Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 22:14, 10 December 2009

Skip to table of contents

Shortcut

WT:NPOV

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. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic.

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.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Wikipedia articles

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.

Neutrality and the Status Quo

I am hoping someone with more experience here can provide a rationale for the NPOV policy in light of a concern of mine. My specific issue with it is that the meaning of political neutrality, within a given society, is de facto support for the existing distribution of power in the society. This fact is reflected in the the policy's section covering the "majority viewpoint." At certain points in history, then, neutrality would have required (judging by some of the more zealous editors I've observed on Wikipedia) the deletion of certain information currently in the article on slavery in the United States and related articles to subtly minimize the possible moral implications that could be drawn from them. For example, that article says, "Slaves were considered legal non-persons except if they committed crimes." Because this statement or one like it would likely conflict with the majority view during the time of slavery (which we can assume would be represented by a fair statistical sample of the hypothetical 19th century Wikipedia editors), it might be edited to say, "Slaves were considered legal persons when they committed crimes." But leaving out the potentially incendiary word "non-persons" and this background fact about slaves' status importantly draws attention away from the abolitionist perspective it could imply. I have seen these kinds of revisions occur for "NPOV" reasons, over and over, when a minority view elicits a strong reaction from opponents, and it is in fact what the policy mandates. This led to my realization that Wikipedia's claim of being the people's encyclopedia is only true in the most trivial sense. When the weight of views such as slavery abolitionism are minimized in subtle but pervasive ways simply because they are the minority view, there is no potential for the content to be any more diverse, enlightened, progressive, etc., than any traditional encyclopedia. Unless majority views in Wikipedia are held in check by some mechanism at least as effective as the "undue weight" rule, the moral hazard of leaving mainstream practices and institutions like slavery unexamined and propagating them in subtle ways will persist, and I believe this policy undermines the educational potential that would otherwise set Wikipedia apart from other sources. As it is, it is no more "the people's" than Britannica. I would be very pleased if someone could allay my concern. LC | Talk 02:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. I really did try to follow what you said but I'm not at all sure what your concern is. Do you think you could simplify and phrase it down somewhat please? Dmcq (talk) 10:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for kind of rushing into my point. I should have explained, first, that every culture has an implicit value system. This fact is one of the fundamental assumptions of anthropology and sociology. ("You can't be neutral on a moving train.") These values may change over time, as they have in the United States and elsewhere on issues like slavery. The result of these changes is that something like slavery can be a norm at one time, and after a few generations of cultural change it is quite the opposite. So-called neutrality varies depending on the cultural context. Human rights, civil rights, animal rights--these things weren't in the lexicon two-hundred years ago. All of them would have been "minority views" according to Wiki policy, where they existed at all. Obviously many minority views today will follow a similar course as these have. Now slavery is widely seen as totally immoral. Now, I hope you or someone with experience with these normative problems can respond to the concern of the initial post. 74.62.159.114 (talk) 21:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, a snapshot of current human knowledge, not a means of directing societal evolution. As editors, we present information from reliable sources. If the reliable sources are racist, sexist, speciesist, or just plain wrong, the content of our articles will be similarly tainted. That's just how it is. Until society itself changes, and the sources change consequently, Wikipedia can't bend to support fringe causes just because someone thinks they're important. The "mainstream" is what it's all about. Yes, there are some people who believe the H1N1 vaccine was created in a racist, totalitarian UN plot to depopulate the world. Perhaps one day, when the hidden JFK returns with Elvis as his VP, this view will be mainstream. We don't know that, and we likewise can't predict which if any of the many fringe ideas will gain acceptance, so we can't prejudice one over the other. Each should be presented only to the extent it is notable and covered by reliable sources. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for your responses. For now I'll reply specifically only to Keepcalmandcarryon, since he/she said most directly that the "mainstream" is what it's all about. It is precisely the achievement of this objective that is the source of my concern, as you understood. Not only is Wikipedia a snapshot of current human knowledge but also of the dominant values implicit in every article. My suggestion is that an encyclopedia that gave a greater voice to alternative values would be a better, actually more encyclopedic one.

It sounds like, far from being an educational tool that can help us transcend the blinders of our own culture, with Wikipedia's current policy its greatest claim is that it aspires to produce nothing more than a highly efficacious historical artifact of "present knowledge." Speaking for myself, I don't really find such a modest goal worth working toward. LC | Talk 15:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think your concern should be alleviated by noting that while calling the project a snapshot is accurate, that includes being a snapshot of the current take on the historical trajectory of thought on a topic. So this allows for describing the state of a topic in some past time, but always with the most up to date knowledge and perspective. Indeed, the only way to transcend blinders is to use the most comprehensive and up-to-date sources (or time travel to the future

); ignoring vast bodies of knowledge (which is what increasing the voice of alternate values essentially entails) increases blinders. I hope you agree that this meaning of being a snapshot is indeed a better goal than your interpretation, which I agree is not the best we can do.

Others have alluded to this: Wikipedia describes the state of knowledge, it does not attempt (despite a history of quite a few disruptive efforts) to change or move it forward. That is not to say a project which attempts to do this is necessarily a bad idea (I can easily think of a couple of topics that people 50-100 years from now will look back and think we're a bunch of ignoramuses). Only that, Wikipedia is not, and was not designed to be, such a project. Hope that helps. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you are correct. That is Wikipedias aim. It does not aim at predicting anything. It is an encyclopaedia not a think tank. See WP:Five pillars. A sister project like wikibooks or wikiversity might suit you better. Producing a good encyclopaedia is quite demanding enough, getting a neutral point of view for instance can be like herding cats. Dmcq (talk) 16:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're all on the same page. While I understand the theory behind WP:NPOV, and I know that it is an iterative process--like "herding cats"--I can't let go of my own reservation that we are surely herding in the wrong direction in many cases. It's all well and good that Wikipedia reflects a historical trajectory of thought, but in hindsight that trajectory will undoubtedly be recognized as going in a totally different direction than the mainstream view today thinks it is. On some level, I appreciate the work of editors who find it a worthwhile goal to achieve Wikipedia's stated aims by "herding cats." I must politely disagree, and I think many others might too, if this problem were given better voice in WP:NPOV, WP:NPOV/FAQ, and elsewhere. Others like me ought to be directed outside of Wikipedia (as Dmcq suggests) if we are more interested in exploring alternative views than in maintaining the neutrality of the mainstream. Wikipedia has such high visibility that folks flock here without a complete understanding of the aims that we have been clarifying, and inevitable conflicts ensue. Some of these contributors (including myself) would be happier, and dedicated Wikipedia editors would be happier, if everyone had a full understanding of these aims and were aware of good alternative outlets for contributions not appropriate here like wikibooks and wikiversity. I think this is a goal that we all share. How can we make it happen? LC | Talk 17:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this related to real disputes, or just hypothetical? Have you looked through WP:NPOV carefully? Just because Wikipedia gives prominence to majority viewpoints, doesn't mean other, significant viewpoints are not presented. --Ronz (talk) 22:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Words like notability and verifiability in wikipedia policies aren't closely related to what people normally mean by them. The basic problem is that it should be possible to resolve disputes about content. To do that there must be easily observable facts and rules. This policy gives consensus rules about how to ensure a 'neutral point of view' and it gives ways to measure that. As the OP says there is no absolute neutral point of view. However editors on Wikipedia have agreed that that the policy here will in the main give something that they can in general agree about and reflects something in the real world that one can characterize as a neutral pint of view. As to slavery it is liable to lead to a bit of dispute so the policy will lead to some sort of consensus that people can go forward with. Three hundred years ago the conclusion might have been completely different Dmcq (talk) 23:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I take issue with the phrasing under the Morally Offensive Views heading, and I decided to make an edit accordingly on the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ page (which does not reflect on this one). As it reads here, one of the common questions about NPOV is, "What about views that are morally offensive to most Westerners, such as racism, sexism, and Holocaust denial, that some people actually hold?" On the FAQ, I changed "most Westerners" to "many people." Why should we align morality-by-consensus with morality according to the West? The modifier "most" doesn't erase that implication. It's true that some Westerners do hold these "offensive" views, and that some non-Westerners do not. On top of that, and perhaps more importantly, "the West" is a contentious term in itself. Wikipedia's own article on the Western world acknowledges that "the exact scope of the Western world is somewhat subjective in nature, depending on whether cultural, economic, spiritual or political criteria are employed." We can't arbitrarily employ just one of those criteria here, so the term becomes a weak as a descriptor, but powerful as a means of reinforcing an ethnocentric power structure. DrewZuma (talk) 02:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To fork, or not to fork?

The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject are treated in one article except in the case of a content fork.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and as such should cover the entire range of notable discussions on a topic. Some topics are so large however that one article cannot reasonably cover all facets of the topic. For example, Evolution, Evolution as theory and fact, Creationism, and Creationism-evolution controversy are all in separate articles. This is called a content fork and it helps prevent wasted effort and unnecessary debates: by covering related topics in different articles, we do not have to argue over covering everything in one article.
It is critical to understand the difference between point of view forks and content forks; the former are forbidden, while the latter are often necessary and encouraged.

On the other hand, Wikipedia:POVFORK says:

"Both content forks and POV forks are undesirable on Wikipedia"

So, which is it? I ask because I got in trouble several years ago when I tried to make content forks (now considered good?) to clarify various controversies.

I found that contributors often objected to clarification. For example the article I wanted to have on "unguided evolution" was deleted, as well as the Evolution poll article I made which was specifically about the distinction between "it just happened" and "God did it". I was accused of POV "pushing" or "forking", but no one ever explained which particular edit, sentence or section wasn't neutral.

It doesn't violate NPOV to describe a POV, does it?

Anyway, I'd like some clarification on if and when a Wikipedia:content fork is okay to have here. --Uncle Ed (talk) 03:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that article spinouts and WP:CFORK in general, cover this topic very well and in my opinion answer all your questions. Crum375 (talk) 04:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I wasn't clear. I see a contradiction between saying that

"content forks ... are undesirable" and
"content forks ... are often necessary and encouraged."

Can you please tell me which idea is correct? After I get your answer, I will correct the one that is wrong. --Uncle Ed (talk) 01:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But WP:CFORK starts by defining "A content fork is usually an unintentional creation of several separate articles all treating the same subject" before saying "content forks and POV forks are undesirable". It is clearly not desirable for there to be more than article covering the same subject. By contrast, it is good for a large and complex topic to be split into components, with articles on each component. What is bad is to take a topic such as evolution and create articles with content that would never be accepted in Evolution because the content fails WP:RS or WP:UNDUE. There is no contradiction. Johnuniq (talk) 02:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no contradiction. Both are true. Content forks are undesirable but in some circumstances they are necessary and encouraged. In your case of 'unguided evolution', that is not a separate subject from evolution. I suppose you could put a bit about guided and unguided evolution where it refers to theistic evolution. Dmcq (talk) 10:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Undue fork

WP:UNDUE was changed by this edit which included adding In some cases refactoring an article into child or sister articles can allow these subtopics to be discussed more fully elsewhere without dominating an article to which they are non-central. That can be read to suggest that if I can't add some nonsense to the main article (because it gives undue weight to a fringe view), then I should make an entire article espousing my nonsense. I think the new text should either be removed (it's not relevant to explaining "undue weight"), or should be expanded with a number of caveats regarding notability. Johnuniq (talk) 01:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC) Ooops, diff link above was wrong; have now fixed. Johnuniq (talk) 23:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the diff given was not recorded quite right. But this is about an edit I made after posting to this talk page. I would welcome wording improvements. I definitely recognize the danger of content forking, and obviously do not wish to encourage that. What I am concerned with is the different—but related—matter of WP:SPLITing (which is what I link to in the addition). Of course it is not encouraging WP:FRINGE nonsense in children, but rather that children with encyclopedic merit are a way to use WP:SUMMARY style to present related topics that would overburden the article where they may have started as a section. Notice the sentence starts with "In some cases...".

There are lots of example here that I have encountered. I mention in the prior talk page section how I refactored Tattoo to split out much of the newly added material to Tattoo ink, and later to Tattoo medical issues. Both of those daughter/sister topics deserve presentation on WP, but neither warrants outweighing the main material in the original Tattoo article. Another place I have encountered the issue frequently is with biographies. Some particular incident or event that someone is involved in often grows in discussion until it makes up the bulk of the article, even though it amounts to only a small part of the bio subject's life and notability. We did this a bunch with Barack Obama, where child articles were split off for Presidency, Cultural perception, Family, and so on (it's up to dozens in the family of articles by now). It would be absurd to put everything related to that person in one article, but unfortunately, there was a lot of resistance to a good refactoring there, and the clarification I have now added here would have helped the discussion. I have had very similar experiences in relation to much less prominent biographies: a certain book by an academic, or a certain court case or public action by a public figure, or some other minor but noteworthy incident often grows to dominate a biographical article. There's something like that, I think going on, with the biography of Wolfgang Werlé whose current C&D is most of his article (except I'm not sure the person actual merits an independent article, so I'm not sure what the best factoring is (and someone just nominated the whole thing for AfD anyway).

Of course, there is a line to walk here. It certainly happens also that the side event in a person's life (or side aspect of some other topic) is only interesting from some fringe perspective, and a summary style risks promoting material that shouldn't otherwise be on WP. However, even there, the words of encouragement I add are useful in the long run. Say we have an article "Foo", and someone starts a child "Fringe Theories about Foo" (probably not under that name). Ultimately, the fringe child is a clear candidate for AfD, and the merits of that fringe aspect can be clearly judged independently of the notability of Foo itself. LotLE×talk 06:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everything in your above comment is commendable, but it does not seem relevant to WP:UNDUE. WP:NPOV is a strong policy – articles must be written from a neutral point of view. Problem: a creationist (for example) may interpret NPOV to mean Evolution must include "equal time" for the creationist POV. Therefore, WP:UNDUE explains that articles should represent "significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source" and minority views (which still need reliable sources) should have less weight. Since Evolution is a science-based article, "reliable source" rules out, for example, a creationist website.

In summary, the purpose of WP:UNDUE is to prevent the NPOV policy being used to inject fringe stuff into serious articles. The recently-added text pointing out that subtopics may be split out is fine, but it is not relevant in the WP:UNDUE section and is a potential problem because it carries the suggestion that if WP:UNDUE prevents someone from putting fringe nonsense into a science article, then that person should create a separate article which attempts to portray the fringe material as scientifically based. Johnuniq (talk) 03:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What you describe is indeed part of the purpose of this policy. Another part that you skip over is that article should not contain material that is WP:UNDUE weight. That's why one of the sections is about weight, and why we have a shortcut to that part of policy. Nothing in what I added/clarified is even remotely suggestive of the idea that creationism should go into the evolution article, nor that any non-notable topic should be covered in its own article. It looks like you're trying to imagine that I included something different than what I did include.

Actually, the example you mention is probably a particularly good reason to include my clarification. If we had an Evolution article that suddenly grew a long section of "Creation Science" that outweighed the rest of the article--or that even simply took a substantial portion of it--something precisely like my clarification would explain WP policy and goals. Even though I entirely concur that Creationism is a completely bogus and foolish endeavor, it is also one that has "got enough press" to be mentioned on WP, even discussed at considerable length: just not in the Evolution article. If we had suddenly grown that section, but there was not already an article on Creationism, refactoring according to WP:SPLIT and WP:WEIGHT would be exactly the right thing to do (I recognize that this specific factoring is hypothetical, since those topics were well-tread years ago; but in structure that's exactly why the clarification was needed). LotLE×talk 03:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My quick example was not intended to describe all possible violations of WP:UNDUE, however the fundamental point is what I said: The NPOV policy is very strong: articles must be written from a neutral point of view. Therefore, many editors jump to the wrong conclusion, namely that all quirky views need to be mentioned. The purpose of WP:UNDUE is to firmly block that conclusion: NPOV only applies to "significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source" (plus the other things it says). Creationism is notable and so has an extensive collection of articles, following the notability guideline. WP:NPOV has absolutely nothing to do with why articles (such as those dealing with creationism) should be created. You are probably approaching this from experience with Obama related articles, where people keep wanting to raise some ephemeral news story as if it proved some point about Obama. WP:UNDUE helps to exclude untested drama from political articles, but WP:UNDUE is still not the place to give advice on when to create other articles. If you really want to keep your wording (why here?), it needs a linked phrase like "if sufficiently notable..." (it's the business of WP:N to describe when an article should be created). Johnuniq (talk) 07:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Obama-related articles are indeed one of several dozen topics where I have encountered the concern for clarifying WP:WEIGHT over the last six years I've been editing. But certainly not not nearly only that. For example, I mentioned in the initial thread the example where the discussion of Tattoo ink came to occupy disproportionate space in Tattoo. There is nothing non-neutral about covering the details of what chemicals are used in tattoo inks, and it's not particularly political or contentious (as evolution/creationism or many Obama-related topics are). It also just isn't of sufficient significance to dominate the more general Tattoo article. However, I think your suggested additional clause "if sufficiently notable" is perfect to help clarify further, and I'll add that. LotLE×talk 08:58, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That other example was more to the point. We do have POV forks, and the series of articles on evolution and creationism are an extremely good case. It is impossible to write understandably about evolution with the need to keep saying that a very small minority of scientists, and half the people in the US, think all of this is wrong, & explain why--the this does have to be mentioned somewhere. It is impossible to write understandably about creationism if we need to keep saying that essentially all modern scientists from 1900 think this is nonsense, and explain why--though this certainly does have to be prominently mentioned. The NPOPV on one is inherently the positive POV on the other, and we do well to keep the main arguments separated. There are other examples, but I pick the most extensive. We normally find some way of dividing up the subjects, or specializing them, but what they really are is POV forks. Personally, I see nothing wrong with an article called explicitly, Republican views on Obama--it's absolutely clear that there is going to be a complementary POV and what we need to do is to ensure that the overall treatment will be balanced and POV considering the articles on the subject as a whole. Better to be up front about it. (I know my view of this is not the standard one, but I think we're fooling ourselves) DGG ( talk ) 03:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects and NPOV

This is one of those frustrating issues where everyone has an opinion when it comes to deleting any particular redirect, and everyone is willing to cite NPOV and/or BLP, but there's nothing at NPOV or BLP and nothing in the talk archives of either page going back a year. I'll just throw out some links, and if anyone wants to run with this, great: Wikipedia_talk:REDIR#Section regarding neutrality of redirects, WT:BLP#BLP issues in redirects, and the ongoing DRV, Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_November_20#Fort_Hood_terrorist_attack. - Dank (push to talk) 18:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Different people understand "terrorist" to mean different things, so it could be that it would be better to frame the issue as "What do we do about obvious NPOV in a redirect" ... such as a redirect from "Christianity, the greatest religion ever" or "Christianity and stupidity, which is worse?" to Christianity ... both in the case where there are no reliable sources, and in the case where there are a ton of reliable sources that discuss one of those phrases. - Dank (push to talk) 18:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, here's my personal-experience based look at the status quo. Jclemens (talk) 20:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

POV-level	No Sourcing	Unreliable Sourcing^[1]	Reliable Sourcing
NPOV	Delete	Probable Keep	Keep
Aguable POV	Delete	Delete	Fight!
Undisputed POV	Delete	Fight!	Fight!

Notes

^ For purposes of this table, "unreliable sourcing" demonstrates that a redirect is a reasonable search term through use in unreliable sources (blogs, etc.) which may themselves have a definite POV.

qy about the table: are you saying that with weak sourcing, we deleted if the POV is arguable, but argue if it is absolutely clear? It should be the other way round. DGG ( talk ) 02:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That may well be wrong, but I'm trying to think of any RfD discussion that falls into that category that raised a lot of contention, and I'm not coming up with any. Jclemens (talk) 04:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thus, to your question, Dank, both those redirects would be undisputably POV and presumably without reliable sourcing. I really wouldn't expect Wikipedia would have any problem at all deleting either redirect. Jclemens (talk) 20:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of "sourcing" is a good point to kill these kinds of redirects on. Realistically speaking, who is going to show up at Wikipedia and type either "Christianity, the best religion ever" or "Christianity is stupid" and expect to go to Christianity? It strains the imagination. Redirects are cheap but they also are not indiscriminate; there should be a compelling reason for a redirect to exist, particularly when it is controversial. Shereth 21:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let's get closer to an NPOV question. Let's say Joe's Bar and Grill is notable and we have an article on it. Local churches have been preaching against the sin of alcohol, and Joe was losing business, so he printed up and sold 5000 bumper stickers that say "Christianity is stupid", he's given interviews on a few radio talk shows, and there are maybe 20 differents stories in newspapers that make off-hand references to the phrase. We've decided that the phrase isn't sufficiently notable to have its own article, but someone created a redirect from Christianity is stupid to Joe's Bar and Grill, and the redirect itself has been getting 20,000 hits a month, and it shows up in the Wikipedia search bar whenever someone types "Christianity". (Maybe someone creates the redirect in good faith that it will be useful, but then people typing "Christianity" into the search box are so curious what "Christianity is stupid" could refer to that they start clicking on it, then Google pushes it up in the search rankings ... it could happen.) NPOV problem or not? - Dank (push to talk) 21:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a problem if there's discussion of the campaign in the target article, such that any user who follows the redirect can reasonably see why the redirect points there. Jclemens (talk) 21:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. I added a pointer at VPP, but we're not getting a lot of discussion, so I guess I should discuss in terms of the DRV, which isn't suffering from lack of discussion. How about if Joe's pissed off that people aren't taking the Foot Hood shootings seriously, and the bumper stickers said "What part of 'Fort Hood terrorist attack' don't you understand?" Same number of bumper stickers, same interviews, same number of hits, although the hits are to "Fort Hood terrorist attack", as a result of his bumper stickers and interviews (pretend no one else mentioned the phrase before Joe did). - Dank (push to talk) 03:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC) tweaked[reply]

The fact that I also find that a good justification for a redirect should surprise no one. What seems to be the bigger problem is that those with numerical superiority seem disinclined to engage in dialogue. After all, why should they? Jclemens (talk) 03:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the policy changes to specifically allow these kinds of redirects, I have a feeling someone will say something. (I know that WP:REDIR allowed it already. This is exactly the kind of thing that's been discussed at WT:POLICY lately ... changing a guideline doesn't always force discussion, changing a policy does tend to force discussion, for better or worse.) - Dank (push to talk) 03:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We had discussion years ago where we decided we don't do offensive redirects. It was a redirect to Michael Jackson, I think, can't recall where it was discussed though. Don't know if that helps any. Hiding T 11:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you could find it, that would belp. "Offensive" redirects are often useful search terms, and that previous discussion doesn't seem to be reflected in the policies and guidelines as written. To be blunt, avoiding offensive redirects just because they're offensive redirects violates NOTCENSORED and NPOV, in my appraisal. Wikipedia is about documenting the world as it is, and people use a lot of offensive terms for things. Jclemens (talk) 20:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wow, is that how you read my words. Blimey. I'm not sure I could find the debate, it's probably during the period we used to throw the village pump away every week. My take is that we don't create redirects, offensive or not, without good reason. To be blunt, we wouldn't use an offensive redirect just because we could, since Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion and we do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints. Out of curiosity, what's your take on Milk snatcher and The Great She-Elephant? Hiding T 23:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry if that came across as failing to assume good faith--I did actually mean that yes, seeing that debate would be helpful. It wouldn't be the first time that what is written in guidelines is divergent from what the people who were around remember as consensus. Between human fallibility and CCC, there's no need to violate Hanlon's Razor. :-) Thanks for providing what you have. Jclemens (talk) 05:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - So, to the substance of your reply. YESPOV is an absolutely vital part of NPOV, in my view. How do we deal with YESPOV when it's far more common to have negative/offensive nicknames than it is to have positive ones? My position would be to accept the world as it is and allow any redirect that has demonstrable, even if unreliable, sourcing. Such has been my position throughout, from Saint Pancake onwards. While I haven't heard the nicknames underlying those redirects for Baroness Thatcher, assuming that they're actually used (I'm from the US, and her days as UK PM were in my adolescence, so I plead personal ignorance). The alternative is to try and be the POV police in redirects, which I think leads to pointless bickering. If we can all accept that redirects are simply navigational aids and mean nothing in and of themselves, then the debate is essentially over. Unfortunately, I don't think my viewpoint is sufficiently widely shared for that outcome to be likely. Jclemens (talk) 05:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Getting old, my memory is way off base. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/King of Pop and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wacko Jacko. Apologies. Hiding T 23:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - "Wacko Jacko" was a commonly used phrase for Michael Jackson ... so, there should be plenty of reliable sources for it. I apologize for harping on this, but I think we should cite some of those sources, and I think the one source that's cited there is particularly good, since Barbara Walters is interviewing him and he's explaining why the name is repugnant to him. Sending the redirect to the top of the page is going to suggest to a small but significant number of readers that en.wikipedia thinks that's an appropriate name for Michael Jackson (unless it's in the lead, and that's going to be rare, in general). - Dank (push to talk) 23:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - ... and I'm including WP:UNDUE when I'm talking about complying with NPOV, which means the article shouldn't add a new section discussing a derogatory term (or peacock term) if that discussion would give the term undue weight relative to that article. Since there was a huge amount of media attention to the Fort Hood terrorist attack, my feeling was that such a discussion was appropriate. Wacko Jacko as far as I recall was a widely-used term, but more by tabloids than by respectable papers, so you could make the case that giving people enough information to judge the appropriateness and extent of the term would take up too much room in the article for what it's worth ... if that were the case, then my vote would be to delete the redirect. Of course, if the term was determined to be notable, we could have a neutral article devoted to it. - Dank (push to talk) 13:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is 'pseudoscience' the best word to use? Science is surely the key.

Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Pseudoscience_and_related_fringe_theories

I think that 'pseudoscience' is an inappropriate word to use in such an important guideline. Ironically it is just too ambiguous a word. I was initially surprised to see it's got in here - but on reflection, maybe not. I do fully understand the need for a section on this general area - but 'Pseudoscience'?

I have a couple of 'side' points I want to say before my suggestions. People who believe in stuff like astrology are still human and thus deserve respect – it does seem the fashion at times to colourfully express the opposite. Why judge them at all? The guidelines should sort us out. Also, regarding 'complementary health', I personally see Wikipedia as being equally vulnerable to the extorting pharmaceuticals that keep most of the world on its knees (one extreme), as it is to the ever-present 'snake oil' salesmen (the other), and of course the desperate and the naive will also make their edits - but such is life. I say all this as I think some ingrained prejudices here can really colour proceedings.

I genuinely believe that Wikipedia's existing editing policies can cover these issues. I do feel, however, that policy is sometimes badly expressed - the first line of Verify is the prime example, which is all that some editors wish to read. The wording of guidelines should be as tight, authoritative, unambiguous and as dispassionate and free from bias as possible – all as a matter of form. (struck out, to avoid people judging me in that Wikipedia-sanctioned NPOV-PSI way people do.. please read on..)

My main suggestion is: why not rename the 'pseudoscience' section to something like "Science related subjects and fringe theories"? It is a logical and positive approach, and the section will offer the same advice and guidelines etc. Advice on what to avoid can be laid out in a similar way.

Also, I think that Psychoanalysis#Criticism is not a good enough section of Wikipedia to use as an example in here, in any capacity, and especially should not follow the advice “a little more care should be taken...”!!

I also have a suggestion on the used of Intelligent Design. Speaking as an atheist, I do worry that people's religion/spirituality (a human right in my eyes, if not even a genetically inherent one) can too easily be attacked using the 'bogey man' label (or 'slur') of 'pseudoscience'. I've been reading through the Intelligent Design movement articles, and I wonder that listing it as a 'pseudoscience' isn't biased at least to some degree. The theory of ID has always been around, and there are scientists out there who are unwilling to dismiss it completely – so do we need to be so strong? Surely we should put more trust in existing editing policy. Problem encountered in dealing with AGF, cabals, socking etc should certainly not be crowbarred in here. ID seems to me too complex to 'pigeon hole' so simply. ID is clearly also a political matter: ID promoters could be more into centralising the power base of the church and fending off liberal attacks perhaps, than about promoting ID (or creationism) as a genuine science. As for creationism, creating 'fact' based on truth-above-meaning in the Old Testament is unworkable for any 'side' on Wikipedia surely – reading the books at face value simply raise questions of legality. For me, either you believe in a creator (as a significant amount of scientists in fact do) or you are unsure, or you do not. But I'm digressing here a little. My suggestion is: wouldn't Intelligent Design be better as the example of “Questionable science” than psychoanalysis? And, as I suggested above, the whole guideline be structed under 'science' rather than 'pseudoscience'? I just don't see how the realistic practical application of this guideline on Wikipedia can really require the heavy handedness we have now.

Finally, 'Alternative theoretical formulations:'? This phrase seems fundamentally weak to me. Alternative to what? Some fields in science almost entirely consist of contrasting theories. It seems to be based more on 'what is not a pseudoscience' than anything meaningful in its own right. Perhaps under the heading of 'science' this could area be more logically handled too? An explanation of theory in science (and comparing it to fringe theories) could lead the whole section.

It is all related to science in some way, so the science/scientific approach is the key.

I realise that consensus on this section might have been hard won, and that my suggestions could be thus dismissed by regulars, or meet strong opposition. If this wasn't the NPOV policy article I'd be leaving it alone. ID is not an area I have edited in at all, or the others in any great capacity. But for me this part of NPOV seriously needs addressing, or 'honing', if it is better seen that way. Matt Lewis (talk) 12:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's probably a long list of arbitration cases that are required reading in this regard. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience springs to mind. Hiding T 16:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That case is from Oct 2006 - is there a more recent one you can point to? I didn't spend too long researching the past I admit, partly because I know what those debates/decisions can be like - both the subject and the reader can get lost, lets be honest - even by Arbcom. But when I find something that I can see isn't right, I feel I am entitled to address what is in front of me.

Looking through the 2006 Arbcom case I can see it is often about the specific behavior of certain editors, as these cases often are, and blocks resulted on both sides. It is interesting that at least one editor clearly trying to be 'on top' of certain 'pseudoscience' issues/articles have been called "overzealous" in their approach. I don't know how fair that is in the context of the 2006 arbcom case, but I feel the current wording here in NPOV does appear to be over-zealous. Many of the commentators at Arbcom were concerned with the use of the term, and I suspect would agree that changes are needed now. I certainly don't think that the adversarial side of Wikipedia should dictate what is in major editing policy, and I don't it should hinge on 3 year old Arbcom decisions either: when it's got right, it's got right. I don't believe there is so much to 'fear' that policy should be allowed to break its own rules. The section as it stands cannot possibly encourage policy-respect in passing neutral editors. Matt Lewis (talk) 19:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matt, would you please provide the exact wording you're discussing and provide a link to the section? Thanks. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean in the pseudoscience section in the NPOV article, or the 2006 arbcom comments? I've placed a link to the pseudoscience section right at the top of this discussion. If there is anything unclear in my comments directly below it, please say. I'm happy to actually have a go at rewording, but only if I see a chink of interest in change. I've tried working on guidelines/MOS/policy etc before - sometimes it is surprising what you can do, while other times there is no way in at all. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. That's the one. I don't see any reason to avoid using such a fundamentally important word as pseudoscience. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't see my reasons as valid then. Or you find the word too important to avoid. My worry is that too much 'fundamental importance' is put into this single word. Other things seem to be avoided in doing so - like some fundamental principles of Wikpiedia. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you've looked through the arb-com case you'll see there are findings which form the heart of the section you are discussing. You'll also see that arb-com isn't always or even often about the specific behaviour of certain editors. I have to say I too don't see any reason to avoid using the term pseudoscience. I'm not sure I can reconcile the neutral point of view policy with an idea that should avoid terms out of respect. Hiding T 22:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Out of respect? I was commenting there on the 'disrespectful' attitude of some of the more ardent 'anti-pseudoscience' editors out there, not proposing 'respectfulness' as a reason in itself to avoid the word 'pseudoscience'!

@Matt. Could you then explain what you meant in your opening statement when you said "People who believe in stuff like astrology are still human and thus deserve respect", please? Hiding T 07:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I began the point by calling it a 'side point', and ended the point by referring to unhelpful 'ingrained prejudices' - ie a lack of basic respect throughout Wikipedia by some towards people who advocate a 'pseudoscience'. I am clearly getting the brunt of this 'bad attitute' now and I'm no advocate of any pseudoscience at all - it really isn't helpful. I've already re-explained myself when you first questioned me above. I feel like you are searching for some kind of 'political correctness' here to go after, but I have sound logical reasoning for my proposals - have you read down to them? I realise I've made the classic mistake of complaining about something (a failing of mine) - but I have a right to assume people will properly digest what I have written. Matt Lewis (talk) 10:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't questioned you above, so I am not sure why you are either accusing me of having a bad attitude or of being unhelpful. Truth be told, I don't understand many of your points at all. You want to rename the section to something like "Science related subjects and fringe theories" because using the term pseudoscience is illogical and negative, which is something I don't understand, don't agree with and don't feel you've actually explained. Rather, you've asserted it as a given. The rest of your post seems to contain what on the face of it appears a valid point about Psychoanalysis#Criticism, before moving into discussion about the Intelligent Design movement articles and whether the term pseudoscince should be used in those articles. Given that the usage is sourced to reliable sources, I'd suggest the very letter and spirit of this policy is that we do use such terms if they are widely used about something. Your final point about "Alternative theoretical formulations" seems to my mind to stem from a misunderstanding of what is meant. Alternative theoretical formulations are scientific theories which are alternatives to the consensual scientific position. Maybe that goes some way to clarifying and returning this section of the discussion to a place where civility and good faith can be respected. Hiding T 15:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From the arbcoms I've seen, the behavior of individual editors can not only get an arbcom going, but can lead to all kinds of rulings being put forward to move on. Have a look at Ireland right now. The majority of the text over the 3 arbcom pages from the 2006 Arbcom case on pseudoscience deals with editors like Sciencepologist and Iantresman. They are very hard to read through too - arbcoms are clearly always easier to follow at the time.

As for the rulings - Jimbo Wales talked in his email of Wikipedia having a more sophisticated approach to balancing opposing factors than most journalism. I don't think the rulings, or the pseudoscience section in NPOV offer actual sophistication at all. I find the section more clumsy than clever, and I think the word 'pseudoscience' on Wikipedia has rather been made into a blunt tool to hit people with.

The opening comments on page 1 of the arbcom seem to support the gist my suggestions, and I think the idea of putting actual science first in NPOV is as solid as a rock. It is now 3 years on from the 2006 arbcom too. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wiktionary definition of the word "pseudoscience" is: "Any body of knowledge purported to be scientific or supported by science but which fails to comply with the scientific method." - it's not a matter of giving offense or offending people - it's a word with a clear, simple meaning. I have consulted several other dictionaries - and they pretty much agree on that.

Astrology (to pick an example at random) does indeed purport to be scientific - and it clearly does not comply with the classical "Hypothesis, experiment, peer review, publish, law/theory" chain of evidence that is "The Scientific Method". Hence "pseudoscience" is the correct word to use. Astrologers who are offended by this, need to carefully consider whether they are indeed following scientific principles - and whether they are claiming to be a science or supported by science. If they can provide evidence that they are not claiming that - or that they are indeed following the scientific method then the word is being incorrectly applied and we should withdraw it. If they cannot do that then the word is being correctly applied and they need not take offense.

Continually seeking language that is politically correct is not "neutrality" - it is dilution of meaning - trying to cover distinctions that some people find to be counter to their desires. Dilution of meaning is NOT what an encyclopedia should be doing.

If we picked some other word to describe things that purport to be science but are not - then (for example) the intelligent design folks would STILL object to being lumped together with the flat-earthers, homeopathists and perpetual-motion machine inventors and would soon demand that we pick yet another word. The fact of the matter is that each of these groups wishes merely to be accepted as a proper hard science - right up there with evolution, relativity and so forth. They will repeatedly object to any and all efforts to categorize them as anything other than a legitimate science.
If we did that and called any subject that purported to be a science "Science" - then we would merely enrage the mainstream physicists, biologists and so forth because we'd be misusing the word "science" to mean things other than "bodies of knowledge that comply with the scientific method".
If we assiduously avoid labeling anything whatever as either science or pseudoscience...then should we stop labelling books as "fiction" and "non-fiction"? Should we avoid any kind of distinction on any topic? No! That would result in a very weird (and entirely useless) encyclopedia!

So have to accept that there is no way to please everyone...no matter what we do, someone is going to be enraged.

What we should do (self-evidently, I would claim) is simply to use the correct English word - as defined in a stack of dictionaries. A word that describes something that claims to be a science but is not so. The most accurate word for that is "pseudoscience" - it has no common synonyms - and therefore that is without doubt the word we should use regardless of the opinions or offense of pseudo-scientific thinkers. If they do not wish to be so labeled - they must either drop the pretense of being a science - or begin an aggressive program of applying the scientific method to their sphere of interest. Sadly, we know they won't do that - the defining feature of a pseudo-scientist is someone who really doesn't want to have their view of the world overturned by mainstream scientific techniques yet craves the societal acceptance that comes with being labelled a "science" - that's why they pretend offense at being labeled with a perfectly cromulant word.

SteveBaker (talk) 02:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This speech above is based on a total misreading of what I have written, now twice re-explained when asked! I'm getting a bit pissed off about this - I didn't come here to be blown away by a righteous band wagon! Ironically, I do think this is rather another example of the 'lack of basic respect' I started my suggestions by complaining about (never ever ever ever start with a complaint!!! When will I learn??).

I would add that I don't like the negative assumption that "no matter what we do, someone will always be enraged". It classically narrows horizons - is that ever wise? Also, I've never argued with the definition of pseudoscience, but it is still too fuzzy a label for my scientific mind. NPOV needs to be crystal and untarnished - it doesn't need a lump hammer, lump-all 'super word' be an effective guideline. Also astrology, like wrestling, is frankly camp. And it touches religion in some cultures too. I find the polemics against 'phoney science' often too simplistic in cultural terms, and way too intense at times. We need to simmer down. I'm scrubbing out the supposedly 'politically correct' part of my original post - please read it again. Matt Lewis (talk) 11:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is "fuzzy" about the definition I quoted from wiktionary? I read your original post before my initial response - and have now read your revised post. I don't see where using a word 100% correctly is in any way not 'neutral'. There might be a loss of neutrality when the reason for using the word are in doubt. If someone tried to label cold fusion as "pseudoscience" - I'd have to object on the grounds that the scientific method is being pursued - my personal belief is that cold fusion is false - but acting neutrally, I have to use the term "fringe science". If someone tried to claim that that the protestant church was a pseudoscience - I'd have to object on the grounds that it makes no claims of a scientific nature - despite my personal atheistic beliefs. However, when you come to Intelligent Design - which demands to be taught on an equal basis with Evolution in a science curriculum - yet which performs no experiments, no measurements, does not seek peer review in mainstream publications - then the term "pseuodscience" most certainly applies because the dictionary definition of that term clearly applies. It's not a hammer - it's a word that describes a particular approach to knowledge. There is no lack of neutrality in a concise definition of what is going on in this field of study. It is unfortunate that the proponents of ID don't like that label - but we can't continually dilute the language just because some people don't like a particular word. "phony science" might fit the bill as an alternative to "pseudoscience" - but it's not precisely defined - and I think it is pejorative. SteveBaker (talk) 16:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with SteveBaker. Where the advocates of a viewpoint present it as 'scientific' and the scientific consensus is unequivocally of the view that it is without scientific basis or merit, it is misleading for Wikipedia to itself equivocate (or give the impression of equivocating) on this point. Contrary to Matt Lewis, I would state that Intelligent Design is not "questionable science" -- it lacks any scientific basis, merit or purpose whatsoever. It is, to use the words of one of its most prominent advocates (William Dembski), "just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory." Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 03:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well - kinda. I'm reluctant to agree with what you just wrote. It's not whether scientific consensus is of the view that the concept does or does not have a scientific basis. That might be a matter of opinion - or there might be valid scientific debate with only a small minority backing it up.

For example - in the early days of Cold Fusion research - it was a legitimate scientific enquiry - there were hypotheses about how the catalyst might cause fusion - there were experiments performed to try to demonstrate it - those results were published and other experimenters tried (in good faith) to reproduce them. When they failed (and published their failures) - it became clear to the majority of scientists that it was a failed hypothesis. But even after it was believed to be false by the majority of experts in the field - it was still "science" because it continued to be pursued using the scientific method. Only when proponents abandon the scientific method does it stray into the realms of pseudoscience. If you look at our cold fusion article - you'll notice that it's labelled as a "fringe theory" and not as pseudoscience. That's a correct application of the terminology. Those who continue to believe that cold fusion is "real" are still (hopefully) forming hypotheses, using those hypotheses to suggest experiments - collecting the results - attempting to get others to repeat them - attempting to get them peer-reviewed and (ideally) published in a reputable journal. That's science - but it's on the fringe because very few scientists are convinced by the results. If this were pseudoscience, then all of that stuff would have fallen by the wayside and people would be out there claiming that their cars are running on cold fusion or something just as unlikely.

So you could scientifically approach (say) homeopathy - form a hypothesis that might suggest why it might work - do careful experiments - and abide by the results. However, when those experiments prove that there is nothing behind the idea - or if you simply cease to do those experiments and blindly assert correctness - then you have failed to rigorously apply the scientific method. When you then go ahead and sell a bunch of distilled water on the shelves of WalMart's pharmacutical counter to the gullible public for $10 a gram - then the practice is well into the realms of pseudoscience and should rightly be labelled as such...because that is what the word means.

But we must distinguish fringe theories. Fringe theories may yet (just possibly) have value if scientific methods are pursued until a definite conclusion is obtained one way or the other. Pseudoscience doesn't to that - it generally proceeds from an assumption that the end result is true and that's not the right approach. As many pseudoscience proponents are all too happy to point out - sometimes a fringe theory turns out to be true. Relativity was a fringe theory for a long time. The "many worlds" interpretation of quantum theory is (arguably) a fringe theory - that may yet turn out to be true. Pseudoscience is almost always untrue - but that's not the point - it's not about truth or falsehood - it's about the refusal of the proponents to properly test their ideas using "The Scientific Method" that's proven to be so powerful over the 200 or so years that it's been rigorously applied.

On the other side of things - most religions cannot be correctly labelled as 'pseudoscience' because although people are not using the scientific method to search for gods - they also don't generally make claims that the existence of gods are scientific fact. They appeal only to faith or other tenants. Hence religions are not pseudosciences. Even Intelligent Design would not be a pseudoscience if it did not lay claim to scientific truth...yet, sadly, it most certainly does - and yet fails to follow the scientific method...so we're back labeling it as pseudoscience rather than simply religious faith.

SteveBaker (talk) 05:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's anything that you just wrote that I'd disagree with SteveBaker, and if I gave appearance of disagreeing with it, then I must have been careless in my wording. I think an article on cold fusion should (and most probably does) state unequivocally that nobody's gotten CF to work, but should not in any way denigrate attempts to try to get it to work as "pseudoscience". It was a legitimate scientific hypothesis, serving clear scholarly and practical objectives. That it remains (to date) a failed hypothesis does not make it "pseudoscientific". Likewise I would argue that many other, older, failed hypotheses are not pseudoscientific, unless and until they are represented with their failure hidden. Perpetual motion would be one good example. Prior to the Laws of Thermodynamics being known, they would have been a legitimate hypothesis -- today they are obvious pseudoscience (but that doesn't appear to stop its continual representation as workable). Believing that the world is only 6000 years old isn't pseudoscience, claiming that there is scientific evidence of a global Genesis Flood, or that radiometric dating revealing ages older than this figure are scientifically inaccurate, clearly is pseudoscientific. The problem is that the former and the latter are often very tightly intertwined. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 06:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No - I'm sure you weren't disagreeing with me - I just wanted to be really sure that we're using this word with precision:

Science - studies and claimed knowledge that follow the scientific method.
Fringe science - studies and claimed knowledge that, whilst using the scientific method, are widely regarded as false by the majority of practitioners - while a clear minority continue to pursue that line of attack.
Pseudoscience - studies and claimed knowledge that makes claims of a scientific nature, without following the scientific method.

SteveBaker (talk) 16:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where would String theory fit in that framework? It has, as yet (and AFAIK), failed to come up with any testable hypotheses, so does not (and cannot) follow the scientific method. However, most would classify it as fringe science, rather than pseudoscience, because it is pursued with the objective of hopefully eventually developing some testable predictions. Also, I think consideration needs to be given of hypotheses that, while they were in keeping with the state of the scientific method of their day, would fail the modern state of it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 16:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

String theory is a tricky one. The proponents are trying their best to come up with experimentally testable hypotheses - but it's tough. I guess we need another bullet point to add to the list of terms I gave above:

Unfalsifiable hypothesis - studies and claimed knowledge that is not testable by the scientific method.

Most religious thought falls into that category. String theory is currently on the borderlines of that. Spme things are both pseudoscience and unfalsifiable...others are just one or just the other. You can easily prove or disprove homeopathy by experiment, for example - so it's not unfalsifiable. ID might arguably be said to be unfalsifiable (I don't happen to believe that) - but it's still pseudoscience. SteveBaker (talk) 21:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would question that. Beyond the core claim that the world is ~6k years old, most of Young Earth creationism consists of restatement of falsified hypotheses as though they were still viable (see Creation science, Flood geology & Creation geophysics). ID's a bit trickier admittedly -- with hypotheses such as irreducible complexity & specified complexity teetering between unfalsifiable, falsified and/or a question of 'are the concepts being put forward meaningful?' (which might arguably be considered a subset of the former), with a generous dose of equivocation in their formulation serving to further muddy the waters. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 03:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A hypothesis is falsifiable if its proponents and opponents can agree that there is a way to disprove it. If proponents cop an attitude like, "No matter what you say, we intend to adhere to our theory", then they are not playing fair: they are refusing to be accountable to independent review. This is more common in mainstream science, I daresay, than the general public is usually aware. (I recall a recent case where a scientist refused to share his data and methods with an opponent of his theory, on the grounds that, "You're just trying to poke holes in it."

Likewise, if opponents of a theory go, "Nothing you say can convince us of your theory", then they also aren't playing fair.

Of course, it's not for us Wikipedia contributors to make these calls: we can't label one side or the other as unfair. We can, however, report that a published verifiable source (A) declared that a particular view (X) or adherent (Y) is pseudoscientific; and better yet, summarize the reasons A gave for why X or Y is out of accord with the scientific method.

Accusations of pseudoscience are rife in fields such as human origins, climate science (see global warming controversy) and the toxicology of various chemicals. It's not up to us to act as referees here, is it? I suggest we simply identify the sides, summarize their evidence and reasoning, and try to ascertain who supports each side. --Uncle Ed (talk) 03:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Denialism of human evolution (the article that 'human origins' redirects to), is rife with falsified hypotheses (such as Flood Geology which was falsified two centuries ago) that are still presented as viable. These are not mere "accusations", but an unequivocal scientific consensus. It is "up to us" to give WP:DUE weight to expert scientific opinion and not give equal validity to the faux-evidence & tendentious reasoning of WP:FRINGE (including pseudoscience) advocates (which generally fails WP:SELFPUB). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 04:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, of course. If we can ascertain that the "consensus" supports a side, then we say so. For example, scientists are 95% to 5% in favor of the theory of evolution and if consensus means 85% or more then we can describe that as a scientific consensus. The amazing thing is that among the general public evolution polls show 40% or more oppose one or another aspect of the mainstream view. This makes evolution the most unpopular "consensus" view in science.

I agree that the "consensus" needn't be unambiguous, but I'm not sure that's germane to the issue. Incidentally, the public opinion polls should not determine what we present as science.

But what about fields or topics where there is a dispute over which theories "lack scientific status by use of an inappropriate methodology or lack of objective evidence"? Is it up to us as contributors to judge such matters? I would hope rather we would stand back and refuse to evaluate the validity of either side, unless such a refusal is automatically considered to grant "equal validity" to both sides.

It is not our job to judge, it is our job to reflect the state of reliable literature, which almost exclusively labels said "sciences" pseudoscience.

In the early days of Wikipedia, the refusal to judge which side was more right was seen as a virtue of our system. I hope I have not misread current policy, and I hope that we are still allowed to "back off" and say we don't know which side is more right without running the risk of violationg WP:GEVAL.

See above remark.

I guess it's the difference between seeing science as a work in progress (with suspended judgment seen as useful) rather than as a legal issue (with every big issue requiring that a position be taken). --Uncle Ed (talk) 05:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, see above. It's precisely because we're not passing judgement that we label such subjects "unscientific", or "pseudoscience" - that is what reliable sources say.--Leon (talk) 09:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What SteveBaker said. Also, a number of related ArbCom cases are collected at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Arbitration cases. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Content forking, Splitting articles

I have removed a recent addition to UNDUE which appears to me to contradict Wikipedia:Content forking and encourage POV forking. Comments welcome. Crum375 (talk) 22:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seemed perfectly in keeping with guidance to me so I re-instated it. There's discussion up the page at #Undue fork and a post in the archives regarding the changes, see Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view/Archive_37#Clarifying_WP:WEIGHT. Hiding T 23:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that including this language ("to be discussed more fully elsewhere without dominating an article to which they are non-central"), in the UNDUE policy section, encourages editors to split off their POV forks, instead of trying to resolve their differences and achieve a neutral version. This is exactly what Wikipedia:Content forking tries to prevent, and runs counter to NPOV and UNDUE, by creating POV forks instead of neutral articles. In those cases where a sub-article is needed (e.g. because one sub-topic has grown too large), the sub-article should be summarized carefully in the parent article, so there is no conflict or overlap. Crum375 (talk) 00:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and I support removing the added text. I think the opposing feeling is that the new words are to deal with good material that is simply out of place. See #Undue fork above where an example about Tattoo is given. I did not examine the example but it appears to concern an article where good material concerning a minor topic grew so that the section had an "undue weight" in the main article; the matter was resolved by splitting. To me, WP:UNDUE should be focused on its main point: articles must be NPOV, but that does not mean "equal weight to all views", and in fact a mainstream article need not mention a minor fringe view at all (except as done, for example, in Evolution where a link to Creationism is given under a "Social and cultural responses" heading). Johnuniq (talk) 01:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re Crum375: What you describe as "what Wikipedia:Content forking tries to prevent" also happens to be exactly what WP:SPLIT and WP:SUMMARY demand. Summary style, of course, is appropriate for some articles, but not all articles. But where it is appropriate, it really is important to maintain NPOV, and one of the chief impediments to that in real-life editing is an insistence by some editors that their particular pet subtopic "must be mentioned" in the main article (and with all the details they can locate about it). Editorial judgments need to be subtle and contextual, and that's why we need an addition/clarification that at least steers editors in the right direction. Some WP:SPLITs are a good idea, and others indeed promote WP:FRINGE or otherwise unencyclopedic content... but the solution must not be to put every article verifiable and factual bit of information on a topic into just one article, while ignoring WP:BALANCE and WP:WEIGHT! LotLE×talk 02:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone is arguing that you must put every verifiable fact into an article — this is exactly what UNDUE is trying to prevent. But allowing editors to fork off an article about a sub-topic which is unacceptable in the parent article, can often violate UNDUE. Let's say that we have a BLP article about famous historian John Smith, who was recently in the news because he was caught driving under the influence. The latter event may be verifiable, and possibly notable (if recent), but its inclusion in the main John Smith article, beyond at most a few words, could easily violate UNDUE.

So do we want editors to create John Smith's DUI arrest article? Of course not. Wikipedia should be viewed as a whole, and if the DUI incident is too trivial and UNDUE for the main article, it would also be UNDUE if it's tucked away under a different name. So the point is simple: if something is UNDUE, it's undue anywhere, and POV forks should be avoided. Including the new additional language in the UNDUE section would encourage POV forks, and undermine NPOV. Crum375 (talk) 02:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This seems almost exactly wrong, Crum375. Some material that is WP:UNDUE in one place, can very well be entirely appropriate and notable in a sister or child article (and have appropriate WP:WEIGHT within its own article). Obviously, not every verifiable incident or subtopic is notable (i.e. by AfD standards), but many of them are. In fact we can pick an example that is almost exactly the one you mention as hypothetical to show this. In the article on Ted Kennedy, we have a 4 paragraph discussion of the Chappaquiddick incident: Ted Kennedy#Chappaquiddick incident. That's probably a roughly appropriate weight for that article, that is consistent with WP:NPOV. However, writing 45 paragraph about the matter in the Ted Kennedy article would be decidedly non-neutral! Fortunately, we can and do have a sister article on Chappaquiddick incident, which is indeed around 45 paragraphs, and indeed should be roughly that WP:LENGTH.

In the specifics of our hypothetical John X Smith, I obviously cannot say a priori whether his DUI arrest is of sufficient note for an article. But it's certainly possible it might be. The Ted Kennedy article and siblings presumably evolved a long time ago, and I'm not going to trace through the old history to figure out the exact sequence. But something akin to the new incident with John Smith--or just the newly-of-interest-to-editors incident--is an editing history I've encountered dozens of times (if not hundreds). I've given a bunch of actual examples already of just this (the Tattoo and Tattoo ink one really is clear here). It might well be that John Smith's DUI is independently notable, and is worth writing 20 paragraphs about. But at the same time, if you put those 20 paragraphs in the main John X. Smith article, they would be massively non-neutral and violate the spirit of WP:WEIGHT (and the letter if we retain the clarification).

Or better still, think of an example that doesn't tread close to defamatory or WP:BLP territory. A DUI is straightforwardly a bad thing. But instead, what if John Smith--who is already notable, either as an author or for some other reason--writes a new book. Perhaps that book sparks pubic discussion and reporting, perhaps even somewhat more than have Smith's prior activities. Most likely, discussion of the new book will start out in the main bio, but at a certain point, too much discussion of the book becomes WP:UNDUE, and in fact a violation of WP:NPOV, if contained in the main bio, but perhaps entirely length appropriate for a child article. This is especially, but not only, true if the book in question is somehow controversial. LotLE×talk 20:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Crum375 the wording Crum375 removed should be removed for the reason Crum375 gave. -- PBS (talk) 11:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

arbitrary break

The best time to split an article is when giving the information in detail would lead to the article wandering away from its WP:TOPIC. Any new article should have sufficient notability to sustain a separate article without POV forking.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the revert made by Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters. This talk page does not show consensus for the addition of this material. This is an established policy not an article and there needs to be a consensus for changes such as these. There is no fire on this issue so I do not see why the new text has to be in the policy while it is being discussed. -- PBS (talk) 20:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Above, Crum375 gave an excellent example of what UNDUE is supposed to stop: the excited addition (with subsequent embellishment) of a minor DUI charge to the bio of a famous historian. Can those wanting the proposed wording please engage with that example because LotLE's rebuttal fails as it used a sensationally notable incident (Chappaquiddick) which is nothing to do with UNDUE, whereas Crum375 was talking about the essence of UNDUE where a genuinely minor and undue-weight incident is inserted into an article. WP:NPOV should not be worded so as to encourage the historian's (genuinely trivial) DUI being moved to a POV split article.

I have already acknowledged that the Tattoo example provides good support for those wanting to say that a minor detail (such as the ink used for tattoing) should not be unduly expanded in the main article, but should (if there is sufficient material) be split off to another article. However, WP:UNDUE is the wrong place to make that good point because UNDUE is quoted to POV merchants who would misinterpret mention of WP:UNDUE as a hint that they should make another article devoted to their undue POV (if the new wording were included). Johnuniq (talk) 23:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct. UNDUE does not allow editors to use a fork as a means of creating their favored POV version away from the scrutiny of the main article and its editors. We are allowed to create related articles in the limited case where there are no UNDUE issues but simply too much material to cover in the main article, which if left there would create clutter, making it less readable, or make the main article too large. Once the excess material is moved out, we maintain in the main article a brief and balanced summary of the sub-article, in summary style, and must keep it up to date. We may not move material into a sub-article to avoid scrutiny, or to expand on one detail excessively to promote one view, which is the goal of many POV pushers. Crum375 (talk) 00:07, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but "We are allowed to create related articles in the limited case where there are no UNDUE issues but simply too much material to cover in the main article, which if left there would create clutter, making it less readable, or make the main article too large." is not the consensus position nor is it the policy position. The actual position is that we don't give minority positions or views undue weight in an article. We don't give the BNP half the text of the article on British Politics, because that would be undue weight. (For the US read that bloke who ran against Clinton and Bush or that bloke who ran against Gore and Bush). However, since they are a notable party, we certainly give them their own article, which would not be a POV fork. POV forks have next to nothing to do with UNDUE WEIGHT. That's exactly why the text "to be discussed more fully elsewhere without dominating an article to which they are non-central", is almost the very basis of the policy, and people who assert otherwise really don't understand the policy, unless they really are suggesting that people cram as much information about the BNP into the article on British Politics. Oh, and if you seriously want me to engage with the DUI example, it's quite simple: Is the DUI incident notable enough to warrant its own article? That's the question you are asking, so that's the answer you get. Hiding T 17:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that if there is enough notability and material for an article, it may in some cases be separated from the parent article. But we don't do it to avoid UNDUE, because if we did, it could lead to POV forking. We do it to make the parent article more readable, and to be able to give the sub-article deeper coverage. If it's a non-contentious issue, it's obvious — if we have a parent article on Shakespeare, we can have sub-articles for each of his plays. But if we have an article on the fictitious historian from the above example, and there was a DUI incident reported in a bunch of papers, we don't run off and create a sub-article about it, unless the mainstream media coverage is so large and so persistent that it becomes an important part of his overall notability. Even then, we need to carefully and neutrally summarize the sub-article in a section of the parent article, and keep the summary up to date. I used BLP as example, but the same principle applies for any controversial topic: our goal is to keep information centralized, and avoid removing controversies to separate POV-magnet articles if at all possible. Crum375 (talk) 18:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is exactly UNDUE WEIGHT that is most usually violated by the growth of a sub-topic within an existing article. It looks like Johnuniq is trying to play games with the DUI hypothetical (it's notable, no it's not, it does/doesn't merit a sub-article, a famous actual case doesn't count because it is notable, etc). Obviously there is no right answer for the notability of an abstract hypothetical incident in the life of a hypothetical BLP. Things can be various ways.

The core issue however is something I have encountered in dozens or hundreds of articles. I'm not concerned with the relatively straightforward case where purely WP:FRINGE material is introduced, which is simply not worth keeping on the encyclopedia in any article, whether parent or child or sibling. Rather, I'm concerned with the case where the material is clearly and straightforwardly notable, but it's not as notable to the existing article as the length some editor has written (in perfectly good faith, and with good writing, proper sources, etc).

Along with the Tattoo ink (and even better Tattoo removal) things I have mentioned several times, the above example of the British National Party is a perfect example too. The BNP is a genuinely notable (albeit disturbing) feature of British politics, about which a very large number of encyclopedic words can be written. But as a matter of weight (and here it really means length, just pure count of words), we should not exaggerate the importance of the BNP Politics of the United Kingdom or British political parties. If half of those general articles were about the BNP, it would give readers the starkly non-neutral impression that the BNP made up half the topic (in very rough terms, but balance of length creates a huge impression, no matter what the specific words say). It doesn't help just to start the section with "BNP is a small British party..." (then write 10000 words about it). Nor to start a section with "A small percentage of people with tattoos have them removed" (then 10000 words on how it is done). This is true even if every one of those subtopic words is brilliant prose that is cited with the best of sources. LotLE×talk 21:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crum, you need to re-read the policy. "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." So we don't remove information for readability, we remove it where it unbalances the article. Either we are talking at cross purposes or you have a flawed understanding of the policy, as can be seen by your chosen examples. The example of Shakespear and his plays has nothing to do with undue weight. Maybe it is best to stick to the actual example used in the policy, that of the Flat Earth theory. Perhaps you could describe how your understanding of the policy pertains to that example. That would be appreciated and would help move the debate on. Everything you have raised so far has nothing to do with undue weight and everything to do with other stuff like notability and content forking. Let's debate undue weight. Undue weight is about giving each view and incident its due weight. Content forking is something separate, and can happen regardless of anything to do with due weight. If you had read this policy you would understand that content forking is a good thing, POV forking is the bad thing: "For example, Evolution, Evolution as theory and fact, Creationism, and Creationism-evolution controversy are all in separate articles. This is called a content fork and it helps prevent wasted effort and unnecessary debates: by covering related topics in different articles, we do not have to argue over covering everything in one article." If we can debate all these terms using the consensual definitions found in policy, then we can make sure we are all on the same page and no misunderstandings occur, yes? Hiding T 09:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is this: WP:UNDUE can be read as a directive (1) that fringe material should not be inserted into mainstream articles, or (2) that minor sections within a topic should not be expanded to unbalance the main article. In both (1) and (2) it is ok to split the article if the topic satisfies notability. Point (2) is stuff like lengthy discussion of a play in the Shakespeare article, or the type of ink in the Tattoo article. Point (2) is about "good" material that an overly-enthusiastic editor wants to expand in the main article. By contrast, point (1) is about "bad" material, typically pseudoscience or other nonsense that is unsupported by suitable mainstream references. Splitting is encouraged for (2) (subject to the normal requirements of a decent article). Splitting should not be encouraged for (1), although it is suitable for really notable topics such as creationism.

The argument here is that some of us think that WP:UNDUE is intended to discourage (1) (and so should not encourage splitting), while others think that WP:UNDUE is intended to discourage (2) (and so should refer to splitting). I think it is (1) because WP:NPOV says to proportionally mention all points of view, so WP:UNDUE is needed to give an exception: we do not need to refer to flat earth theories in the main Earth article. Johnuniq (talk) 23:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(1) and (2) are the same thing. UNDUE WEIGHT means fringe material should be given due weight in a main article. That doesn't mean it should not be inserted, it means it may or may not be inserted. It's an editorial judgement which needs to be made with reference to the wider consensus in all reliable sources. The policy makes no call as to whether we refer to flat earth theories in the main Earth article, only a call on modern support for the theory. Our article on Earth does mention the Flat Earth hypothesis with the due weight, namely twice. We do need to refer to flat earth theories in the main Earth article with due weight. UNDUE WEIGHT can't encourage or discourage splitting, because that isn't within the remit. The notion of due weight with regards a topic receiving an article is outlined at WP:NOT and WP:N. I'd suggest people who don't understand the policy go through the history of the page and examine why it was introduced and therefore what it means. Beyond all that, though, in the interests of bridge-building and reaching a consensus, I can live with what we have at present. Hiding T 11:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(dedent) I think we are making some progress, Johnuniq. I entirely agree with your analysis of directives (1) and (2). We indeed do not want fringe material anywhere on the encyclopedia, per (1). But we also want good material to be not only good in itself, but also well organized among articles. I wouldn't necessarily characterize an editor who adds a large amount of "good" material to an article, hence unbalancing it, as overly-enthusiastic, necessarily. It might simply be that that editor happens to know a lot about that subtopic, or the subtopic engages her interest to a high degree. In any case, adding enough "good" material to an article can, and frequently does, create its own NPOV problem by making the minor subtopic seem more important to the main topic than is reasonable to claim.

The bulk of this policy describes various subtleties of directive (1), and provides examples of how it plays out.
The smaller section WP:WEIGHT within this policy, however, is really about directive (2). However, the UNDUE WEIGHT section is insufficiently clear as currently written, and needs to be tweaked to make its point better.
That point needing clarification is: "If the situation at hand is about "good" material, falling within directive (2), then it is good to consider WP:SPLITing and the WP:TOPIC of the existing article.
There is no reason why this policy cannot or should not provide general advice about what to do in both situation (1) and in situation (2) (while clearly describing that they are different). In my personal editing experience (which is 6 years long, and over many thousands of articles), the failure of directive (2) causes NPOV problems at least as often as does a failure of directive (1). Or rather, the problems with (2) tend to linger longer and require more work to address well. Simply deleting WP:NONSENSE is often much easier (although indeed should be stated in policy). It may be that as WP has become more mature, we are fortunate enough to encounter (2) more often relative to (1) than we were in the early days.

Please help me find some language that lets us clearly indicate both requirements. The particular words I wrote are not necessarily the best possible, but the general clarification is, in my experience, desperately needed.LotLE×talk 01:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Specific template for ASF

I have included a new template. I have seen a lot of editors add unnecessary attribution against ASF policy. This template will be usfeul for pointing to the specific WP:ASF policy. QuackGuru (talk) 18:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see no situation where adding a source is bad. If anything, we suffer from lack of sources, not from an oversupply. This could encourage people to remove sources. Crum375 (talk) 22:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[1] For purposes of this table, "unreliable sourcing" demonstrates that a redirect is a reasonable search term through use in unreliable sources (blogs, etc.) which may themselves have a definite POV.

[1]

Revision as of 18:55, 10 December 2009 edit QuackGuru (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 79,978 edits m →‎Specific template for ASF ← Previous edit		Revision as of 22:14, 10 December 2009 edit undo Crum375 (talk \| contribs) Administrators 23,951 edits →‎Specific template for ASF: re Next edit →
Line 321:		Line 321:

	I have included a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ANeutral_point_of_view&action=historysubmit&diff=330903092&oldid=330154228 new template]. I have seen a lot of editors add unnecessary attribution against ASF policy. This template will be usfeul for pointing to the specific [[WP:ASF]] policy. [[User:QuackGuru\|QuackGuru]] ([[User talk:QuackGuru\|talk]]) 18:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)		I have included a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ANeutral_point_of_view&action=historysubmit&diff=330903092&oldid=330154228 new template]. I have seen a lot of editors add unnecessary attribution against ASF policy. This template will be usfeul for pointing to the specific [[WP:ASF]] policy. [[User:QuackGuru\|QuackGuru]] ([[User talk:QuackGuru\|talk]]) 18:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
			:I see no situation where adding a source is bad. If anything, we suffer from lack of sources, not from an oversupply. This could encourage people to remove sources. [[User:Crum375\|Crum375]] ([[User talk:Crum375\|talk]]) 22:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)