptable? That would be a useful start. I see you proposed an alteration to this section about a week ago which did not receive support; is that what you're referring to as "fascinating"? MastCell ^Talk 21:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I've restored the original clause, there's no consensus in the community for the recent changes. Odd nature (talk) 22:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, but in order to generate consensus (or demonstrate its absence) we should probably have some more specific objections to the changes for discussion. MastCell ^Talk 22:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't realize that there was a reason for returning back. I did however make some additional changes. There was a lot of informal wording present in the previous version that I tried to eschew. Sorry for being bold!! ScienceApologist (talk) 22:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

We need to have an actual objection here. I'm giving this 48 hours. If I see no objections being made, I will reinstate the version MastCell & I worked on. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm very confused here. It reads like Ludwig's original proposal, which is too much into subjectiveness. I instinctively reverted back to your version, but after a second read, I'm not so sure. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

MastCell - I'll make my comments below. in the meantime, however, let's not be hasty in changing the wording until some consensus is reached (as you yourself recommended to me above). you and SA have made your points, and we'll discuss them, but policy needs stability.

ScienceAplogist, cool your jets. I'm not here 24/7, and there's no particular hurry about changing policy anyway. Impetuousness isn't going to get you anywhere.

to address your points, using the same numbers...

you seem to be forgetting that Wikipedia is based on consensus. "Dispassionate" is a term that refers to individuals: it means that someone is rational and uninfluenced by strong emotion when they act. the concept is just as subjective as "fair and sensitive", since clearly there is no objective measure of dispassion. however, it is much easier to abuse since it's completely ego-centric. all one has to do is say "I was being dispassionate, so your views don't matter" - a perfect rationalization for any offensive statement one would like to make (racists, for instance, are often very dispassionate in their discussions of the flaws of minorities). "Fair and sensitive", however, are social terms that require consensus. one cannot say "I was being fair and sensitive, so your views don't matter", because it would be apparent to everyone that such a statement contradicts the notion that one is being fair and sensitive at all. The only way to deal with an accusation of being unfair or insensitive is to communicate with whomever made the accusation and reach some form of consensus on the matter.
- in short, "dispassionate" begins to undercut consensus debate, and leaves the door open for an assortment of procedural abuses; 'fair and sensitive' reinforces the consensual nature of editing.
This "should" thing is a minor point, I think, which we can resolve after we've dealt with the major issues. it is the nature of a policy to prescribe behavior, and so the word "should" is not entirely out of line, but as a matter of writing style it's not necessarily the best way to go about it. table this for now...
"at least worthy" can hardly be described as a 'meaningless platitude'. it brings in the notion (as I was discussing previously on this page) that all topics and positions should be treated with a modicum of respect, even when we need to present extensive criticism. this issue is already thoroughly discussed in Biographies of Living Persons, where sensitivity to and respect for the feelings and attitudes of the subject is enforceable - I think this line extends that same sensitivity and respect to all topics, and to the feelings and attitudes of readers who may have strong opinions on the subject. If anything, I'd like to see the role of worthiness and respect magnified in this passage, not eliminated.

--Ludwigs2 17:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

There are both legal and ethical reasons why "sensitivity" is much more relevant to BLP's than to articles on Ye Olde Minoritarian Belief. Again, I don't think we should be constrained by artificial demands of "sensitivity" or "respect" for a subject if the treatment of the subject in reliable, independent secondary sources is consistently disparaging. I see this wording as being prone to abuse; it could conceivably justify ignoring, toning down, or misrepresenting reliably sourced and relevant critical material on the basis of the "sensitivity" of an inanimate, intangible subject. "Dispassionate" is a better term than "fair and sensitive", because the latter suggests some degree of sympathy toward the subject, while "dispassionate" suggests that we merely follow where the reliable sources lead us. MastCell ^Talk 17:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

MastCell argues well against your Point 1. Point 2 is not an actionable objection. Point 3 is ridiculous. Not everything is worthy of respect. That's essentially not NPOV to insist that's the case. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts. First of all Ludwigs, it is not appropriate to lecture anyone about consensus. I agree with MastCell's view of Point 1. "Should" is fine, because there is not an absolute. Some fringe viewpoints deserve derision. Point 3 is similar to Point 2--not all minority viewpoints deserve respect, especially in face of massive sources against it. By the way, asking someone to "cool their jets" is highly inappropriate. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

well, I certainly didn't expect to convince the three of you on the first go-round, so none of these responses are surprising. however, OM, I do think a discussion of consensus decision making is both appropriate and relevant here. every consensus system has checks and balances, and 'fairness of tone' is an important check that shouldn't be altered lightly. the text itself says

Many articles end up as partisan commentary even while presenting both points of view. Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization.

this implies that verifiable and reliable sourcing are insufficient in themselves for establishing neutrality in an article, and that fairness of tone is a check to prevent a partisan perspective from being imposed through a careful selection and use of sourcing.

now, there's no doubt that fairness and sensitivity are more relevant to BLP, but that does not mean that they are not relevant to other articles. to MastCell's concerns: I don't see any way this clause could be used to remove or misrepresent properly sourced cites (no editor worth his salt would allow that), but it certainly would be used to tone down the way that wikipedia editors use such sources - that is its stated purpose. I don't see that you could actually have a problem with a fair and sensitive approach that was arrived at through consensus, and all this clause really ensures is that consensus needs to be found on that issue. this is not going to keep out cites that are disparaging to a topic; it's simply going to prevent editors from being disparaging in their use of such cites. and please keep in mind that we are not exactly talking about 'inanimate, intangible subjects.' Readers come to wikipedia every day who have opinions and beliefs about these subjects, and we have an obligation to respect their feelings as well. I don't want readers reading through our our articles and dismissing them as bully-fests, do you? and by the way, that's not my term - that's something someone said to me about an article here.

as to your collective view that some topics are unworthy of respect, well... that makes it perfectly clear that your attitude to some articles is not at all neutral. I can't help the fact that you personally may want to disparage some topic(s), but wikipedia is not an appropriate venue for you to do that. --Ludwigs2 19:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

What does a policy that is dealing with how the TONE of words in an article should be have to do with the consensus of editors? I fail to see any connection other than the fact that editors must agree to an appropriate tone. How this implies "fairness", "sensitivity", or "worthiness" is something that Ludwigs seems unable to address. A dispassionate tone is warranted in Wikipedia and certainly tone can cause an article to veer away from neutral, but there is no reason to think that Wikipedia is supposed to be "fair" or that it is supposed to be "sensitive" or that it should treat all subjects as though they were "worthy" of some sort of vague dignity standard. Moreover, BLP is a wholly different issue that is not mentioned in any of the versions of this section: if you are concerned about BLP then go hyuck it up at WT:BLP, but trying to make claims that BLP somehow must influence the word choice here seems suspect to me at best. We don't need to "respect" the feelings of anyone. I know plenty of people who are offended -- offended -- by the term "conspiracy theory" as we apply it here at Wikipedia. Tough cookies for them; we aren't here to write an encyclopedia that doesn't offend. This is a long-standing point and is even codified at WP:NOT#CENSORED. So I submit that Ludwigs2 is nearly entirely misguided here, I think his good faith contributions to the discussion need to be chalked up to someone who simply doesn't understand the core principles of Wikipedia are not accommodating the idiosyncratic beliefs and feelings of the masses but rather presenting reliable, verifiable, and dispassionate text about notable subjects. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

If you don't understand why all articles should be "fair" and why all "positions presented" should be considered "at least worthy" of "unbiased representation", then you are in the wrong place my friend. 208.89.211.168 (talk) 20:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not your friend. At least, I don't think I'm your friend. But "fairness" is an irrelevant point here. Neturality != fairness. All positions should be presented with an unbiased representation. Full stop. Whether they are "worthy" of this treatment is irrelevant. I'm not sure you are really in the position of telling me that I'm in the wrong place. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Alas, I see that you don't understand. 208.89.211.168 (talk) 20:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I most agree with ScienceApologist and Orangemarlin and think Ludwigs2appears to miss what consensus is about. Consensus is not about voting on what it true, or agreeing what is deserving, or what a majority of people in the world think. Our job here is to write a great encyclopedia. We get a consensus on what claims are made in the best sources we can find and report those - even if a majority of humans disagree. Majority opinion among the most informed is what we record and consensus is about agreeing what those claims are and what sources are the best. WAS 4.250 (talk) 20:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll go even further than this. It's not even the most informed. It's those who are perceived by the preponderance of reliable sources to be the most informed. I'm coming across this problem now at Talk:Cold fusion where the proponents for cold fusion believe that the critics are not the "most informed" and they, indeed, may have a point in the raw facts of the case since most critics of cold fusion don't bother to waste their time on the subject. Nevertheless, critics are given a high degree of consideration among independent evaluators as evinced by the 2004 DOE report on Cold Fusion which did not recommend funding any cold fusion research specifically but only on a case-by-case basis (which, for most cold fusion researchers, has been something of a dead end). So the most informed should probably be changed to something like the most reliable. But I'm being nitpicky. I essentially agree with what you are saying. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

unfortunately - SA and WAS - it appears that you either haven't read what I wrote, or you haven't understood it. in either case, you really haven't responded to it. you say: 'Consensus is not about voting on what it true, or agreeing what is deserving, or what a majority of people in the world think,' well... I never mentioned voting (don't know where that came from), and if consensus isn't about agreeing or about what other people think then what exactly do you think consensus is about? You seem to think (or at least you keep insisting) that I'm trying somehow to censor particular views from wikipedia, when in fact all that I'm doing is trying to promote a properly encyclopedic, detached, polite tone in articles, by maintaining that a 'fair and sensitive tone' be arrived at through consensus.

you really should read up on the notion of checks and balances...

and sorry, but the "tough cookies, we don't need to respect anyone, to hell with any perspectives we don't like" attitude you hold strikes me as an aberration from normal human civility and proper consensus. I really can't see any reason to implement it as policy. --Ludwigs2 21:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you now admit that consensus is a red herring. The issue boils down to this: Should we ask writers to strive for a fair and sensitive tone or should we ask writers to strive for a dispassionate tone? I submit that "fair and sensitive" is a subjective and misleading guidepost while dispassionate sums up the goal of NPOV better. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

hunh - you think consensus is a red herring? no son, not in the least... but your wording of the issue is wrong. I think it's a good idea for writers to strive for a dispassionate tone in any event (despite the fact that it's an entirely subjective state of mind...) - that can only help. but the real issue at hand is this: should dispassionate tone be the 'be-all-and-end-all' measure of neutrality, or should consensual agreements about fairness and sensitivity play a part? I submit that by trying to eliminate fairness and sensitivity, you are corrupting the basic wikipedian cornerstone of consensus editing.

and remember, the latter point is the current standard - you are asking to have considerations of fairness and sensitivity removed from long-standing policy, and you have not yet provided a particularly good reason why, except that you don't like it.

is it time we open an RfC on this yet? --Ludwigs2 21:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Your argument looks very weak. What makes "fair and sensitive" something that consensus can be built around but "dispassionate" something consensus cannot be built around? As far as I can tell, consensus applies just as much to striving for a dispassionate tone as any other tone we care to identify. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I (we?) have actually articulated a rationale for the change. You don't agree with the rationale, which is fine. Let's give it a day to let anyone else chime in; if we're still at an impasse, then sure, an RfC would be reasonable. MastCell ^Talk 22:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Please Ludwigs2, go right to the RfC. You might want to check first to see how often that route makes a change in policy. You have little or no support for these changes that you have proposed. You can't convince anyone of your viewpoint, so you're trying to force us to accept your POV by the casual threat of escalating the argument to another forum. It doesn't give you leverage, because an RfC really isn't going to get you the change you want. May I suggest that consensus works only when there's a common goal. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... Ludwigs2, you surprise me. When I said I thought you had a better chance of changing NPOV policy than significantly changing the tone of Intelligent Design, I didn't realize you had already started editing this page. Way to have all bases covered! In anycase, the "fair and sensitive tone" rhetoric seems to predate your involvement here, as far as I can tell, [14] so you probably do see yourself as defending or elaborating on the spirit of WP policy as you see it. However, fairness and sensitivity seem to me to mainly have to do with the way "reliable sources" are represented, rather than with what WP might say about something or anything at any given moment. While fairness and sensitivity in tone may be something to shoot for in prose, such considerations should take second place to the accurate and impartial representation of the most reliable information available. Amerique^dialectics 23:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

That's right. And what makes a source "reliable" for one thing may make it "unreliable" for something else. It is sometimes our jobs as editors to make that distinction apparent. That's hardly "fair and sensitive" of us. For example, when we report on the disparagement of Answers in Genesis we are hardly being "fair and sensitive". ScienceApologist (talk) 00:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I view it as a form of translation. Representing whatever the reliable sources say in a way that saves the sense or the sentiment and is appropriate for the encyclopedia per NPOV and other policy does involve some measure of "fairness and sensitivity," or perhaps a better term would be "discretion." As editors, we make choices about what info we represent from what sources, guided by our perceptions of how it would go towards an NPOV depiction in an article. The issue as I see it is how to neutrally represent reliably-sourced negative information. Because information is negative does not necessarily mean it is biased, and misconceptions over this I think go to the heart of the problems we are having. Amerique^dialectics 00:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Can we revert to a previous stable wording for this policy and protect it there while we have this little spat? Call me a fascist or a nazi or a policy wonk, but is it irrational to say that this page should be aggressively protected from edit wars when there was no consensus for any of these changes? SDY (talk) 01:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The version it's currently at is the closest prior version before this spat started. As I see it, Ludwigs2 started it with this edit on June 28th: [15]. After multiple editors revert him, SA started editing the contested policy yesterday: [16], and much confusion and a revert war breaks out with Ludwig reverting back to the version before he personally started editing this. No harm, no foul, I say; ~~although I don't agree much with either contested version so far.~~ On a second reading, SA's version does seem a definite improvement. Amerique^dialectics 02:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree - SA's version is far clearer, and avoids the all-too-easy misreadings of "fairness of tone" that violated other, long-accepted policy, such as WP:UNDUE, and WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I agree that the section needs work, but consensus first, then changes. SDY (talk) 02:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

So how do you suggest obtaining that consensus, when you would deny the normal consensus process by having the page protected? :-P I do think Ludwigs2 does seem to have a bit of a point. The current wording is open to interpretation where you could actually read it as saying the opposite of what NPOV is. Whether Ludwigs' wording fixes that perceived problem is a different matter, of course, but it's something we definitely ought to keep in mind, at the least. --Kim Bruning (talk) 03:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC) (for instance, some people might read it as saying we shouldn't have an article saying that the earth is flat despite the fact that that position is historically significant... if only because it's a commonly cited 19th century myth :-P )

Tone Consensus discussion

By my count there are at least four people supporting the MastCell-SA version of the text and one person who has explicitly stated that they don't like it. Then there are a number of people who want consensus to be established before changes are made. Okay, at what point can we say we have consensus? ScienceApologist (talk) 13:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I think a consensus of 4 is sufficient to "stabilize" the text at this version, as a starting point for further improvements, of course. Amerique^dialectics 15:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

replying to multiple editors, more or less in order...

OrangeMarlin: - you said: "You have little or no support for these changes that you have proposed" when in fact the version I'm defending is the stable and accepted version, not some change I'm making. you might want to actually read through the diffs before you offer opinions that are factually incorrect. plus, your cynicism about the RfC process doesn't strike me as particularly good faith.

Amerique: - I previously made some changes here which were (properly) reverted. hey, I'm learning... :-) but they weren't these changes, which have been advocated by MastCell and ScienceApologist, please see this version here which was the state of the article before I became involved on this page. as above, I'm basically suggesting that the changes MC and SA offer should not be accepted without a lot more discussion. also, where you say this: "The issue as I see it is how to neutrally represent reliably-sourced negative information. Because information is negative does not necessarily mean it is biased, and misconceptions over this I think go to the heart of the problems we are having" I think you're substantially correct, but I think you still miss the distinction between the negative tone of reliably-sourced authors and the negative tone of wikipedia editors. the whole point of the 'Fairness of tone' clause is to prevent wikipedia editors from presenting a biased account. it's very easy to present even heavily disparaging material in a fair and sensitive manner, if editors discuss the matter in good faith.

SDY: - good idea. I'll put in a protection request.

MastCell: - yes you've articulated a reason, and I've offered a response. I'd be more than happy to discuss it with you further if you'd like. it's really not that complicated an issue if we can get past the distractions to work on it directly.

SA: - this is consensus, not voting. my objections are well-stated and clear, and I find your attempts to push through a change without proper debate disconcerting. why don't you slow down and discuss the matter reasonably - we have all the time in the world to figure this out.

General comment: - I'd like to point out that this discussion is an excellent example of the problem I see with this change. SA and his friends are using their dispassionate assessment as an excuse for justifiable edit warring, rather than taking the time to reach a fair consensus on the talk page. very sad state of affairs... --Ludwigs2 15:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

P.s. Amerique - are you suggesting that a "consensus" of four editors (who habitually work together) is sufficient for making a radical change to policy? --Ludwigs2 15:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Stating implicitly or explicitly that individuals are "working together" or "friends" can be construed as an uncivil comment. The point is dispassionate editors are not in agreement with you. There is no conspiracy.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see MastCell/SA's version as a radical change, but more of an incremental improvement, which had adequate support. Although there is a conceptual difference, there isn't much of a functional distinction between "fair and sensitive" and "dispassionate," as either wording is easily gameable. If "dispassionate" holds, you can argue that the pro-science side of disputes does not seem sufficiently "dispassionate" regarding psuedoscience topics, so I don't really care regarding the change in adjectives. Best, Amerique^dialectics 17:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment I oppose this change. "Sensitive" reflects the critical requirement that presentations of points of view must reflect that point of view -- they must come from a position in sympathy with that point of view and explain what advocates of the point of view claim as the advocates see things. This is what NPOV requires. "Dispassionate", on the other hand, implies that one is coming from a "true" position, a kind of philosophical aether in a state of absolute rest from which one can survey other lesser positions. This is exactly what the NPOV policy is designed to prohibit. This change would simply open the door for people who believe that their positions are "dispassionate" to use Wikipedia to shoot down points of view they disagree with, and claim they are complying with the policy and discribing them "dispassionately." Moreover, "dispassionate" implies passions are bad and suggests that exploration of the emotions is not a valid way for human beings to understand themselves or the reality they live in. There is no reason for imposing this moralism on human knowledge. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 16:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

WOW, Shirahadasha I think you are reading way too much into this. The word "dispassionate" implies nothing (words can not imply anything, rather, readers infer based upon their own perspective, knowledge, and feelings.) Ludwigs, please make that 5 editors support the SA version (I do not habitually work with any of the other 4 editors.) Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 16:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) But this is a fundamental misunderstanding of policy/practice, as well as of the word "dispassionate". There is not a requirement that points of view be sourced to "sympathetic" outlets. There is a requirement that everything be sourced reliably. A "dispassionate" description of a fringe group's belief from the New York Times is far preferable to a "sympathetic" description taken from snakeoilforsale.com. Furthermore, in no sense does "dispassionate" mean that there is One True POV. Dispassionate means that we try to describe things objectively, independently, and without excess emotional involvement in either side. I think these objections are more misunderstandings than anything else, and I suspect we're actually close to agreement on the underlying matters. MastCell ^Talk 16:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The neutral point of view in a nutshell is to accurately describe what reliable sources say on a subject. If reliable sources do not treat a subject in a sensitive manner, then neither should Wikipedia. Instead we should dispassionately report what the sources say, even if others might see this as insensitive. For instance, most reliable sources deal with the views of Holocaust deniers in what these people might regard as an extremely insensitive manner, and we must reflect this well-sourced insensitivity in our article on the subject. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Tim. I think there is a push here to be nice. It's like that time you added a point to the Homeopathy article that homeopaths created solutions made up of the Berlin Wall for something or another. There wasn't any way to treat that but with derision. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Coming here from the AN/I thread, I'd like to voice support for SA and Mastcell's proposal, in which I believe the language has evolved to... "provides an unbiased and proportionate representation of all positions". Further, I prefer 'dispassionate' because noting a lack of excessive emotional tone, and seeing writing as dry, is far easier than figuring out which of one thousand synonyms is the 'fairest and sensitive-est'. 'Sensitive' is squishy. Is it better to describe aunt Jemina as 'kind', 'gentle' or go for the pun and say 'sweet'? Dispassionately, one can say 'She is seen to be non-threatening even to children when she manifests in their breakfast syrup bottle and begins walking around the kitchen.' Since children giggle and talk to her with smiles, they aren't terrified of her. I do note that Amerique's 'discretion' while a good insight, still opens things to different folks' levels of discretion, which rise and fall in accordance with their emotional bond to a topic. Evne Tim Vickers' above example might need to be considered, and too much 'insensitivity' will offend others, whereas truly dispassionate writing can convey the actions of such knuckledraggers in such clear tones that most people will judge for themselves that such mouthbreathers need a small cave and lots of darkness. WAS and SA have something there in that 'most -informed/reliable' contrast, and I'm not sure which way to fall, but that might be best handled separately. Shirahadasha suggests that 'dispassionate' implied lording one's own 'rightness' over others. I think that's the opposite of the truth. Consider the American legal system. Judges are meant to be dispassionate, not 'fair and sensitive'. The LAW may be meant to strive for fairness to aggrieved parties, but when it fails, the judge should dispassionately apply that law. At least, that is one major theory of American juris prudence, the other trends towards what now gets controversially labelled 'activist judging'. Dispassionate writing can be easy to discuss, as it seeks to strive to strip out language which interferes with the point by pulling the emotions. To be clear, I'm not advocating dropping all adjectives, they certainly have a place. ThuranX (talk) 16:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflicts, general comment) Any way we approach the issue, "fairness of tone" criteria in NPOV policy is going to be interperted subjectively. Any language we could use for this could be gamed by anyone on a minority side of an NPOV dispute, the use of "sensitive" wording not excepted, as it allows a partisan to say: "this content may be factual and reliably sourced, but it seems insensitive to whatever my (or 'the opposing', 'the fringe') POV is." However, the fact that the concept of "fair-tone" can be so easily gamed dosen't mean that it is antithetical to NPOV, but there should be some way of representing legitimate concerns in this area without letting them override the encyclopedia's responsibility to reproduce information that is fairly-presented based on reliable sources. Amerique^dialectics 16:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

As an uninvolved bystander coming here from a review of the block of a participant, I support the newer, more succinct wording being proposed. "Fair and sensitive tone" is waffling. Sandstein 17:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

As another uninvolved bystander, I agree with Sandstein. The Mastcell/SA wording (now reverted) is a definite improvement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 13:35, 10 July 2008

I agree with the newer form of words. I don't think anything has changed, beyond the exact words that those who choose to wikilawyer will argue over. And while I do understand why Ludwigs2 would want to retain the longstanding consensus version pending discussion, edit-warring is just not on, even when done for the best of reasons. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe this version provides more clarity and hews more closely to the principle being elaborated. My only objection is a nit: "all notable positions" should be phrased as "all significant positions" or "all salient positions". "Notable" is a loaded word on Wikipedia and there is already some occasional confusion over notability's application (as the Wikipedia principle) to article content. Using a synonym easily corrects this minor issue. (I said it was a nit!) Vassyana (talk) 19:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Strongly second this concern with "notable". I like the MastCell version better as well. II | (t - c) 07:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

this is interesting dialog (thank you all very much). I think, however, it's getting bogged down in specifics of wording and starting to miss the more general issue. let me try to restate what strikes me as the real problem, using a simplified example first, and a prominent WP example second, just so the discussion doesn't wander off in the wrong direction. then I'm going to wander off for the rest of the day and leave people to discuss it.

the issue: I think it's clear to everyone that the tone an editor takes can have a significant effect on the impression an article gives, regardless of the sourcing used. for example (to adopt a discussion I've had elsewhere) the same reliable source (call it source A) can prompt one editor to write "The scientific community has not accepted..." and prompt a different editor to write "The scientific community completely rejects..." The latter is a much stronger phrase, in that it tends to assert an immutable, ongoing attitude to the scientific community that the former doesn't. however, each editor can claim that their phrase is the proper presentation of source A, assumedly because each editor has read the source slightly differently. the question then arises: How do we decide between these two presentations of the material? This is not a question of reliable sourcing or verifiability (since it's the same source we're discussing...); this is a question of how we decide between two different editor's interpretations of a source.

MastCell's suggested change throws the burden of this question entirely on individual editors - essentially he says that a 'dispassionate' presentation of sources will resolve any problems that arise. I have a hard time envisioning that myself: even with the simplified and not-very-dramatic difference given above, I can see each editor claiming that his perspective is dispassionate while the other editor's perspective represents POV-pushing (possibly because that's exactly what happened when I had the argument that inspired that example). I do think dispassionate editing is a good idea, mind you, but I don't think it can resolve the deeper issue, because this approach conflates the editor's opinion with the opinion given in the reliable source (as though a dispassionate view is automatically a correct view). what we need is some way of creating consensus around editor's good-faith interpretations of sources, when (in fact) the sources themselves are not in question.

This (IMV) is what the Fairness of Tone section was intended to address, cases where there is still an interpretive difference "even while presenting both points of view [...or...] when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions." Further, it seems to me that the solution implied in the original fairness of tone clause was diplomatic in nature - we should maintain a "consistently fair and sensitive tone" and "write articles with the tone that all positions presented are at least worthy of unbiased representation." Both of these phrases seem to suggest that some interpretive middle-ground be found between the perspectives of various editors, instead of an agonistic process of trying to assert one editor's interpretation as better than another's. if we are going to rewrite this particular section, then I think it should be rewritten to emphasize this middle-ground notion, not diminish it.

as a pragmatic case in point, please consider the long-term disputes over at Intelligent Design. very few people dispute the actual sources that are presented on that page (at least not to any great extent that I've seen, and for the most part I think sourcing there is fine). the ugly and bitter disputes that keep cropping up there occur because many people (including myself) feel that these perfectly valid sources have been used by wikipedia editors in a way such that the article as a whole fails to be fair to the topic or neutral in tone. The 'Fairness of tone' section would be the appropriate policy to deal with this problem, except that any comment that tries to address tone is countered by essentially the same arguments being used here to support this change to policy (e.g., arguments about 'properly sourced disparaging statements' that - again - conflates the editor's view with the view presented by the source). it seems clear, at any rate, that some discussion of tone without reference to sourcing should be possible there, but in practice that doesn't seem to be possible.

tomorrow I'll post a compromise revision here that (hopefully) will be an improvement, based on what I've written above. I dislike being simply critical, and would prefer to offer something affirmative, but (no offense) I'm a bit tired of WP at the moment. 'til then. ;-) --Ludwigs2 20:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

To take the examples in question: there in nothing in (either version of) NPOV which is going to resolve a dispute between "The scientific community has not accepted..." and "The scientific community has completely rejected..." That's an issue of sourcing, and it's rather neatly handled by practice codified in WP:FRINGE, which requires fringe beliefs to be covered in mainstream sources to be included here. Those mainstream sources should make it apparent whether the scientific community has failed to accept, ignored, or actively rejected a topic. The specific wording needs to be hashed out by editors on the article talk page; there is no policy-based substitute for this.

Regarding intelligent design, the problem you're describing is that you don't think the tone of the article is dispassionate. The proposed language would directly address this; if editors are going beyond the sources to communicate a visceral dislike of intelligent design, then they are not editing dispassionately. This seems to me a much more useful framework than "fair and sensitive". MastCell ^Talk 20:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

MastCell - suggesting that sourcing can somehow overcome the unavoidable personal interpretations an editor makes as he reads a source is odd logic and/or naïve psychology. and your use of 'dispassionate' in the above is not at all helpful. I could go to the ID page right now and say what you said (i.e. "I feel that the presentation of ID on this article is not sufficiently dispassionate, for this reason, and this, and this"), and the response I will immediately get is my view is the one that's not dispassionate. your wording provides nothing that will help us judge what is and is not dispassionate. --Ludwigs2 17:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

There are many problems with the suggested version. Here are a few:

First sentence: A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently dispassionate tone, otherwise articles end up as partisan commentary even while presenting all relevant points of view.

This is a non sequitur. That is, an article may well present all relevant points of view in a dispassionate manner and yet still be highly partisan. The problem is that dispassionate is only a very partial antonym for partisan. Something like "fair" or "balanced" is needed here as well.

Second sentence: Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be implied through either the biased selection of facts or how they are organized.

This is almost meaningless. That is, how can tone be implied? In writing, the tone is the tone: it is the tone that does the implying! This is why the previous version said "radiate an implied stance". That makes sense inasmuch as it is the tone of the article that causes it to radiate the implied stance.

Third sentence: Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased and proportionate representation of all notable positions.

Off topic. That is, "proportionate" here is something that could be measured with a word count. Tone cannot be "proportionate" in that sense. And this sentence therefore, has little to do with tone any more but is back onto undue weight. The previous version may not have been perfect but at least was on topic.

Fourth sentence: This does not mean that all views should get equal space, nor that they should be presented as equal: Minority views should not be presented as equally accepted as the majority view, for instance, and views in the extreme minority do not belong in Wikipedia at all.

This is now largely superfluous. That is, there is no longer any real point in saying this because the previous sentence is now about undue weight rather than tone. This means that we do not have to warn that a breach of undue weight is a possible interpretation of the previous sentence because the previous sentence can no longer really be interpreted in that way. In the previous version (which was about tone), there was a point in raising undue weight in the final sentence because it was possible to read the first sentence there in a way that would breach undue weight.

In summary, the new version moves the focus away from tone and back onto undue weight. Where it does mention tone it is significantly weaker than the previous version and much of the main thrust of that section is now lost.

I suggest this:

A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently fair and dispassionate tone; otherwise articles can end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view.

Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through differences in the way facts are presented, or through the selection and organization of those facts.

(redacted edit from banned user on open proxy)

Have been following the discussion. I like this version. TimidGuy (talk) 21:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I like it - straight from vandalizing our page on "homosexual agenda" to improving our core policies! :) Some of these are reasonable semantic issues, others aren't - an article's tone can of course be "proportionate" in that it gives a bit more deference to the views of Albert Einstein than to those of the Time Cube guy. The IP's proposed changes look OK to me for the first two paragraphs, but the last gets into the same old problem of claiming that all positions are "at least worthy of unbiased representation". This can potentially conflict with the well-understood mandate to use the best available reliable sources, which may consistently paint a subject in an unflattering light. For that reason, I don't think this is a useful segment, nor does it reflect accepted best practice. MastCell ^Talk 21:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The sense of "proportion" you are using is not the same as the sense that is being used in the version under discussion. Your sense does not sit at all easily before the words "representation of all notable positions". That is, your sense means something more like "proportionate attitude towards...". Given this difference, the point still stands.

(redacted edit from banned user on open proxy)

Count me as another supporter of MastCell/SA's version. I have been going over the arguments presented, and have been remembering my experiences at Talk:Homeopathy and Talk:Remote viewing. It seems to me that "dispasionate" will give less ground for POV wikilawyering than "fair and sensitive". I have seen way too much wikilawyering about being "fair" to fringe stuff supporters (about being fair to fringe supporters on the real world, my statement intends to say nothing about editors that support fringe stuff). --Enric Naval (talk) 23:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

(redacted edit from banned user on open proxy)

It doesn't, because I don't think that they have those problems --Enric Naval (talk) 16:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Just as a general comment, the word "fair" will resolve very few disputes, and "worthy" is another word that I would beat away with the blunt end of a hydrogen bomb. "Radiate an implied stance" is pretty language, but it's also pretty ambiguous. Some ideas on the first paragraph:

A neutral characterization of disputes presents viewpoints with a consistent and dispassionate tone. When a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be implied through organization or with inappropriate choice of facts, such as use of straw man arguments or sensational statements.

The second paragraph seems a little redundant with WP:WEIGHT, though it might be worth stating that minority views that are appropriate to include should not be treated with disrespect. Linking in Wikipedia:Writing for the enemy isn't a bad call. SDY (talk) 23:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

:-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 03:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The current version reads as if it was written by a 7th grader for a slightly retarded kindergartner. So I guess my vote is with the SA-Mastcell version. --Badger Drink (talk) 06:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

compromise version, as promised

This still needs polishing, but is a useful start.

Neutral characterization of real-world disputes about a topic requires that editors maintain a consistently equitable tone towards all includable viewpoints (see undue weight for more information). Even if a topic is presented in terms of relevant and properly sourced facts, articles may still become partisan commentary through an unbalanced selection, wording, organization, or interpretation of these available facts. An article can radiate an implied stance - and hence carry a biased tone - through nothing more than editorial choices about presentation.
Wherever possible, disputes about page content should be resolved by the factual, dispassionate use of verifiable sources. Where there is no significant disagreement about sourcing, but disputes remain over the tone of presented content, these disputes should be resolved through broad compromise and consensus. A majoritarian view among editors should not be confused with a dispassionate assessment of the topic, and an insistence on consensus ensures that minority views are not subject to unjust or unduly disparaging treatment.

I have tried to incorporate MastCells concerns about dispassionate editing and reliable sourcing, and worked in my own concerns about consensus editing for tone. I've also minimized the excessive wp:weight presence in the previous versions. personally, I think this captures the best of both worlds, but (as always) I welcome commentary. --Ludwigs2 17:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit wars over?

Hey guys. you think you can all work together more productively now? In that case we can lift page protection? Remember to listen to your peers while editing. Don't revert; instead you should edit. Try to "write for the enemy" at least in part. When you change the page, at least try to change it in such a way that you think everyone is likely to agree, to the best of your knowledge and ability. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 03:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC) you were supposed to be working that way in the first place. But I know the feeling when you get all angry and maybe a bit panicky and can't think straight. 'if you find yourself getting all angry and emotional, odds are you're not actually successfully solving the problem' (Source?)

I'm thinking that there is enough consensus seen above to revert to the version that MastCell and I came up with. What do you think? ScienceApologist (talk) 14:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Why not try to work together to get a version that most are satisfied with? Ward20 (talk) 14:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I think most are satisfied with the version that MastCell and ScienceApologist came up with. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 14:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

After re-reading the above, the only objections to the MastCell/SA version come from Ludwigs and 2 anons. L0b0t (talk) 14:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Would someone post links to the two versions so I can take a look? HatlessAtless (talk) 15:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

A diff showing the two. I think that there's still a little tweaking to be done to the first paragraph, though I do think that the version on the left is better (no first person plurals, avoids some ambiguous words like "radiate", etc...), and between the two I would choose that one. I think the section can and should be called something more than just tone, maybe "Neutrality of Tone"? SDY (talk) 15:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) A really minor nit (as my nit above is): "Neutrality" (or "balanced", etc.) will lend itself towards people arguing for an objective neutrality, often contrary to the sources (as is already seen in some areas of the wiki when discussing "neutrality"). A value-neutral equivalent (no pun) such as "encyclopedic" or "proper" may be more suitable. Vassyana (talk) 15:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I concur that the left is better as well. I particularly like the use of the word 'notable' to qualify which views should be included, as it points to another guideline for guidance in whether and how to include a view. Rather than views I think we should use "viewpoint" since views are specific to individuals, while "viewpoints" or "schools of thought" are collective, and will be better at framing debate. HatlessAtless (talk) 15:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec x2) "Notable" is problematic for the very reason of your interpretation. Notability applies to topics, not article content. Vassyana (talk) 15:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I have to respectfully disagree. "Notability", presented as a guideline, has some important things to offer, at least in my view. Specifically, verifiability, and worth of notice as implied by the general notability guideline are useful in helping to think about what should be included. Remember, using the word "notable" not the same as suggesting that the general notability guideline should apply, but more suggests a way of thinking about what viewpoints to include. Since wikipedians are used to thinking about topics in terms of "Is this worth noting?" and "can it be verified?" is exactly why I like the use of the word. HatlessAtless (talk) 17:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll agree to disagree. It happens. :) It's a nit, as I mention above, not a make or break issue for me. Vassyana (talk) 01:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Just as a follow up comment, I also notice a conflict internal to the diff on the right that is particularly problematic. Specifically, the diff on the right has the word "all" used to describe the set of opinions expressed which deserve mention, with the qualifier at the end stating that extreme minority opinions do not deserve mention. Those two concepts appear on the surface to be in direct conflict, and would require some extensive further guidance to be a coherent pair of ideas. HatlessAtless (talk) 15:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

While the version on the left is certainly the better of the two, I take issue ith the use of the word "implied". I think "inferred" would be a better choice, words can not imply anything at all, the reader, rather, infers a particular POV based upon their own (the readers) knowledge, experience, prejudices, et al. L0b0t (talk) 15:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

(redacted edit from banned user on open proxy)

OK, now you are just graping at straws to oppose a version that you don't like, specially since the fourth sentence is also on the other version but you don't seem to have a problem with that. (the diff for the two versions I'm talking about in case it's not the same one you refer to). --Enric Naval (talk) 16:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather wait for couple more days to lift the page protection. there's no hurry, and I still haven't had a chance to produce the alternate version that I promised (which I will do right now). I would prefer not to have this new version implemented as fact until the discussion is complete and a proper consensus is reached, because that will remove any incentive for further negotiation of the matter.

and Enric - if he's opposing a version he doesn't like, that means there's still some need for consensus building, yah? let's not be hasty... --Ludwigs2 16:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

No, because he doesn't seem to be opposing on solid grounds at all, and because this version already seems to have consensus by several editors based on solid reasons. Consensus does not mean unanimity.

And, of course, even if this version is introduced, you can still write your own version and propose it as replacement, and you can get consensus to use your version instead. I don't think that it's good to block a proposal that has consensus because someone is preparing a new proposal on a short time that might or not have consensus. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

(redacted edit from banned user on open proxy)

I think that other editor's don't agree with your assesments.... --Enric Naval (talk) 16:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

(redacted edit from banned user on open proxy)

Basically, I think that these are minor points that don't change the overall meaning, and that the new version is better even without those corrections. Since it's better, we can introduce it and then make changes --Enric Naval (talk) 19:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

(redacted edit from banned user on open proxy)

(undent) 66.96.243.12 - please get a verified account. I personally agree with you, but even I'm suspicious of an IP posting on a policy page.

(redacted edit from banned user on open proxy)

Enric - I can see his point on several issues which I think need attention, and regardless, I see no reason to hurry into a revision of policy. --Ludwigs2 18:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't see any compelling reason to postpone it, since people agree that Mastcell/SA's version is better :)

I see that L0b0t also thinks that the first sentence is a non-sequitur, and he makes a good explanation of why. Let's see if I can address it and sove one of the issues with Mastcell/SA's version before the protection expires. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The 1st sentence is not a non-sequitur. A "consistently dispassionate tone" is only one of the requirements necessary to present a "neutral characterization of disputes". That is, an article may still be perceived as highly partisan while presenting all relevant points of view in a dispassionate manner but neutral characterization is none the less predicated, in part, by a dispassionate tone. We have very little control over how the article will be perceived by readers. All we can do is report what reliable sources have already written. Individual readers bring their own POV with them when they read and those with strong partisan feelings often see their own bias as neutral. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 18:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

(redacted edit from banned user on open proxy)

How about removing the non-seqitur by changing the first sentence by removing the requirement:

"One of the requirements for a neutral characterization of disputes is presenting viewpoints with a consistently dispassionate tone"?

And for the second problem that tone can't be implied, this change:

Before: "Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be implied through either the biased selection of facts or how they are organized."

After: "Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, opinions can still be implied through either the biased selection of facts or how they are organized."

That should address the two problems of the Mastcell/SA's version --Enric Naval (talk) 19:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

(redacted edit from banned user on open proxy)

Enric, how about "Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, a lack of neutrality can still be implied through either the biased selection of facts or how they are organized." since that seems to be exactly what we're getting at. HatlessAtless (talk) 20:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

We could also go with Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, a point of view can still be implied through either the biased selection of facts or how they are organized."

Or, to be even more specific with the guideline

Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, a non-neutral point of view can still be implied through either the biased selection of facts or how they are organized."HatlessAtless (talk) 20:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

66, I disagree with your assertion that we should be using the word "fair". The connotation to me is that "fairness" implies equality, in this context, equality of the treatment of opinions, etc. I cannot help but see a major conflict between treating opinions "fairly" and, later down in the section, with the recognition that "This does not mean that all views should get equal space, nor that they should be presented as equal: Minority views should not be presented as equally accepted as the majority view, for instance, and views in the extreme minority do not belong in Wikipedia at all." Words like "proportionately", "appropriate to their significance", etc are what we are trying to say. This is a far cry from treating all opinions equally, which is what "fairness" seems to imply. If you are using a different definition of fairness please disabuse me. I'm arguing against the implications of the word fair, but I don't want to put words in your mouth. HatlessAtless (talk) 20:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I also don't care for the word "fair" for the reasons his Hatlessness mentioned. It's a word that requires an emotional judgment, and people consult the policies when they're in the midst of heated discussions and their emotions are not reliable. As with all writing, it's not what the policy says, it's what the readers will hear. Everyone's opinion is "fair" in their own minds and the policy will fail one of its most basic goals: providing guidance to resolve disputes. SDY (talk) 20:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Hatless, SDY - I really think you're missing the pertinent issue here. the discussion is not about content, it's about tone. this is not about the fairness of sourced articles which is covered by other policies; this is about the fairness of editors in their use of sourced articles. I'm amazed (and maybe a little appalled) that people keep missing this point - do you think I'm wrong to assert that there is a difference between what a source says and what an editor does with it? please check out the version I made at the end of the last section; you'll see what my concerns are. --Ludwigs2 21:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Ludwigs2, I agree that what a source says and what an editor does with it are two fundamentally different things. My fundamental concern, is that all viewpoints are not treated equally. My worry is that statements like "unfair or disparaging" are likely to be interpreted as "treat my views equally!", which is one way of thinking about the word "fair". Do you recognize the concern about the connotations of the word 'fair?' I think we agree on the principle we're trying to promote, so please define, very specifically, what you mean by "unfair" treatment and "disparaging" treatment? If we can come to an agreement on an alternate wording that preserves the principle, we'll be in good shape. HatlessAtless (talk) 22:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The word "fair" is useless in this context. It will not resolve disputes, it will create them. "Minority views are not subject to unfair or unduly disparaging treatment." Not how I would have worded it, but I understand the idea. "Unfair" is meaningless in this context. "Not judgmental", "dispassionate", these are things that can be evaluated neutrally. 99% of the time when people say something is "unfair" they mean WP:IDONTLIKEIT. SDY (talk) 22:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Hatless... really, I understand you concern, but 'equally' and 'fairly' are by no means synonymous. just for an off-the-cuff example, we (idealistically) demand that criminals receive fair treatment, but we prevent them from having equal treatment - the loss of equal status is punishment for their crimes, but for the most part we don't want it to devolve into brutal or excessive - i.e. unfair - punishment. so let's say we have a set of reliable sources that say something critical or negative about a topic. ok, there is nothing unfair about that; in fact, the article needs to have those sources present for a fair assessment of the topic. but let's say that an editor or editors begin trying, purposely or not, to shade the wording and structure of the article to give those sources a more prominent, definitive, powerful, or authoritative presence (which can be done in any number of ways - I can give you a short list if you like). suddenly the fair criticism that is actually presented in the sources starts to become excessive and unfair criticism in the article. this can happen in reverse as well, though I haven't personally seen it as often, where proponents shade meanings to minimize or discount sources, making the fair criticism presented in the sources unfairly weak.

I mean, if this is primarily a concern about the word 'fair' and it's possible connotations, than I'd be happy to shift to a word like 'just' (as in justice) which has the same moral content but isn't associated with equality the way fairness is. in fact, I think that's a good idea in any case, so I'm going to edit it into my revised version above. but you see the point I'm reaching for - this fairness/justice thing is an important factor in trying to keep the article at its appropriate level, not letting it sink into excessive harshness or float off into over-light treatment. --Ludwigs2 22:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

(undent)"Just" has the same concerns. It again asks for an emotional and moral assessment which is totally subjective. How will this stop a POV warrior from disrupting the article in the name of policy? This is the problem that SA/MC's version is attempting to address. SDY (talk) 23:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Ludwigs, is it my understanding of the point you're trying to get across that a minority opinion should not be the subject of mean-spirited unjustified attacks, but even so, they don't necessarily deserve the same weight, emphasis, or wordcount as more mainstream or more dominant schools of thought? HatlessAtless (talk) 23:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

(redacted edit from banned user on open proxy)

SDY (edit conflict) - except that MC's reliance on 'dispassion' has the same problem - how do you know or define whether some statement is 'dispassionate'? this is just another moral and emotional assessment, but it's worse because it's a personal assessment. Justice and fairness, at least, have some external grounds for verification - a group of people can get together and decide collectively whether something is fair or not. but how can a group of people decide whether someone is being properly dispassionate? If the leader of the American Nazi Party came here and claimed (in a very reasonable tone) that minority editors shouldn't be allowed to work on wikipedia, how could we prove that that the statement wasn't dispassionate? but we can all collectively see that such a view is neither fair nor just (whichever word you prefer), and reject it easily on those grounds.

the only way you're going to stop a (I hate this term, but I'll use it for the sake of the argument) 'POV warrior' from disrupting an article is to take away the grounds for disruption. that means write an article that is factually correct, and then work with him to adjust the tone until both you and he are (marginally) satisfied. he can't go against reliably sourced facts without violating policy and reason, and if you adjust the tone so that at the least he doesn't feel like his views are being insulted (and you likewise don't feel like your views are being insulted) there won't be any grounds for further debate on that count either. neither of you will be perfectly happy, of course, but that's usually a sign that you've reached a fair solution, yah? --Ludwigs2 00:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

HatlessAtles - yes, that's it on the nail, though I'm not sure 'mean-spirited' is necessary. sometimes unjustified attacks can be an unintentional result of the normal editing process, as editor's own biases slip in unawares. but essentially yes.

66.96.243.12 - lol. talk about throwing out the baby with the bath water... :-) --Ludwigs2 00:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Tone is subjective. Why are you going overboard on this topic? But let's go on to your other points. "Factually correct" is nice, but my facts are fundamentally different than yours. Science doesn't work on "facts", so the best we can do is provide reliable sources that verify statements. Ludwigs, arguments persist, because individuals who do not understand that foundation of NPOV continue to push fringe theories. Tone is irrelevant. And if the source ridicules the fringe theory, the ridicule belongs in the article. Let's move on, because you've made your point, and you're not getting anyone to support you.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

OM, I think we can wait a bit for other people to respond. besides, it seems to me you still don't get the distinction between a sourced statement and an editor's point of view, and if nothing else it would be worth the time to make that point clear to you. --Ludwigs2 01:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Please Ludwigs, any further personal attacks, like implying that I don't get the distinction will not be tolerated. As Lobots states, there are approximately 20 other editors with whom I am in agreement. Do they also not understand the point? I believe your retracting that statement will be considered a step in the right direction in trying to move this along. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

There are roughly 20 editors in this discussion and only 2 are actively opposing the SA/MastCell version. At what point can we put this to bed? Let's put up the MC/SA version and Ludwigs2 can work on his version at his leisure and post it when he is ready and we'll proceed from there. Our job here is to represent reality and in the real world some views do get insulted and that is fine, not all views are worthy of respect or a place at the table as it were. People with partisan viewpoints bring those viewpoints with them when they read and all of us often perceive our own viewpoint as neutral, this can not be prevented. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 02:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

heck, my version is ready now (it's posted in the section above). I think it's better than mastcell's, and I'd like to get some comments on why it is or isn't before we go posting any version. I mean look... you all know that if you post mastcell's version without discussing alternatives or reaching for compromises, then I'll post my version when the page opens again, someone will revert it, we'll squabble angrily, and we'll all be right back here talking about it again. so let's make a real consensus before we start posting any version, and save ourselves the headache of arguing about it. doesn't that sound much more sensible? --Ludwigs2 02:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Ludwigs, I agree about the unintentional nature of many unjustified POV paragraphs, but if we're trying to avoid judgemental statements, why shouldn't we say so plainly? Lets state the principles we're trying to invoke with our wording? I would like to propose the following for consideration, clearing up what I think is one main objection to wording and adding the key idea Ludwig2 wants to include into what I feel is the slightly better grammatical framework of the left diff:

"A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently dispassionate tone, otherwise articles end up as partisan commentary even while presenting all relevant points of view. Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be implied through either the biased selection of facts or how they are organized.

Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased and proportionate representation of all includable positions. Presentation of opinions must meet the same standards as all article sections in the Wikipedia; statements must be verifiable and reliable, and most importantly from the perspective of neutrality, must not contain value judgments, explicit or implied, about any opinion in the dispute. This does not mean that all views should get equal space, nor that they should be presented as equal: Minority views should not be presented as equally accepted as the majority view, for instance, and views in the extreme minority do not belong in Wikipedia at all."

The strength of sources, which opinions should be included at all, and whether specific wording is problematic, this presents (I hope) a clear framework of "present who is making the claim, present what the claim is, but do not word the claim in a way so as to imply anything about any other claim". This allows the readers to think for themselves and follow the secondary sources. HatlessAtless (talk) 02:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

That seems like a reasonable way to put it. I think we might be able to clarify "explicit or implied". We do imply a value judgment by following WP:WEIGHT, though the value we are checking is simply how broadly the view is held and not its truthiness. SDY (talk) 04:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks SDY. ~~I thought about weight vs value already.~~ Your concern about weight vs value had occurred to me; I tried to draft the statement to take that int account; specifically: All major scientific breakthroughs start as an extreme minority opinion (the first paper published on the topic in the sea of scientific knowledge and the prior consensus/paradigm. Stating that a group is a minority opinion holder and referencing what that opinion is is fundamentally different from the "rightness" or "wrongness" of that opinion. At least, that is how I tend to see it. HatlessAtless (talk) 05:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Might be worthwhile to just explicitly say it. More proposed language:

"Presentation of opinions must meet the same standards as all article sections in the Wikipedia; statements must be verifiable and reliable~~, and most importantly from the perspective of neutrality~~ The article must not contain value judgments~~, explicit or implied, about any opinion in the dispute.~~ about the opinions reported or the topic of the article. Proper compliance with WP:WEIGHT is the only case where an implied stance is appropriate. Accurate descriptions, such as referring to Piltdown Man as a hoax, should be used and cited when appropriate."

(Bolded language is added from HA's version, strike is obvious.) I've also added a prohibition against value judgments of the topic. The Nazis may be quite icky, but the article should not call them evil. Calling the Mafia a criminal organization or phrenology a pseudoscience is perfectly appropriate since these are not value judgments but verifiable statements of fact. SDY (talk) 06:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

SDY, I have reservations about the wording you propose. Specifically, take a controvertial topic like homeopathy; and consider the case of a reliable secondary source that contains the observation by an expert "homeopathy is crap". Granted that homeopathy is a controvertial topic with a disputed status by mainstream science, but it has a significant number of followers. Isn't a reliably sourced "this is crap" statement exactly what we're trying to avoid condoning with a neutral tone? Just because a statement is true or "accurate" does not necessarily mean it is neutral. I worry that the battle cry of "it is an accurate statement and therefore complies with the guideline" could act like gasoline into edit wars. Perhaps we could replace the last sentence with "When presenting opinions, it should be noted that the salient fact is the school of thought's presentation of the opinion, rather than the opinion itself. Polemic, invective, and inflammatory statements should be rephrased into a neutral form and cited, rather than quoted." HatlessAtless (talk) 16:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

We never assert opinions, so value judgments such as "homeopathy is crap" would never be asserted. Antelan 16:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

We do however, report on the opinions that some groups have in disputes. My concern is that an edit warrior would misuse the phrasing of "an accurate statement", combined with an inflammatory judgement, and a RSS, would be able to misuse the phrasing very effectively as part of a POV push. Perhaps replace the word "crap" with a more well defined word like "hoax" and my concern might make more sense. HatlessAtless (talk) 17:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

In reply, I'll first offer a disagreement, and then an offer to collaborate. "Hoax" is a well-defined word, making it easy to evaluate the truth condition of such claims by going to reliable sources and seeing if they confirm the claim. "Crap" is used metaphorically, without any clear meaning except for negative judgment; it is, on its face, an opinion. I don't disagree that one could find a cloudy situation, but I don't think this is one of them. No obvious examples are coming to me, but if you think of one, let me know and I'll be happy to work with you to parse out some good policy to deal with such situations. Antelan 22:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

(undent, replying to HA) Yeah, I thought about that. The main question is whether it is an accurate description. We got into a bit of a spat with whether ID is "junk science." It meets the broad definition (politics cloaked in scientific terms), but the term is pejorative. I'm just concerned that the language might forbid accurate and uncontroversial descriptions that "might hurt the topic's feelings." WP:PSCI explicitly allows calling pseudoscience by name, so there is a prior arbcom case that may discuss these exact issues.

I agree with the sentiment, though I would probably yank words like salient, polemic, and invective and replace them with plain language. WP:SPADE and WP:NOTSPADE might be worth bringing up. Even though they're written with editors in mind the logic applies to articles as well. SDY (talk) 17:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

again, let me point out that this problem - the use of inflammatory opinions presented in reliable sources - stops being a problem if we are careful to distinguish between what sources say and what editors imply. these versions are still trying to reduce 'tone' to a sourcing issue - it's not; it's an editorial opinion issue. working with Hatless' version, why not try something like this:

A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently dispassionate, equitable tone, otherwise articles end up as partisan commentary even while presenting all relevant points of view. Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be implied through the biased selection of facts, or through the style, presentation or organization of facts in the article.
Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased and proportionate representation of all includable positions. Presentation of opinions must meet the same standards as all article sections in the Wikipedia: statements must be verifiable and reliable, and must not imply or impose value judgments on any opinion in the dispute. Where minority views are significant enough to be presented, they should neither be presented as equal to majority views, nor be presented as incorrect or invalid by virtue of being rejected by the majority.

forgiving the minor additions ('equitable', 'style, presentation and organization') which can be discussed separately, the last line does a better job of distinguishing between the debate in the sources, and the debate between editors.

and SDY, I have to say, I've read through the ArbCom decision. while it certainly (and reasonably) allows the use of the term pseudoscience in some cases, I don't think you can generalize that ruling the way you are. it was an allowance to supplement common sense, not a license to engage in behavior that ignores common sense. --Ludwigs2 18:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

My concern here is not "allowing pejorative language", it approaches WP:NOTCENSORED. Removing verifiable and relevant facts from articles is inappropriate. That the Piltdown Man was fake is a verifiable and relevant fact. That phrenology does not follow the scientific method is a verifiable and relevant fact. Common sense would be to just use the words that mean those things (hoax, pseudoscience) and not call them an anthropohydraulic geomodifier. SDY (talk) 21:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I can agree with that, actually. my real concern is finding some way of distinguishing between saying phrenology does not follow the scientific method which is perfectly appropriate as far as I can see, and saying something like phrenology is nothing more than a scam perpetrated by people playing on the superstitions of the undereducated. I could probably find a source that said something like the latter if I looked hard enough (phrenology is not popular in some circles), but it seems like over-kill for wikipedia (since it makes all sorts of secondary attributions about honesty, intentionality, and naïveté that seem unnecessary, even unjustified). how would you make this kind of distinction? --Ludwigs2 23:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)