Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Wikipedia. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Before editing this page, please make sure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss on the talk page. Always remember to keep cool when editing. Changes to this page do not immediately change policy anyway, so don't panic.

Are you in the right place?

For questions or discussions about the application of this policy to any specific article(s), please post your message at either the NPOV Noticeboard (any neutrality-related issue) or the Fringe Theories Noticeboard (undue weight given to a minority view).

WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

Shortcut: WT:NPOV

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

1 UAF
2 Minor typo to rectify
3 Question
4 WP:BALANCE/Balance redirects
5 Labelling groups of people, especially with negative or pejorative epithets
6 The 'Undue Weight' of Truth on Wikipedia
- 6.1 History recorded by historian versus history recorded by machine
7 Questions regarding Due and undue weight

[edit] UAF

section refactored to Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#UAF

[edit] Minor typo to rectify

Y Wifione ^Message

Someone could change "Verifiable public and scholarly critiques provides useful context for works of art" to Verifiable public and scholarly critiques *provide* useful context for works of art." Simple change of singular/plural number agreement.Brunsonish

[edit] Question

Let's say that there is yet-uncovered controversy at an article, a controversy which met all of the criteria (weight, sourcing) for inclusion in the article. "Side A" puts in material about the controversy, selecting material and sources favorable to their assertion, and meeting all criteria except for the posited requirement discussed in the next sentences. An editor from "Side B" does not add "Side B" material, but instead completely deletes "Side A'" material, citing wp:npov as a justification, saying that the addition of "Side A" material (without Side B material) creates a violation of the balance required by wp:npov. In such a case, does wp:npov justify the deletion of "Side A" material for that reason? North8000 (talk) 12:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

someone from side A should add the side B material in such a way that no one can tell his personal POV. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that would be a solution, but the question is whether wp:npov justifies the described deletion. North8000 (talk) 13:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

There are quite a few unknown nuances to your theoretical. For example, I would want to know if Side A material or Side B material falls under WP:REDFLAG. Also would want to know if Side A or B is actually a fringe view being promoted as a mere "controversy". Describing something as a "yet-uncovered" controversy also makes me wonder if there's more going on that meets the eye. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

There's a real article which prompted my question, but I was viewing my question as on a narrower topic, and so the answer would not be directly applicable to or used on the article which, like most situations, is never that simple. North8000 (talk) 18:01, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Generic questions like the one posed cannot be answered in any meaningful manner: it all depends on the topic and the nature of the edits. Also, interpretations of NPOV should be asked at WP:NPOVN. Johnuniq (talk) 02:15, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that the question was pretty narrow and specific and not situation-dependent: When only one side of a controversy is covered, does wp:npov particularly empower removal of the covered side as a way to remedy the imbalance? But either way, thanks for all of your thoughts. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:55, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Jimbo once said, and I agree with him on this, that it's better to have no information than to have wrong information in an article. If the included information biases the article and leaves the reader with a wrong impression about the nature of the debate, then yes, it should be removed until a version is created that gives a balanced view of the debate. LK (talk) 05:18, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

The article should have a NPOV tag stuck at the top of it with the reasons stated as above. It may be reasonable to remove part of the POV material which is pushing a side too hard but anything that would reasonably be there should be left. It is up to other editors to fix the article in accordance with the tag. We cannot judge something without evidence and removing the article without the evidence would be that. And if the evidence is got it can be added to the article. As that other tag says, for the opposite side {{citation needed}}. Dmcq (talk) 10:06, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Let's say that there is an article about a planned new bridge. There is a lot of coverage in reliable sources that some people are opposed to it because it will be ugly, but no mention of that controversy in the article. So an editor "A" puts in sourced coverage of that opposition, as such. Editor "B" immediately deletes the new material, saying that it violates wp:npov because the addition didn't cover the "the bridge isn't ugly" view point. Does wp:npov support that deletion on that basis? (And, as an aside, one could argue that editor "A"'s addition rectified an NPOV violated rather than creating a violation). North8000 (talk) 12:18, 22 December 2011 (UTC) North8000 (talk) 12:18, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I think it is wishful thinking to assume that the nature of a debate is universally agreed. That still does not stop us from describing, impartially, the various points of view of those in the debate. For example, there is no doubt, and it is an incontrovertible fact, that some people believe that the Moon is made of cheese.[1][2][3][4] And of course we can state the more usual view of planetary scientists.[5] I doubt there are any peer reviewed sources criticising a cheesy Moon, and I don't think we need to state the nature of the debate. Undue weight would stop us including a Moon made from cheese in the main article on the Moon, but I think there is more than enough good material to warrant an article devoted to a Moon made of cheese. --Iantresman (talk) 12:58, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't you know, there is already an article on "The Moon is made of green cheese" --Iantresman (talk) 12:59, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

That is a conflicting view about a matter of fact (what the moon is made of) In my example it was a matter of personal/opinion/interests/priorities/values. But in either event, the question is whether wp:npov supports deletion of the imbalancing material on the basis that it creates an imbalance. North8000 (talk) 13:45, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

If disproportionate amounts of detail and quotes sourced entirely to proponents are added (this is often the case in the UFO articles), then yes, I'd remove much of it according to WP:UNDUE. As I understand it, weight given to a subject should be roughly equivalent to the attention it's been given by 3rd party independent and reliable sources. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:01, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

(1) If I have a lot of material for an article on a "pseudoscientific" subject, it does not make sense that I should "hold back" because there is either insufficient material, or people have not gotten around to adding material, of a contrary view. Either the material is accurate and well-sourced, or it is not. It does not make sense that material is conditional on their being contrary views. (2) There is also no reason to pick on "pseudoscience" for this requirement. Does it apply to "fringe science"? How about minority views? What about articles on minority religious? Do we cut them down because we can't "balance" the article with comparisons with majority religions? --Iantresman (talk) 15:27, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Here's one example of an article about a religious belief; Our Lady of Soufanieh. It was found crammed with credulous detail primary-sourced to proponent sites and sources that were arguably SELFPUB, as seen here. The solution was to find reliable secondary sources that covered the topic (there were few) and edit the article accordingly. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:45, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

My example was simpler. Complete immediate deletion of viewpoint A on the basis that it created an imbalance because viewpoint "B" was not yet added. The remedy is for persons with viewpoint "B" should add their material, not delete viewpoint "A". Think of it, without this, any first addition of viewpoint A material can be immediately deleted unless the same editor adds viewpoint B material. North8000 (talk) 16:17, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Quite logical in theory, but in practice it can provoke a lot of strife on the Talk page if someone dumps a ton of material slanted toward a minority POV into an article and leaves it up to others to fill in the majority POV. Regarding your bridge example: if there is "a lot of coverage in reliable sources that some people are opposed to it because it will be ugly" I would be very surprised if those same reliable sources didn't also touch on the "it's not ugly" view. It would be wise for the editor adding material about the 'controversy' to add that material as well rather than leave it to others. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:37, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with North8000. You don't delete viewpoint A because viewpoint B has not been added. Coverage of viewpoint A does not imply a bias towards viewpoint A (it's all about how it is worded). I am quite happy to have an entire article on a Flat Earth, with just a single mention to the mainstream article on the planet Earth. --Iantresman (talk) 17:24, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Are you happy to have an entire article called "Shape of the Earth", that only includes (well-cited) coverage of the flat earth viewpoint without a single mention of the mainstream view? That said, there should be reliable sources provided that View B is at least as notable as View A, before View A is trimmed back. LK (talk) 04:24, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

As I said, I'm happy to have the article well-cited (primary/secondary sources), and just one mention to the mainstream article. We only need to say once, that this minority view is a minority view, and that there is a mainstream view, to put it into context. Of course if there are other well-cited criticisms, we included those too. The articles on Flat Earth and The Moon is made of green cheese, seem to be fair examples. --Iantresman (talk) 09:20, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that as long as the wording is right, those are very factual articles on what those people are people are saying. Incidentally, I have been resisting making this be about the particular situation that prompted me to bring up this narrower question, but in every way it is very much like my "bridge" example above. The first modest addition of material covering the "it's ugly" controversy was immediately removed (citing wp:npov as a basis) on the grounds that the "it's not ugly" viewpoint was not yet covered. North8000 (talk) 11:24, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] WP:BALANCE/Balance redirects

Is it normal practice to have redirects that only differ in the use of caps to redirect to different places? I'm not aware of any other cases: WP:BALANCE (all caps) redirects to the How to put up a straight pole by pushing it at an angle essay. WP:Balance (only first letter caps) redirects to the balance subsection of Neutral point of view. - RN1970 (talk) 05:32, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Pending a potential outcome, I have placed one of the standard Policy shortcut boxes on the page. If the final result is status quo, it should remain. If either the full-caps or non-caps redirect ends up being changed, one of the policy shortcuts should also be removed (depending on which is changed, either the policy shortcut I just placed in WP:POV or the one in the How to put up a straight pole... essay). RN1970 (talk) 06:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Labelling groups of people, especially with negative or pejorative epithets

I've been thinking about the question of using labels (usually nouns but also adjectives, often phrases) to describe people (rather than organizations) and how this pertains to NPOV. I'm curious to hear if there are any existing policies or guidelines to deal with this. I read NPOV thoroughly and I don't see anything specifically about this. As examples of how this can be problematic, I've been looking at highly controversial articles like Zionism...to use examples from this article, this article currently uses phrases like "Zionists do X" or "Anti-Zionists do Y" or "Anti-semites do Z". I find this problematic from an NPOV perspective because there is no consensus among different sources about what exactly constitutes a "Zionist" or an "Anti-Zionist", and there is especially more controversy about what constitutes an "Anti-Semite". Anti-semite can be used as a pejorative, and in some circles, either Zionist or Anti-Zionist can be as well. It seems to me, that to retain NPOV, one would need to refrain from attaching these sorts of labels to people. As an example of an article that avoids this, look at Racism -- not a perfect article, but note that the article completely avoids any reference of the term "Racists". So my questions: (1) is this currently handled in some sub-page that I haven't seen yet? (2) if not, is this something people would be interested in talking about including in the policies or guidelines? Cazort (talk) 18:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Ambiguous words need to be defined when used. The meaning of highly charged ambiguous words such as Zionism, if they must be used, should be clearly delineated. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I think this statement of yours is consistent with my understanding of the guidelines and policies. Is there an explicit place in the guidelines and policies where this sort of thing is mentioned? That's why I posted here, I'd like to see some references to the most relevant parts of the guidelines. Right now, I'm not seeing explicit mention of this sort of thing, which is why I wanted to raise discussion here of possibly including some explicit mention of it, if it's not already somewhere. Cazort (talk) 18:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] The 'Undue Weight' of Truth on Wikipedia

An article on the website of The Chronicle of Higher Education, "The 'Undue Weight' of Truth on Wikipedia" concerning the trial of the defendants in the Haymarket affair has drawn attention to proper application of Wikipedia:Undue weight which redirects to Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Due_and_undue_weight. While the motivation of the editors who contested with the scholar in question are not clear, it is obvious that the effect was exclusion of significant information from the article. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

There is a larger question of whether use of this, and other Wikipedia guidelines, in a crude way that does not adequately reflect their meaning and purpose discourages good faith editing by knowledgeable but inexperienced editors and what might be done to remedy the situation. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps "The 'Undue Weight' of Dogma on Wikipedia" might be a more appropriate title. The two are often, rather purposefully and shamefully, conflated. You can see another example being played out here. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

"an article should not state that 'genocide is an evil action'," from Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Explanation_of_the_neutral_point_of_view is very strange indeed. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:28, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

In fact, it partake of the sort of nihilist legal theory that maintains virtuous acts can properly be criminalized; crimes are, by definition, evil. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:33, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I see no indication from the description on chronicle.com that Wikipedia policies and guidelines did anything other than exactly what they are supposed to do; give proper weight to a minority / fringe view. That being said, I would really like to examine the actual edits we are talking about. If someone could post some diffs or at least a rough timeframe and description of which usernames were involved, that would be a big help. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:26, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll do that; however, keep in mind that the hagiography of the American left is itself a minority view. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Haymarket_affair#.22The_.27Undue_Weight.27_of_Truth_on_Wikipedia.22_complaint
His book published in August, 2011
Google Scholar hits
- "The Haymarket Bomb: Reassessing the Evidence" Labor Summer 2005 2(2): 39-52; doi:10.1215/15476715-2-2-39 (Everything behind paywall)
- "CSI Labor History: Haymarket and the Forensics of Forgetting" Labor Spring 2006 3(1): 25-36; doi:10.1215/15476715-3-1-25 (Everything behind paywall)
- "Strike or anarchist plot? The McCormick riot of 1886 reconsidered" pages 483-510 Labor History Volume 52, Issue 4, 2011 DOI:10.1080/0023656X.2011.632552 (paywall)
Interview Progressive.org
- Podcast Interview Progressive.org
MesserKruse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ OK, I read all of that. Here is my problem with the basic argument. He is saying that, in this particular case, most of the published sources are wrong and that he, an expert who has done years of research on the topic, is right. Then he says "here is the evidence" and expect Wikipedia to accept what he says as truth.

My problem is that there are people who have done years of research on evolution or the holocaust and concluded that most of the published sources are wrong and that they, experts who have done years of research on the topic, are right. Then they say "here is the evidence" and expect Wikipedia to accept what they say as truth.

Now if I had to guess, I would guess that the evidence that our Haymarket expert presents is probably convincing and that the evidence the Creationists and Holocaust Deniers present isn't, but that's no way to run an encyclopedia. I would say to all three of them, "convince the other experts, and when you have done that and your minority opinion becomes mainstream, come back with reliable secondary sources and Wikipedia will follow the sources." Instead he is asking us to evaluate his arguments and be convinced by them, which is exactly what the Holocaust Deniers and Creationists are asking.

In my opinion, the charges that this is somehow an embarrassment or that Wikipedia policies need to change are without merit. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

It is not just that he says the assertion that no evidence was presented which would support a conviction is false, he demonstrates it in peer reviewed journal articles and a book. Not only that, the entire transcript of the trial is archived in an accessible format on the web, http://www.chicagohs.org/hadc/ User:Fred Bauder Talk 22:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Are there any contemporary scholars who contest his work? I think not. User:Fred Bauder Talk 22:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

He himself freely admits that his is a minority view. From his chronicle.com article: "Scholars have been publishing the same ideas about the Haymarket case for more than a century. The last published bibliography of titles on the subject has 1,530 entries. 'Explain to me, then, how a 'minority' source with facts on its side would ever appear against a wrong 'majority' one?' "

There are two possibilities here. Either he can convince the other experts in his field that he is right, or he can't. If he can, then he should do so, the other experts will publish, and we can edit the article to reflect what the reliable sources now say - that the old info was wrong. If he cannot convince the other experts, then we must treat his theory as the fringe view that not being able to convince the other experts proved it to be.

"If Wikipedia had been available around the fourth century B.C., it would have reported the view that the Earth is flat as a fact and without qualification. And it would have reported the views of Eratosthenes (who correctly determined the earth's circumference in 240BC) either as controversial, or a fringe view. Similarly if available in Galileo's time, it would have reported the view that the sun goes round the earth as a fact, and Galileo's view would have been rejected as 'original research'. Of course, if there is a popularly held or notable view that the earth is flat, Wikipedia reports this view. But it does not report it as true. It reports only on what its adherents believe, the history of the view, and its notable or prominent adherents. Wikipedia is inherently a non-innovative reference work: it stifles creativity and free-thought. Which is A Good Thing." --WP:FLAT --Guy Macon (talk) 01:25, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

He did convince the other experts. There isn't any recent research with contests or refutes his published peer-reviewed research. User:Fred Bauder Talk 01:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

So he backed up his desired changes with citations to reliable sources and ... what? Suddenly for some unknown reason the other editors stopped following the rules? And then for some unknown reason he wrote an article talking about his view being a "minority" despite knowing that it was a majority view? --Guy Macon (talk) 04:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

He is an inexperience editor and did not understand our our policies appropriately applied would have permitted addition of his work; that it is his work exposes him to conflict of interest, even self-promotional issues. He was wise to back off, and also wise to take the matter to a forum where he was respected. He did not understand what minority view means in the context of Wikipedia editing. Significant new research is not a minority point of view for our purposes unless it is contested or rejected by the relevant academic discipline; his was not; it is published in the leading journals. User:Fred Bauder Talk 12:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Users who contested his edits were not familiar with the field and do not seem to have understood the significance of his work. By the way, his work is appreciated on the left as can be seen in the Progressive interview. User:Fred Bauder Talk 12:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm just not seeing the issue, but it seems to me that some basic NPOV attribution and composition is rather easy here...unless a "dogma" aspect has a strong presence I'm not aware of. JakeInJoisey (talk) 00:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is a case a bullying a newbie; which is the second issue I raise, misuse of doggerel to intimidate and confuse. User:Fred Bauder Talk 01:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I will admit that Wikipedia does have a problem with what I like to call the Bermuda Triangle syndrome--when experts simple parrot what others have said without doing any real research themselves. In some cases (such as with the Christ myth theory article) you can gather enough information to show that there are no WP:WEIGHT issues presenting so called "minority" views because there is no real agreement on what the subject even is.

I would also like to state that the Galileo example in WP:FLAT is actually wrong--as documented in the "Infinitely Reasonable" episode of James Burke's Day the Universe Changed one of the things that came out of the Council of Trent (1545-1563) was calendar reform using a system designed by a secretary to the Pope himself written in 1514. The name of that secretary was Niklas Koppernigk who we know as Copernicus. The uncomfortable reality was when Galileo looked into the sky in 1610 was the Church itself had been using a sun centered universe model for nearly 50 years! In short it wasn't a minority view!

I would like to point out it is not just newbies that get bullied. I've seen a lot of good long term editors leave Wikipedia due to what can politely called abuse of the system. There are editors that think nothing of sending templates to other editors when they do something they don't like. Personally I think the WP:HUSH rules need to be tightened to stop that kind of nonsense.--BruceGrubb (talk) 02:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Regarding bullying, absolutely, and sometimes it doesn't stop with bullying or talk page templates, or even just on-wiki behaviour. If you are interested in reading about an extreme case, see the links at the top of my talk page. At some point I fully intend to write about my experiences.

There is also WP:CTDAPE. Despite its existence since September 2006, I somehow had always overlooked this section of Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. It wasn't until just recently that it gained shortcut links. [6] [7] --Tothwolf (talk) 05:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

See comments at the bottom of Talk:Haymarket affair#Signpost article. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, I guess the general problem is that we should not answer polite requests with templates more than once. Maybe not even once without a bit of consideration. It is not that hard to differentiate a madman editing and a civilised expert editing a minority / new research view. If someone actually talks to those people who intend to answer then these conflicts could be handled much nicer. Yeah, too much work and too few minutes, so a template once could suffice, but if someone tries to communicate back we should follow suit and start discussion instead of kicking back. I do not want to quote don't bite and such, we all know them, I know, but still that's the main problem: there should be a guideline about striking with a template first (if unavoidable, I must say), getting an answer and not to reply that with another template instead of discussion. New published research is still published and peer-reviewed research, and the world changes, we must not delete it. If nothing else, open a "new research" section and let it grow as the facts get spread. --grin ✎ 08:17, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Using references to such emotional subjects as creationism, holocaust denial and heliocentrism can only serve to muddle the narrative. The Haymarket incident refers to a time-limited historical event about which factual material exists. Undue weight can be given to a majority view just as much as to a minority view, nor should there be an obligation to convince others before a minority view can be given its due weight. Mainstream views are not correct simply because hey have often been repeated in popular publications; many of these will often dumb down a subject for the sake of being readable by a broader public. Someone who has said that someone's testimony at a trial is not credible needs to say more than that bare statement. That statement draws a conclusion, and we need access to the origins of that statement for anyone who wants to question it. If an alternative view has some measure of plausibility for which there is prima facie evidence it must be given due weight. Prima facie evidence is still rebuttable, but it can shift the burden of proof. Eclecticology (talk) 12:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Re: "Using references to such emotional subjects as creationism, holocaust denial and heliocentrism can only serve to muddle the narrative", you appear to have missed my point entirely. My point is that MesserKruse's behavior (saying the a page is wrong, not providing citations to reliable sources, providing citations to a blog that we cannot access, claiming the blog is a reliable source) was absolutely indistinguishable from the behavior of a holocaust denier with a blog containing his years of research about Nazi gas chambers. It is easy to use 20:20 hindsight and conclude that, because we now know he is legit, that we should have somehow known then that his behaving identically to any number of fringe theorists was, in this case, misleading. Of course nobody complains when the true kooks (who show behavior identical to MesserKruse's behavior) get treated that way. My point is that we have an established method for separating kooks from scholars that works very well - asking for citations to reliable sources, explaining what reliable sources are, etc. Those who are asking that we use a different method in the case of those who turn out to be scholars don't quite grasp that this implies using that same method on the kooks, because the two are indistinguishable at the point where they are saying the page is wrong and asking everybody to refute their blog. Now that we know that MesserKruse is a scholar rather than a kook, he is being treated like a scholar. Before that, when we didn't know which he was, he could have instantly identified himself as being a non-kook by simply doing what we asked him to do; provide citations to reliable sources backing up his assertions. Those who propose that we treat everyone who acts exactly like a kook like a scholar just in case one of them turns out to actually be a scholar should demonstrate this on a few kooks and see how it goes, I suspect that this experience will bring them back to using our present method of distinguishing kooks from scholars - asking for citations to reliable sources. In general, the scholars can provide good citations and the kooks can't. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:13, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The Holocaust is a straw man in this context. It was composed of a series of events in multiple places over an extended period of time. The haymnarket incident is about a single event on one day. That alone makes it more tractable. It is a serious assumption of bad faith to say to say that someone who shares some characteristics of a kook must be a kook, or that there is no possible placement in the wide gap between kook and scholar. As much as the kooks may draw the most attention they are still a minority. At first instance citing reliable sources appears to be a useful criterion, but we make a serious mistake when it excludes consideration of other criteria in either direction. What is reliable is open to debate. I don't object to taking someone's status as an expert into account, but again, not as a unique determining factor; like other factors it must be given due weight. We are not here to judge the person, but to evaluate their contributions, and wherever possible to encourage their development. Wikipedia gained its stature as the encyclopedia that anyone can edit; people have started to doubt that. Eclecticology (talk) 05:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Re: "At first instance citing reliable sources appears to be a useful criterion, but we make a serious mistake when it excludes consideration of other criteria" I would be most interested in finding out (with diffs if possible) what these "other criteria" were at the time we are discussing. I have looked very carefully and as far as I can tell the only thing the editors had to work with at the time is this: Someone shows up and says that a page is wrong. When asked for citations, cites a blog that we cannot access, when asked again with an explanation of what a reliable source is, once again refuses to provide citations and questions the validity of WP:RS. Do you know of anything - anything at all - that the editors at that point of time had to work with other than this? I am open to having my mind changed, but I need some evidence that these "other criteria" actually existed at the time. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

"Wikipedia gained its stature as the encyclopedia that anyone can edit; people have started to doubt that." That would certainly appear to be the case on the English Wikipedia anyway. Not all Wikipedias have become this way though. --Tothwolf (talk) 07:14, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] History recorded by historian versus history recorded by machine

Guy Macon, you asked for diffs related to the Chronicle article. They are surprisingly hard to find. See User talk:Jimbo Wales#History recorded by historian versus history recorded by machine for details and discussion. (This isn't a NPOV matter, really.) Uncle G (talk) 08:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I figured that if I asked for diffs someone who ~~is less lazy~~ has more time than me would post a nice list that we can all refer to. What I am seeing instead is a bunch of comments saying things like "we bit a newbie" without any diffs showing that we ever did that. I am catching a fair amount of flack for saying that our asking for citations to reliable sources was correct behavior and that MesserKruse's failure to provide citations to reliable sources when asked is the root cause of the problems he experienced, so I would be very interested in seeing diffs where we bit the newbie instead of politely but firmly asking for citations to reliable sources. Evidence that the newbie biting actually happened would cause me to rethink my conclusions. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Re: "This isn't a NPOV matter, really.", I would like to see someone who ~~is less lazy~~ has more time than me be bold and move all the discussions in the various places to one central page, with the moved discussions replaced by a link to that page. Right now discussion about this issue is badly fragmented. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

One day, everyone will look back on this and either wish we had done things differently, or thank God that we did. Arlen22 (talk) 21:42, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ We now have a list of diffs so we can see for ourselves what happened and when. It is here: User talk:Jimbo Wales#play-by-play account. I am going to go over it in detail and then report back here. It will be interesting to see if my characterization of what happened when (based upon my far less thorough dive into the page histories) was accurate. More later. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll look at it, of course, clarifying what happened in this incident is important. User:Fred Bauder Talk 12:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Questions regarding Due and undue weight

[edit] Rational relationship to Wikipedia purpose and policy

Does Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight conform to our goal of providing a useful summary of reliable knowledge? Does it conform to our core policies, specifically Wikipedia:Neutral point of view? User:Fred Bauder Talk 12:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Is the policy expressed in an understandable and useful way

Is Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight expressed in a way which is understandable and useful for all levels of users and readers who may consult it or attempt to apply it? Relevant to the instant controversy is whether it is subject to misinterpretation or misuse by administrators or incomprehensible to inexperienced editors or the general public. User:Fred Bauder Talk 12:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Practical considerations

Is Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight liable to misuse by editors acting either in good faith or improperly, for point of view or malicious purposes. User:Fred Bauder Talk 12:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Haymarket

Is there anything to be learned from the Haymarket affair editing controversy? User:Fred Bauder Talk 12:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view

Contents

[edit] UAF

[edit] Minor typo to rectify

[edit] Question

[edit] WP:BALANCE/Balance redirects

[edit] Labelling groups of people, especially with negative or pejorative epithets

[edit] The 'Undue Weight' of Truth on Wikipedia

[edit] History recorded by historian versus history recorded by machine

[edit] Questions regarding Due and undue weight

[edit] Rational relationship to Wikipedia purpose and policy

[edit] Is the policy expressed in an understandable and useful way

[edit] Practical considerations

[edit] Haymarket

Personal tools

Namespaces

Variants

Views

Actions

Search

Navigation

Interaction

Toolbox

Print/export