Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 09:43, 10 July 2014

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

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.

Creation story/myth/narrative

A few articles about creation myths are titled "example creation narrative" (with example being the culture or religion from which it originates, like Genesis creation narrative). Others are titled "example creation myth" (like Japanese creation myth. Still others are titled "example creation story". The problem I see here is that by referring to some articles as narratives and others as myths, we are giving greater credibility to some religions than others, something that we obviously want to avoid in order to be neutral. In my opinion, all articles of this type should be titled either "myth", "narrative" or "story", for consistency and equal credibility. What do others think? Bringing this up at WTalk:Wikipedia:Article Titles resulted in a weak consensus to make the titles consistent, but there was general agreement it belonged here. So here it is. Rwenonah (talk) 19:46, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure it belongs here - this talk is about improving the NPOV policy page. I would think WP:RFC might be the best place to discuss it, though it looks like this may have been discussed already. Morphh ^(talk) 02:40, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can try a WP:Proposed move for a couple. If you haven't been through that dispute before, the problem is that most native English speakers believe that the definition of myth is something like "story that has been scientifically proven to be a pack of lies", whereas the title is using the term in its technical sense (approximately "story that tells us something very important about what it means to be human").

That said, NPOV is about individual articles, seen in isolation. It is not evaluated by comparing it to the choices made in other articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:52, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What to do when a large percentage of info about a subject comes from lawsuit judgments?

Re: Yank Barry. The situation is that he's very quiet about what he's up to (except for the very positive seeming things) and as such his activities only reach the public sphere when he's sued. Which seems to happen quite a bit. If we just stick to that, it feels like the article is unbalanced. Thoughts? - Richfife (talk) 19:11, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Two thoughts:

That no matter how it feels to you, the prohibition against using court documents for information about WP:BLPs is absolute.
That it'd be surprising if some of this didn't turn up in newspaper stories about the lawsuits. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Due weight and undue weight

I was recently involved in a discussion over differences in "due weight" between various types of opinion articles in peer reviewed journals that were all addressing the same topic. The Wikipedia editors seemed to be unclear about how to apply NPOV policy when summarizing the different opinions. It was suggested that a hierarchy exists in Wikipedia policy based on a perceived difference in "weight" that depends on who represents the journal and who does not. For instance: Opinions expressed in an editorial, or comments by a science journalist, should be viewed as reliable sources because they 'are' the journal, while comments in published letters to the editor should not be considered reliable sources because they 'are not' the journal. I could not find a clear guideline to illuminate me on this and came across a number of similar discussions in IRS archives with no clear consensus. So I wonder if it wouldn't be wise to have a specific guideline on this issue to help editors decide. Personally I believe there should not be a difference in "weight". What these articles have in common is that none of them are peer-reviewed and they have all been selected by the journal's editorial staff to be included in the (scientific) debate. If Wikipedia editors make their own selection based on a perceived hierarchy this seems to be in violation of NPOV rather than applying it, especially in cases where the editor or journalist expresses their personal opinions about the authors of letters, or groups they represent, which might introduce an unbalanced account of opinions or even straw man tactics into a Wikipedia article. (NB I am not referring to discussions about fringe science or controversial world views here) Saflieni (talk) 23:48, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's more complicated than that, but I'm of your anti-hierarchy idea. However, that has to be tempered with the reality that some journals will ask a true quack to write something, just to "be fair" (or to give the quacks enough rope so they can hang themselves). In one case, a journal literally ran every letter they received on a subject, with authors ranging from major figures in the field to internet activists to non-scholarly people who had a personal interest in the subject. It can even be hard to differentiate between letters to the editor and true op-eds, especially since some older publications have called short peer-reviewed articles "correspondence". As as result, I'm not sure that there is a one-size-fits-all answer. Your best approach is probably to take the question to WP:NPOVN, which is where you can find some editors who specialize in helping with complicated questions like this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:10, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I don't mean allowing them as a source for factual claims but merely as a source for 'who said what'. I was thinking along the lines of upgrading this advice in WP:NPOVFAQ: "When a statement is an opinion (e.g. a matter which is subject to dispute or commonly considered to be subjective), it should be attributed in the text to the person or group who holds the opinion." This should be enough to prevent endless discussions and disputes about whether letters in reliable sources are admissable at all. Saflieni (talk) 16:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NEUTRALITY?

This discussion will not override Wikipedia:General_disclaimer. Let's all just move along and make an encyclopedia.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:29, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ain't no NEUTRALITY on Wikipedia. ESPECIALLY in the technology area, if onefor examplecondescends to slam a Microsoft "solution" that is forty years behind the times, every jackass and his brother "corrects" it. THAT IS NOT NEUTRALITY; THAT IS FRANK INCOMPETENCE, PROMULGATED BY MORONS WHO LACK THE MATURITY TO KEEP THEIR IGNORANT MOUTHS SHUT.

And when a knowledgeable AUTHORITY posts a legitimately supported piece that explains why this is better or worse than that, some joker of an ancient-AOL-style-Sysop, or, worse yet, some reboot of a mIRC dildoid with a "Boot user" button, bitches about it being NOT NEUTRAL. NO NEUTRALITY TO BE HAD. THE WIKIPEDIA PROJECT HAS FAILED--MISERABLY. AND THEY WANT **MONEY** FROM **ME** ? ? ?

BruceDavidWilner 13.v.2014

Those bastards! If I were you, I would never post on Wikipedia again... and don't give them one single cent! That'll show em! Blueboar (talk) 22:48, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At wikipedia (which claims to be an encyclopedia), all the complementary and alternative medicine articles like Naturopathy, Homeopathy, Ayurveda, Osteopathy etc. are attack pieces, calling all complementary and alternative medicine pseudoscientific etc. When I discussed this on a Talk Page here, I was told that all complementary and alternative medicine articles should be written, not from the perspective of its advocates/practitioners, but from the perspective of 'researchers and scientists'. This I feel, however, is not how an encyclopedia should be written. I reported the matter on the NPOV noticeboard here and to an admin here. I also saw how some people, disturbed by wikipedia's policy have started online petitions (see this), probably to be submitted to Jimmy/Jimbo Wales. Any comments?—Khabboos (talk) 15:32, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe another wiki, citizendium, has addressed that issue by making a couple of specialists in that field editors of that article, who can control what others (called authors) post about that article. I believe Larry Page its founder was a one-time co-founder of wikipedia with Jimmy Wales. I'm not saying we should follow their example, but we sure can do something to set right the wikipedia complementary and alternative medicine articles.—Khabboos (talk) 15:44, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Citizendium is a massive failure for what it set out to do and Jimbo's reply to the petition was spot on:

No, you have to be kidding me. Every single person who signed this petition needs to go back to check their premises and think harder about what it means to be honest, factual, truthful.

Wikipedia's policies around this kind of thing are exactly spot-on and correct. If you can get your work published in respectable scientific journals - that is to say, if you can produce evidence through replicable scientific experiments, then Wikipedia will cover it appropriately.

What we won't do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of "true scientific discourse". It isn't.

--NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:50, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'Lunatic charlatans'? Do you know that one needs to be a 'qualified, licensed doctor' to practice these in most countries? If the 'work' is not published in respectable scientific journals, are we going to let all the wikipedia complementary and alternative medicine articles be attack pieces?—Khabboos (talk) 15:57, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that governmental regulatory bodies state only a licensed M.D. can practice homeopathy, naturopathy, etc. I very much doubt that (for example, Naturopathy#Regulation). Remember that a license to practice alternative medicine does not make you an M.D. And if the "work" is not published in accepted journals, yes, we are going to note that prominently. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:12, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, most doctors don't do research. Wikipedia medical articles are based on summaries of research papers, not the views of the local G.P. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:17, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At Naturopathy#Regulation it is mentioned that one becomes and MD(Naturopathy) in some countries and and ND/NMD in others, so aren't they doctors? If complementary and alternative medicines are helping people (and there are millions who vouch for it), but the 'work' is not published in respectable scientific journals, are we going to let all the wikipedia complementary and alternative medicine articles be attack pieces?—Khabboos (talk) 16:23, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They can call themselves whatever they want; if they don't publish in accepted journals then their views on the science behind the practice is about as valuable as mine. Your "attack pieces" are in fact articles which don't print the claims of practitioners unquestioningly. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:39, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It may seem at first like our article on homeopathy is just a load of so-called scientific nonsense based on research by so-called scientists, but we've been careful to include the opposing view for balance. The truth is definitely in there, although the actual amount of truth is significantly less than one pixel. It shouldn't be considered any less effective because of that though. Formerip (talk) 16:28, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If wikipedia claims to be an encyclopedia, it should just explain what something is, like how the Encyclopedia Britannica does. Even the wiki, citizendium has achieved more balanced articles, but the wikipedia complementary and alternative medicine articles are attack pieces.—Khabboos (talk) 16:40, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your vaunted Britannica has three paragraphs on homeopathy and includes this: "In the 20th century, however, homeopathy has been viewed with little favour and has been criticized for focusing on the symptoms rather than on the underlying causes of disease." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:48, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Citizendium on homeothapy. Doesn't look like they just explain what something "is" either. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:55, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to Do you know that one needs to be a 'qualified, licensed doctor' to practice these in most countries? That appears to be false. Take California for example.[1] In fact here is information from the Council for Homeopathic Certification: [2] As you can see only a few jurisdictions license homeopaths at all, and the title of "doctor" is not recognized - it is purely one assumed by the practitioner. --MelanieN (talk) 17:00, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Melanie, if you observe properly, I said "most", not "all". Even in the US, most states need a license to practice in - California being an exception, where one can practice as a Naturopathic Doctor legally using the title/qualification if one has done the Naturopathy course, as well as practice without a license, as long as one doesn't claim to be a doctor.

@Neil, Britannica has 3 paragraphs describing homeopathy and only one sentence criticizing it (the sentence you mentioned), but the comp. and alt.med. articles here are such that almost all the statements are criticized (esp. Homeopathy). In the citizendium article on Chiropractic, all the 'criticism' has been put at the bottom. Can we do something like that at wikipedia?—Khabboos (talk) 14:06, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Khabboos: Please provide a reference for "most countries". And really, we don't care if they can be called Doctor of Foo (some after 10-20 weeks of study). They're still not medical scientists. As to your Citizendium point, perhaps you should go back and re-read the article. See the second section, the one called "Conflict with conventional medicine"? And even if Citizendium did do as you suggest, here at Wikipedia we don't hide the fact that certain topics are considered fringe by the scientific community. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:41, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then maybe we should have a disclaimer or note at the top of each complementary and alternative medicine article, stating that this is how scientists view it and not its practitioners.—Khabboos (talk) 14:46, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should have a disclaimer at the top of every article stating this is how reliable sources view the topic and not its fans. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:49, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suits me - at least we won't have so many people coming here (to wikipedia) and complaining.—Khabboos (talk) 15:06, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Khabboos, but "most" is simply not correct. California is NOT an exception. Did you even read the thing I posted from the Council for Homeopathic Certification? "In the dozen or so states that license naturopathic physicians (ND or NMD), homeopathy is included within their scope of practice. Only three states in the U.S. (Connecticut, Arizona, and Nevada) have a state licensing board that licenses medical doctors to practice homeopathy." Most state governments do not license homeopathy or grant recognition to its practitioners, and you should stop claiming they do. --MelanieN (talk) 15:33, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Melanie, In the (US) states where licensing is not a must, one can practice as a Naturopathic Doctor legally using the title/qualification if one has done the Naturopathy course, as well as practice without a license, as long as one doesn't claim to be a doctor (ditto with Homeopathy). I agree with Neil's suggestion that, "Maybe we should have a disclaimer at the top of every (complementary and alternative medicine) article stating this is how reliable sources view the topic and not its fans."—Khabboos (talk) 15:39, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is not what I suggested. My suggestion (which was very much tongue-in-cheek and will never be accepted) was to put a disclaimer on every Wikipedia article as complementary and alternative medicine articles are nothing special in this regard. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:59, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The other articles seem to be O.K. Complementary and alternative medicine has survived all these years only because there is clinical evidence that it works and if there is enough funding, I'm sure the research will also prove the claims of its practitioners. For the moment, just to avoid people coming here (to wikipedia) and complaining about the complementary and alternative medicine articles, we need a disclaimer at the top of those (comp. and alt. med.) articles.—Khabboos (talk) 13:28, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We have one general disclaimer, which is linked at the bottom of all articles. Otherwise we don't use them.

As far as research goes, most methods have been researched and found wanting. It's not for lack of research that these methods are considered worthless or sometimes dangerous. The National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM), which is the highest body which researches and promotes alternative medicine in the USA (its employees and beneficiaries have a vested interest in proving that it works), has failed to prove such effects:

"A 2012 study published in the Skeptical Inquirer examined the grants and awards funded by NCCAM from 2000 to 2011, which totaled $1.3 billion. The study found no discoveries in complementary and alternative medicine that would justify the existence of this center. The authors argued that, after 20 years and an expenditure of $20 billion, the failure of NCCAM is evidenced by the lack of publications and the failure to report clinical trials in peer-reviewed, medical journals. They recommended that NCCAM be defunded or abolished, and the concept of funding alternative medicine be discontinued." Mielczarek, E., Engler, B. 2012. Measuring Mythology: Startling Concepts in NCCAM Grants. Skeptical Inquirer 36(1)(January/February):35-43, 2012.

Its popularity is not because of actual effectiveness, but usually because of perceived effectiveness (people believe what practitioners tell them). Here's a good quote about another reason why it's popular:

"[CAM] is popular. An analysis of the reasons why this is so points towards the therapeutic relationship as a key factor. Providers of CAM tend to build better therapeutic relationships than mainstream healthcare professionals. In turn, this implies that much of the popularity of CAM is a poignant criticism of the failure of mainstream healthcare. We should consider it seriously with a view of improving our service to patients."[3]

Worthless cures have existed for thousands of years, so effectiveness is not the only reason why a method is chosen to work. If people like it or think it works, they'll still use it.

Richard Dawkins, an English evolutionary biologist and author, in an essay in his book A Devil's Chaplain (2003) (chapter 4.4), has defined alternative medicine as a "set of practices that cannot be tested, refuse to be tested, or consistently fail tests."

The brilliant comedian and skeptic Tim Minchin has managed to succinctly sum up the mainstream scientific and skeptical POV about alternative medicine:

"By definition, Alternative Medicine has either not been proved to work, or been proved not to work. Do you know what they call 'alternative medicine' that's been proved to work? Medicine."

That quote is from his popular beat poem, Storm. It's well worth watching because it's both brilliant and funny. It's about Tim's meeting with a hippie named Storm. The poem is about critical thinking: Storm

Cancer researcher Andrew J. Vickers has stated:

"Contrary to much popular and scientific writing, many alternative cancer treatments have been investigated in good-quality clinical trials, and they have been shown to be ineffective. In this article, clinical trial data on a number of alternative cancer cures including Livingston-Wheeler, Di Bella Multitherapy, antineoplastons, vitamin C, hydrazine sulfate, Laetrile, and psychotherapy are reviewed. The label 'unproven' is inappropriate for such therapies; it is time to assert that many alternative cancer therapies have been 'disproven'." (emphasis added)

Brangifer (talk) 15:38, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion should be closed and hatted. This is not the place to argue about the merits or lack of merits of alternative medicine. We have our standards, we apply them. We are not going to add any additional notices at the top of the page explaining them. Nothing more to say, let's go build an encyclopedia. --MelanieN (talk) 15:44, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Melanie, I was waiting for an admin to turn up here and advise us (I have e-mailed some of them). If this (wikipedia) is an encyclopedia, it should say what the proponents say with some criticism at the bottom.

@BullRangifer, I have personally benefited from and have seen others benefit from Homeopathy, Naturopathy, chiropractic maneuvers, hypnotherapy (I've used Steve G. Jones cassettes to project myself astrally and see many places worldwide, without a visa, ticket or anyone asking for my passport), Reiki and so on - there is not enough +ve research for it, only clinical evidence - but that doesn't mean we at wikipedia attack them all as bull-shit (and if we do, we should at least have a notice at the top of such articles).—Khabboos (talk) 15:59, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What you're asking for will never, ever happen. One of the core principals of Wikipedia is not to portray unscientific codswallop as plausible. Time to WP:DROPTHESTICK. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:25, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Name of policy

I find the name of this policy confuses some editors and wonder if there could be a better choice. While it is clear that it refers to neutral presentation of reliable sources, many editors who do not read beyond the title believe that it means articles should be neutral to the subject. A typical request is that when we write about a fringe group that we provide equal weight to their position. Many editors actually link to this policy when demanding "neutrality." Any suggestions? TFD (talk) 21:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good points. Newbies often interpret this in a way which unwittingly promotes false balance. The policy refers primarily to the neutrality of editors, not blah articles which contain no opinions or POV. Editors must edit in a neutral manner, reproducing faithfully the opinions, POV, and spirit of the sources, regardless of whether they agree with them or not. If the balance of mainstream RS tends in one direction, then the article will tend in that direction, with minority opinions only getting passing mention. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:45, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

People (longtime editors in addition to WP:Newbies) misinterpreting the WP:Neutral policy is exactly why I have this section about the matter on my user page. I'm not sure that we should change the title of the WP:Neutral policy, though, or what would be the best alternative to its current title. And speaking of titles... BullRangifer (Brangifer), since no one has objected to your changing the section title Giving "equal validity" to Giving "equal validity" can create a "false balance", I suggest that the redirects for that section go ahead and be redirected to the new title. A bot will do it eventually, but one of us should go ahead and do it now. I held off on changing them because I was waiting to see if anyone would object to your title change. One suggestion that I have about that new title, though? That you take "false balance" out of quotation marks (or scare quotes); it's false balance when people give "equal validity" under the circumstances mentioned there, plain and simple, so I don't see why "false balance" needs to be in quotation marks. Flyer22 (talk) 01:17, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brangifer, I know that I already thanked you via WP:Echo hours ago for removing the quotation marks, but thanks again. I waited before commenting here on the talk page about it because I wanted to see if you were going to state something about your latest, again relatively small and unlikely to be contested, edits to the policy page. Flyer22 (talk) 05:17, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Balancing aspects section

As for WP:NPOV#Balancing aspects it's not so much the title I had a problem with as the content that appeared to rely on a somewhat elusive and undefined "significance to the subject". I updated, and added some examples: [4] OK? --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:30, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted. Like the top of the page states: "This page documents an English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow. Changes made to it should reflect consensus." In comparison to your tempered editing approach at Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality, significant changes to a policy page without discussion are far less tolerated.

What has brought you to this page today? Stumble across it? Followed anyone to it? Flyer22 (talk) 16:42, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) The page is on my watchlist for over 10 years, and the discussion above reminded me of this recent example:

Here is an editor using an argument that complies to "significance to the subject" but not to "significance in the overall body of reliable sources": It is the absolute reason for his notability to which I replied this is not what the sources appear to say and clarified by examples. (I didn't want to use that example in the policy while it is extracted from a contentious page)

What are your opinions about the content of what I proposed? I also read https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Flyer22&curid=11230502&diff=616164474&oldid=616078534#Main_type_of_editing_style, the link you provided above. This was the issue I tried to address, at least I see a common ground there. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:55, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer that we keep it simple, like Brangifer did with this edit, and not make substantial changes without agreement from multiple editors on this talk page to proceed with them. Flyer22 (talk) 05:17, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, replace "its significance to the subject" by "the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject" then, without adding examples. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]