Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:50, 8 April 2010

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.

Objective fact differs from a subjective fact

I explained the difference between an objective fact versus a subjective fact. QuackGuru (talk) 03:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you attribute it to yourself? Unomi (talk) 03:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in the edit history the edit is attributed to QuackGuru. QuackGuru (talk) 04:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that your statement qualifies as ASF tbh, it reads like a tautology. I think you should self-revert and perhaps stir up some discussion on a proper wording. Just to be clear, any opinion can be asserted as fact, that doesn't make the asserted opinion true or justified. Unomi (talk) 04:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute."

This is already part of policy. You wrote "any opinion" can be asserted as fact. This is not the intent of ASF. Any opinion cannot be asserted as fact. I was clarifiying the difference between an objective opinion and a subjective opinion. The sentence summarises ASF policy. In some cases we assert the text and in other case we attribute it to the source such as so and so said. QuackGuru (talk) 17:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An objective fact is an opinion that can be asserted as fact. A subjective fact is an opinion that is possibly attributed.

I propose we include this in Wikipedia's WP:ASF policy. Some editors are confused that "any opinion" can be asserted as fact. It is an opinion when the Beatles are the greatest band. But what type of an opinion is it. It is a subjective opinion. Clarifying the intent of ASF by explaining that there is a difference between an objective opinion and a subjective opinion will clear up any misunderstanding editors are having with ASF. QuackGuru (talk) 17:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, could you give examples of what you mean by objective facts and subjective facts as they might be used in an article? I am quite honestly confused by the language, is there a different between a subjective fact and an opinion as it relates to what might reasonably be thought introduced to an article? Unomi (talk) 18:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For example, that a survey produced a certain published result would be a fact. That there is a planet called Mars is a fact. That Plato was a philosopher is a fact. These are objective facts. I previously gave an example of a subjective fact. ASF policy explains the example. If you are still confused this shows there is a need to clarify policy. QuackGuru (talk) 19:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If by subjective fact you refer to the Beatles are the greatest band then this is what I understand to be opinion, if subjective fact is indistinguishable from opinion then I see no reason to introduce the (somewhat confusing) term and even less for the idea that it should possibly be attributed, opinions should always be attributed, and to my peculiar way of thinking so should facts. Unomi (talk) 04:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Wikipedia search shows two different definitions of subjective fact, neither terribly definitive anyway. Let's not confuse things. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems extremely confusing. Policy should be simple to understand. DigitalC (talk) 14:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it is confusing. I used wikilinks to specific articles to make it simple to understand. QuackGuru (talk) 07:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An objective fact differs from a subjective fact

An objective fact is an opinion that can be asserted as fact (without simon-says inline-text phrasing). A subjective fact is an opinion that can be attributed (so-and-so said).

Any opinion is not an opinion according to ASF. There is a difference between a subjective fact versus an objective fact but ASF is too vague in explaining or clarifying the difference. When a person reads WP:ASF policy it should be distinguishable what is the difference between an objective opinion compared to a subjective opinion. It is somewhat confusing when it is confusing and vague the intent of ASF. Let's not continue to confuse things with a policy that does not clearly explain the difference between a subjective fact versus an objective fact. QuackGuru (talk) 07:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This version is MUCH more confusing as what is currently in the policy. DigitalC (talk) 16:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not currently explains in policy. You have not explained how it is confusing or made a specific proposal to improve it. DigitalC thinks it is more confusing than the current version. That means DigitalC still thinks the current version is confusing but the proposal which clears up the confusion is more confusing. How could a proposal that explains the difference between an objective fact versus a subjective fact be confusing? There is nothing confusing about it. The current version does not explain what is the difference between an objective fact versus a subjective fact. QuackGuru (talk) 16:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, both versions have significant issue. the 'simple formulation' is perhaps a bit over-simple. what we mean to point out (as I see it) is something like this:

it's OK to assert simple, uncontested common knowledge (e.g. 'Mars is a planet' or 'Plato was a philosopher') as is.
it's OK to assert verifiable statements (e.g. "Linus Pauling advocated the use of Vitamin C as a panacea' or 'Newtonian physics treats gravity as a force'), with proper attribution.
it's OK to assert verifiable opinions (e.g. 'Einstein said "God does not play dice with the universe" in opposition to quantum mechanics' or 'Fox News believes the health care plan is detrimental to society')
it is not OK to to state opinions as wikipedia editors (e.g. Einstein or Fox News are right/wrong in the above).

Perhaps the way to rephrase it (trying to keep to the 'simple' notion') is to say something like: "Assert what you can attribute, be it fact, opinion, or common knowledge; do not give opinions about what you assert." Not perfect, but it has advantages. --Ludwigs2 17:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We don't attribute facts they way that we attribute opinions though. For instance, we don't need to say "World Encyclopedia says that Linus Pauling advocated the use of Vitamin C as a panacea" we do need to attribute opinions, which is why we say "Fox News believes..." etc. DigitalC (talk) 17:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are mispresenting my comments again - please stop. I never said the current version was confusing. I believe the current version is MUCH better than what you have proposed, because what you have proposed makes it more confusing. It is supposed to be "A simple formulation", and getting into "objective fact" vs. "subjective fact" is not simple, nor is it needed. DigitalC (talk) 17:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal. "An objective fact is an opinion that can be asserted as fact (without simon-says inline-text phrasing). A subjective fact is an opinion that can be attributed (so-and-so said). In Wikipedia most facts, except the most obvious ones - like “Mars is a planet” and “Plato was a philosopher” - must be verified through a reliable source." I propose we include both of these sentences. QuackGuru (talk) 18:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although Ludwigs2 understands the current ASF is oversimplified I disagree with Ludwigs2 that we need to rephrase the current text. To avoid the continued confusion we need to expand on the current meaning of ASF policy but not change or rephrase it. Rephrasing the current policy will change the meaning and damage the meaning. I want to stick the the current meaning and expand on its meaning the intent of ASF. I think including both sentences will clear up any confusion editors are having. ASF policy needs to be clear when we should attribute or not attribute facts or opinions and what is the difference between a fact or an opinion. My proposal will fix these issues. QuackGuru (talk) 18:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I may, nearly the entire book I recommended before, Philosophy of scientific method, deals with subjective vs objective fact. It is extremely confusing and complicated to get into, especially on a policy page. To make this as simple as possible I, personally, would say that facts are attributes. Opinions, on the other hand, are principles, ideas, beliefs or conclusions, which may be subject to dispute.

Attributes of a liquid would be fluidity, surface tension, and incompressibility. Pascal's law would qualify as an attribute. An opinion, on the other hand, would be Frenkel's theory. Here is another definition from Reading and writing nonfiction genres By Kathleen Buss, Lee Karnowski

Fact versus opinion

News might be defined as new, timely information about an event or person in which readers are interested. A fact is information that can be verified or documented. It is known to be true. On the other hand, opinions are personal beliefs, views, or judgements. An opinion also could be defined as what the person feels. A feeling does not make a fact no matter how many people agree with the feeling. Opinions are used in editorials and advice columns. News articles always use factual information, not opinions.

To have students better understand the difference, have them look through the newspaper for examples of facts and opinions and share them with the class. The following are examples that may be discussed.

Sports can be enjoyed as recreation. (Fact)

Most people love baseball. (Opinion)

The most exciting sport to watch is tennis. (Opinion)

I hope that helps. Zaereth (talk) 18:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Zaereth, this is complicated - much more complicated than policy should be. This is a policy page, not an article, and I really don't think we need to be getting into subjective vs. objective fact here. DigitalC (talk) 23:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restore ASF lead

Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." For example, that a survey produced a certain published result would be a fact. That there is a planet called Mars is a fact. That Plato was a philosopher is a fact. No one seriously disputes any of these things, so we assert as many of them as possible.

I propose the lead to ASF should be restored. ASF was rewritten and is still confusing. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#A simple formulation. QuackGuru (talk) 07:57, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the ASF lead, added a sentence explaining the difference between an objective fact versus a subjective fact, and kept one of the newly added sentences added to the lead of ASF. See this edit. QuackGuru (talk) 19:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This edit changed the ASF without any agreement. QuackGuru (talk) 19:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The meaning of ASF policy was drastically changed. This edit does not exactly match the edit summary. Another editor made major changes to the lead without gaining consensus. QuackGuru (talk) 19:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The proposal stood on the talk page for ~ 1 week with no one in opposition and several supporting it. Unomi (talk) 16:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The proposal to restore the lead stood for a long time without any opposition. I restored the consensus version to lead to ASF. QuackGuru (talk) 17:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The editor alleged this is a core policy; pls gain talk page consensus for changes. The editor did not gain any consensus and did not discuss the edit here. Can anyone point where on this talk page there was consensus for this edit that another editor edit warred into ASF policy without discussion or consensus. QuackGuru (talk) 19:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No specific objection was made to restoring to the broad consensus version and no editor was able to point to talk page consensus for this edit repeated in edit war again here. QuackGuru (talk) 01:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your recommendation. First, your definition of objective and subjective fact is incorrect. Please see the sources I recommended above. Encyclopedias deal in journalistic writing, not scientific (OR/SYN) type writing. Second, I am of the firm opinion that simpler is better. Every book on writing that I've read seems to agree with me. Third, the idea that "Plato is a philosopher" or "Mars is a planet" is obvious and does not need to be referenced is ridiculous. Not everyone knows who Plato is, or where to find Mars. This information not only should be referenced, but can be with incredible ease. Not doing so is mere laziness. However, information that is obvious, such as "water is wet," does not need a reference. This can be verified by anyone and therefore will not be found in reliable sources. Wikipedia should be no different. But, that's just my opinion. Zaereth (talk) 21:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the issue here. Take it to another section where a proposal was made for objective and subjective fact. This section is about changing ASF without talk page consensus here. QuackGuru (talk) 01:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely concur. Unomi (talk) 23:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Something that needs to be said: The fact that "Mars is a planet" needs to be Verifiable... it does not necessarily need to be verified. It is this distinction that allows the sentence "Mars is a planet" in an article to remain unreferenced. Blueboar (talk) 00:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editors are commenting about the wrong issue here. This might confuse other editors. QuackGuru (talk) 01:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ASF lead changes without discussion or consensus

The editor alleged this is a core policy; pls gain talk page consensus for changes. The editor did not gain any consensus and did not discuss the edit here. Can anyone point where on this talk page there was consensus for this edit that another editor edit warred into ASF policy without discussion or consensus. QuackGuru (talk) 01:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on the changes made to ASF without any consensus. QuackGuru (talk) 01:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those were good changes, the specific case of a survey sounds weird and presumably was precipitated by a specific content dispute, no one seriously disputes is subjective and unclear. Unomi (talk) 06:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have not been able to explain why the changes were good. I strongly disagree with the changes which were made without consensus. QuackGuru (talk) 17:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crum375 seems to have changed policy without consensus. Rather inappropriate, in my opinion. BigK HeX (talk) 07:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen all the versions recently, so can't comment on which is the original and best version. Both versions have merits, but I prefer the longer because it covers two eventualities:

It says not to put millions of unnecessary citations for undisputed facts, which is worth saying
I don't quite like the fact=verifiable idea, since almost any opinion will have supporting references - it doesn't make it a fact.

Stephen B Streater (talk) 07:48, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"An objective fact is an opinion that can be asserted as fact (without simon-says inline-text phrasing). A subjective fact is an opinion that can be attributed (so-and-so said). In Wikipedia most facts, except the most obvious ones - like “Mars is a planet” and “Plato was a philosopher” - must be verified through a reliable source." Stephen B Streater, I made a proposal in the above thread to include these two sentences that you and other editors could have missed. This will make it more clear the intent of ASF. QuackGuru (talk) 17:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, regardless of which is the oldest, I also prefer the version we have on top at the moment (i.e. the slightly longer one). Although it could still be vastly improved (in fact this whole page could - do we really need all this waffle just to tell people to be neutral?)--Kotniski (talk) 07:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should keep the current lead of ASF and not rewrite it. It can be improved by adding two sentences I proposed above. QuackGuru (talk) 17:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

People should be aware that there might be a few editors who are against the broad consensus version and long standing meaning of ASF policy and want to rewrite (or possibly destroy) policy. QuackGuru (talk) 17:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recent changes

1. The lead has been changed from:

All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view...

to:

All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view...

I think the "other encyclopedic content" (or some variation) needs to be restored because categories, templates, and probably other things that aren't articles, could easily be cast in a POV manner. My guess is that the original wording is suggesting that there should be no attempt to apply WP:NPOV to what editors write on a talk page (although WP:BLP and other policies do restrict discussions), but categories and so on must comply with WP:NPOV.

2. The following paragraph has been omitted from the Pseudoscience section:

To determine whether something falls into the category of pseudoscience or merely an alternative theoretical formulation, consider this: Alternative theoretical formulations generally tweak things on the frontiers of science, or deal with strong, puzzling evidence which it is difficult to explain away, in an effort to create a model that better explains reality. Pseudoscience generally proposes changes in basic scientific laws or reality in order to allow some phenomenon which the supporters want to believe occurs, but lack the strong scientific evidence that would justify such major changes. Pseudoscience usually relies mainly on weak evidence, such as anecdotal evidence or weak statistical evidence at just above the level of detection, though it may have a few papers with positive results, for example: parapsychology and homeopathy.

I think this should be retained as a very useful explanation of the distinction. It's all very well to say that we rely purely on reliable sources without thinking, but the above para is helpful in practice to explain the general strategy that should be applied (subject to reliable sources). Johnuniq (talk) 00:41, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the "other encyclopedic content", I would have no problem to clarify that NPOV applies to all of mainspace. Regarding the "missing paragraph" about pseudoscience, I and other editors here (see above) feel that these details about one specific contentious topic don't belong in the NPOV policy, though they may belong in WP:FRINGE. Crum375 (talk) 01:09, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I am not entirely sure. I can see three legitimate possibilities:

Pseudoscience is a special case. Our usual rules don't apply. By posing as science, pseudoscience represents a unique threat to Wikipedia. Our rules must be bended/adapted to deal with this threat.
Pseudoscience is not a special case, but it is an important one, to the point that not only do our policies inform our treatment of pseudoscience, but conversely our treatment of pseudoscience informs what our policies say and how they are interpreted. Pseudoscience should be discussed in this policy as a prominent example of how the policy should be applied in specific cases. By doing this here, we can ensure that the policy and the example stay synchronised.
Pseudoscience is just an important ~~special~~ case, but should be discussed in a separate guideline (probably WP:FRINGE). So long as it is discussed here, editors are confused as to whether 1. or 2. is intended. This has resulted in a situation in which many editors rely just on the pseudoscience passage itself and interpret it in a way that is inconsistent with the policy itself. The policy and the example do no stay synchronised in practice, because changes in the way pseudoscience is handled do not feed back into the policy as a whole, but only into the pseudoscience passage. Hans Adler 09:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you leave out a possibility:

4 Pseudoscience is not a "special case", but it is a controversial one. It is specific sub-class of fringe topic, and as such should be discussed in that context, at WP:FRINGE. Blueboar (talk) 16:34, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a mathematician I use the word "special case" in an inclusive way that does not imply special treatment. As it was redundant from my point of view I have simply struck it. Hans Adler 17:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the editors who want to retain the pseudoscience section should explain why they feel it warrants being in the policy over any other topic. I can't offhand think of a policy that dwells on a specific subject area in this way. The issue for discussion on this page shouldn't be the interests of pseudoscience or opposition to it, but the interests of the policy. As I see it the policy is harmed by having this in it, partly because it's too specific, partly because it's almost an NPOV violation in itself, and before the copy edit was OR-ish and seemed to be advocating V violations. So whether it's about pseudoscience or butterflies, I feel it needs to go. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 16:41, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Hans' post above, I think out of the 3 choices given, 2 is the closest that matches my understanding. WP:NPOV applies to all topics. It shouldn't matter whether the view point is intelligent design or Holocaust denial. Fringe is fringe is fringe. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:43, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Hans's post 2 above, if I understand it correctly, he is saying that using a special case, such as pseudoscience, to explain or illustrate the NPOV policy is useful. I disagree. I think the pseudoscience issue is so contentious and so fraught with problems that incorporating its discussion into the general NPOV policy page will end up creating more, rather than less, confusion. If anything, examples should rely on simple clear-cut situations, possibly fictitious, where there is no reasonable disagreement or misunderstanding. By introducing a complex issue as our "example", we are inviting long term confusion. Crum375 (talk) 18:00, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And to clarify, I think we all agree that there is a need to deal with the use of the term "pseudoscience" on WP; the question is only where: inside a core policy, or in more dedicated pages such as WP:FRINGE and WP:WTA. Crum375 (talk) 18:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The issue of pseudocience is a particular aspect of fringe views which has rightly been part of policy rather than a more easily disregarded guideline, and is crucial to the validity of WP in a central subject area. Having said that, the more detailed questions of discussing dealing with fringe views are rightly in the guideline, and the revisions to the bare policy mention here seem reasonable subject to making it clear that the pseudoscience issue involves classifying topics in a general sense, not just deciding which category applies. . dave souza, talk 08:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Religion

While we're at it I wouldn't mind removing the religion section too, for the same reasons. I think these were sections that were on the FAQ page, which really wasn't an appropriate thing to have policy status, and when it was decided to get rid of it, these sections were moved back here. This page should deal with general principles; particular examples are fine but they shouldn't develop into whole sections. The section says:

In the case of human beliefs and practices, Wikipedia content should not only encompass what motivates individuals who hold these beliefs and practices, but also account for how such beliefs and practices developed. Wikipedia articles on history and religion draw from a religion's sacred texts as well as from modern archaeological, historical, and scientific sources.
Some adherents of a religion might object to a critical historical treatment of their own faith because in their view such analysis discriminates against their religious beliefs. Their point of view must be mentioned if it can be documented by independent reliable sources, yet note that there is no contradiction. NPOV policy means that Wikipedia editors ought to try to write sentences like this: "Certain adherents of this faith (say which) believe X, and also believe that they have always believed X; however, due to the findings (say which) of modern historians and archaeologists (say which), other adherents (say which) of this faith now believe Z."
Several words that have very specific meanings in studies of religion have different meanings in less formal contexts, e.g. fundamentalism and mythology. Wikipedia articles about religious topics should take care to use these words only in their formal senses in order to avoid causing unnecessary offense or misleading the reader. Conversely, editors should not avoid using terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and note worthy sources on a topic out of sympathy for a particular point of view, or concern that readers may confuse the formal and informal meanings. Details about some particular terms can be found at words to avoid.

SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 16:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree... but one thing at a time. Blueboar (talk) 18:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My thinking is that they're both the same issue—moving sections about specific topics out of the policy—and it might be just as easy to handle them both at the same time. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 18:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You asked earlier about posting an RfC. How about something like:

Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view. There is a proposal to remove two topic-specific sections, one on pseudoscience, the other on religion, so that the policy provides only a general overview. Fresh eyes would be appreciated.

SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 22:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we should link two controversial topics together. It's more likely to derail the process as it give people more reasons to argue about it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you'd need to come up with an argument in that case why you want to leave one topic-specific section but remove another. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 01:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I mean we should address them separately. Once we have one worked out, we can work on the other. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. But my first question coming to an RfC like that would be, "Why aren't you dealing with the religion section too? What's so special about pseudoscience?" I'm fine either way, but to me it makes more sense to deal with the principle that policies shouldn't focus on particular topics, except as examples in passing. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 03:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While scientists in conflict might label each others' views "pseudoscience" and while today's pseudoscience theoretically could become tomorrow's science, religion is defacto subjective and like political, ethnic, nationalist, etc. biases should be merely listed under bias. Or people could go back to the old format which was bulleted and described each kind of bias. Religious POV's doesn't seem to be more deserving of a section than others do. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I think examples of contentious POV issues don't belong in a general policy, which should focus on the broad outline. If necessary, specific contentious topics or terminologies may have their own guideline pages, like WP:FRINGE or WP:WTA. Crum375 (talk) 04:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Harping a SlimVirgin's 'both the same issue' thought... I think this is absolutely correct: the issue is that we don't want any group (of any size) using wikipedia to spin its viewpoint as truth over and above any scholarly research. This is just to guarantee impartiality: (secondary) scholarly sources that can be assumed to approach material with a reasonable degree of impartiality (because scholars are paid to be analytic and detached, and punished by their peers when they are not); other sources have no such constraints. personally, I think we could dispense with the pseudoscience, fringe, religion, and any other specific sections and replace them with something much simpler, such as:

A neutral point of view is careful never to promote, salvage, or otherwise foster any idea beyond its prominence in scholarly discourse, and it is careful never to denigrate, refute, or otherwise disparage such ideas for not having gained more prominence. Ideas are described impartially to the extent possible, given the full range of sources available. Editors will often advocate for particular points of view on talk pages - this is natural and unavoidable - and such advocacy is acceptable as part of building a broader consensus. Advocacy of that sort, however, should never extend to article space.

I think that covers everything meaningful in the pseudoscience and religion sections, and dispense with a whole lot of lawyer-fodder. --Ludwigs2 17:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I like that. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 17:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well done Ludwigs... I like it too. Blueboar (talk) 20:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possible problem. See essay Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples#Religious_sources, which suggests recognizing some religious sources as reliable in some contexts. It might be necessary for the policy page to make clear what counts as scholarship. Peter jackson (talk) 10:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why does a policy about maintaining a neutral point of view need to make clear what counts as scholarship? Blueboar (talk) 12:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because Ludwigs' suggested wording, which you & SV approved, talks of scholarly discourse. If religious groups can claim that their own literature counts a sscholarly discourse then you haven't achieved much. Peter jackson (talk) 16:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Potential RfC language

There is a consensus of editors at WP:NPOV that it is inappropriate for a broad policy to discuss issues that relate specifically to only one topic area. At the moment, the policy includes two such discussions: discussing the issue of pseudoscience at WP:PSCI and the issue of religion at WP:RNPOV. It is proposed that both of these sections be replaced with a broader statement as follows:

A neutral point of view is careful never to promote, salvage, or otherwise foster any idea beyond its prominence in scholarly discourse, and it is careful never to denigrate, refute, or otherwise disparage such ideas for not having gained more prominence. Ideas are described impartially to the extent possible, given the full range of sources available. Editors will often advocate for particular points of view on talk pages - this is natural and unavoidable - and such advocacy is acceptable on a talk page as part of building a broader consensus. Advocacy of that sort, however, should never extend to article space.

However, there is an additional question in regards to WP:PSCI. As the language in this section is derived directly from an important arb-com ruling, would it be better to save that language by moving it to some other policy or guideline page, such as WP:FRINGE?

Thoughts? (and if this is more or less the right idea... feel free to tweek it) Blueboar (talk) 21:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I concur that the content should be "moved", rather than merely "deleted". It contains important advice and principles that were created to deal with a conflict and to prevent it from recurring. This content does have value, but maybe not here. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"scholarly discourse" What about recent events where only mainstream news media have covered the topic and no peer-reviewed academic journals have yet been published? (Blueboar, you know what I'm talking about.) Also, keep in mind that we're a general purpose encyclopedia. We cover everything from South Park to music bands to reality TV shows. Many (most?) of our articles will never be covered in scholarly discourse. I suggest changing this phrase to "reliable sources". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. We shouldn't undermine our RS policy by making an end run around it. If the bar is lifted to an unrealistically high level, no sources will exist for some topics. That would leave holes in our goal of documenting the sum total of all human knowledge as documented using V & RS. We do have the MEDRS policy, which does have a very high level, but it is only applicable in the most logical of all places, the nitty gritty details of scientific research and medical claims. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:55, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Quest. I suggest the following revision:

A neutral point of view should not promote any idea beyond its prominence in verifiable reliable sources, nor disparage it for not having gained more prominence. Ideas should be described impartially to the extent possible, reflecting the available sources. Editors will often advocate for particular points of view on talk pages - this is natural and unavoidable - and such advocacy is acceptable on a talk page as part of building a broader consensus. Advocacy of that sort, however, should never extend to article space.

Comments? Crum375 (talk) 02:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's an excellent tightening of the language. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that downgrading from "scholarly discourse" to meet situations where lower quality sources are widely available increased the problems of Wikipedia:Systemic bias where mass media in some countries misrepresent a strong scholarly consensus by favouring the more newsworthy fringe or outlier views. Quest describes a situation of trying to discuss current news before scholarly sources are available, [http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-2756-2009.65.pdf this] discusses such bias in some detail, and the issue is summarised by Joe Romm [http://climateprogress.org/2010/02/25/max-boykoff-media-balance-deniers-contrarian-climate-change/ here]. It might be possible to rephrase "in verifiable reliable sources" as "in the best available verifiable reliable sources", but that still seems rather unsatisfactory. . . dave souza, talk 08:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

we might split the difference and say "...beyond its prominence in scholarly discourse or other verifiable, reliable sources...". I agree with Dave that we don't want to put USA Today on the same footing with the journal Science, but you're right that limiting it to scholarly discourse is too narrow. I'd also like to ask you about the "promote, salvage, or otherwise foster" language you shortened. I'd originally put it that way because I was trying to capture what I've sen people do on articles (advocating for unaccepted ideas, rehabilitating discredited ideas, 'teapotting' ideas by excluding outside viewpoints, or contrarily a number of different ways of attacking ideas). I'm concerned that the simple 'promoting/disparaging' wording might get interpreted too narrowly. that might be an unjustified concern, though; what do you think? --Ludwigs2 16:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While the paragraph has merit in itself, I'm strongly opposed to removal of the section on fringe views and pseudoscience, and this is not an adequate substitute. Science is a wide area covering many of the most disputed aspects of Wikipedia, and has been in the policy from early days because of the prominence of these subjects and of promotion of pseudoscientific views. This really looks like a charter for promoting fringe views which have wide coverage in mass media. . dave souza, talk 08:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dave, ArbCom doesn't write policy, and while I'm happy to see an ArbCom ruling in a behavioral policy (so long as the ruling clearly reflects consensus), we can't have one in a content policy, because ArbCom isn't allowed to rule on content. If they do it, the content policies shouldn't capitulate. I doubt very much that the ArbCom realized their words were going to be added straight to the NPOV policy.

Even ignoring that aspect, the principle behind the section is wrong-headed. Here's an analogy from an area I edit it, animal rights. According to the implications of that section of the policy, I could go to every article that touches on poor or questionable animal treatment and, so long as I could find reliable sources—or maybe just one reliable source—could add to the lead that it was an example of animal abuse, and include it in an "animal abuse" category. Fishing, meat eating, leather, fur farms, horse racing, circuses, hunting, milk, cheese, eggs, wool, silk. There'd be no end to it. And before you argue that this is a tiny-minority view, that's far from the case. The sources would be senior academic philosophers, historians, psychologists and lawyers from the animal welfare as well as animal rights spectrum, and indeed academics with no connection to either. And anyway, the people adding "pseudoscience" never stop to wonder whether it's a minority view. They find one source that says it, and they slap it in, ignoring UNDUE whenever it suits them.

As a result of this section of the policy, we have a bunch of articles prominently tagged as "pseudoscience" just because one person or one institution or one website expressed that view. It includes articles about respected academics, and subjects that have nothing to do with science. It confuses pseudoscience, superstition, irrational beliefs, unusual beliefs, cutting-edge studies, interesting philosophy, and arguments in favour of paradigm shifts to the point where no one has a clue what the word means anymore. It has been close to a campaign on Wikipedia to add that word to as many articles as it could possibly apply to. It really has to be removed from this page, because the integrity of the policy matters more than the anti-pseudoscience campaign. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 14:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like the first sentence. I'm not so sure that we should be saying that advocacy of a POV is okay. It's fine for editors to argue that a particular POV has ascendency among the RS, but it's not fine for them to advocate their own POV. I think the the second part blurs that distinction a little. --MoreThings (talk) 16:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
hmmm... I see your point, but I think it's useful to single out editors' actions for discussion. The biggest source of NPOV problems, IMO, is where editors confuse their own understanding of a topic (however correct it may be) with a neutral understanding of the topic. by explicitly telling them they can present their viewpoint on talk pages and pointing out that it should be kept off article space, we reinforce that distinction. I mean, this is just a reality: not a lot of people are clear-headed and objective on every topic they edit, but most everyone thinks of themselves that way. a reminder that there's a difference between what we believe/know and what ought to be said seems called for. Might not be the best way of wording it though. --Ludwigs2 17:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that it's a common problem, but I don't think this wording will fix the problem. I'd say advocacy is a pretty dangerous word to be putting into WP:NPOV in relation to permissible editor behaviour. Can you imagine the fun and games that would ensue if an editor were able to walk into, say, i/p debates armed with a WP:NPOV that makes it okay for him to start holding forth about exactly how he personally thinks the whole !*!*@ mess should be sorted out? --MoreThings (talk) 17:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What if we leave out discussion of talk pages altogether... Editors will often wish to advocate for particular points of view they feel strongly about - this is natural - however, we should never allow our personal views on an issue influence how we write our articles. Blueboar (talk) 19:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If advocacy needs to be mentioned at all, then for me that formulation is better than the previous one, though natural does still feel a little like okay. When new editors arrive it's understandable for them to expect that what is required is that they share their own knowledge and views about whatever article they're working on. The first policies they'll be directed to are this and WP:V, so I think both need to make it plain that editors' personal views are not only not required, they are explicitly verboten. This amended version definitely goes a lot further in that direction, but I'm still not entirely convinced that WP:NPOV should come anywhere near condoning advocacy. Happy to leave it at that, though, and see what comes of the discussion. --MoreThings (talk) 12:30, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I'd prefer something like: "Editors often wish to advocate positions they feel strongly about, but we should never allow our personal views to influence our editing." SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 12:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Influence our editing" too vague, since it is usually interest in a subject that influences anyone to edit at all. Wording should be more specific like "never allow our personal views to bias our editing." CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So the latest suggested replacement wording would be:

A neutral point of view is careful never to promote, salvage, or otherwise foster any idea beyond its prominence in scholarly discourse, and it is careful never to denigrate, refute, or otherwise disparage such ideas for not having gained more prominence. Ideas are described impartially to the extent possible, given the full range of sources available. Editors often wish to advocate positions they feel strongly about, but we should never allow our personal views to bias our editing.

This works for me... is the rest of the RFC language OK? Blueboar (talk) 13:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would tighten it, and focus on reliable sources, as discussed above:

A neutral point of view should not promote any idea beyond its prominence in verifiable reliable sources, and not disparage such ideas for not having gained more prominence. Ideas should be described impartially to the extent possible, given the full range of sources available. Editors often wish to advocate positions they feel strongly about, but we should never allow our personal views to bias our editing.

Crum375 (talk) 13:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

question

I really like the language that we are working on, and I think we should definitely incorporate it into the policy... but... it reads like a general statement of what NPOV is all about. Something that belongs in the first few paragraphs of the policy rather than as a replacement for the PSCI and RNPOV sections. Thoughts? Blueboar (talk) 14:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best answer to that is in SlimVirgin's largish post in the middle of the previous section. it boils down to two problems:

NPOV should be a general statement about neutrality. allowing overly-specific statements about particular kinds of content breeds confusion and starts to hamstring the policy itself, since people can start using these sections of the policy to unequally support or oppose particular viewpoints.
The ArbCom ruling which figures so heavily in the pseudoscience section was part of a behavioral solution to a very protracted war between big camps of editors. It's doubtful that it was intended as a general rule about content, and ArbCom is precluded from making binding decisions about content anyway, so it probably shouldn't be included as a significant portion of a content policy.

I don't think anyone has a problem with the material being moved to subsidiary guidelines that are intended to deal with specific content areas, but this entire discussion was intended to address the problems of having these sections in the policy. --Ludwigs2 22:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me rephrase... I am not sure that the paragraph we have been working on should be described in the RFC as being a "replacement" for the two sections in question. I agree that the sections should be moved (PSCI to WP:FRINGE - not sure where to move RNPOV) ... I think the paragraph should be added. What I am questioning is whether these two things are or should be linked. I can see people who come to the RFC from other pages being confused because there is no obvious connection between what we are proposing to move and what we are proposing to add. Blueboar (talk) 23:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ah, I see. that's actually an interesting question. There's a connection in my mind because I drafted that as a passage to try to capture what the other sections were saying in a more generalized form, but I have no idea whether that connection in meaningful outside of my mind.

I'll leave that for other, wiser heads to ponder. --Ludwigs2 00:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not completely sure myself... which is why I asked. I don't think we need an RfC to add your paragraph... I do think we need one to move PSCI to FRINGE and to move RNPOV to where ever it should be moved to (for no other reason than doing so involves other pages). So perhaps it is best to separate these two issues. Post an RfC on the moves... without mentioning the proposed addition. And, concurrently, implement the addition without reference to the proposed move. Blueboar (talk) 17:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I don't think we need an RfC to remove the pseudoscience and religion sections. We seem to agree that they're too specific, and for the former we know that ArbCom can't make content decisions. I'll go along with an RfC if others want it, but as I see it we already have sufficient consensus. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 18:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this wording isn't something that is particularly relevant to the two sections under discussion. I don't have an opinion one way or the other regarding the RfC—I haven't followed the whole of the discussion. --MoreThings (talk) 12:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

well, my suggestion would be that we go ahead and edit in the paragraph - it seems to have broad support. normally I'd say that we should just remove the other sections, but I think in the case of the pseudoscience section, at least, it's pretty obvious that would meet some stiff resistance. The question is whether there is sufficient grounds under policy to move the sections over anticipated objections. If we have consensus that there is sufficient grounds, then I'd say just move them; if we're unsure, an RfC is probably in order. --Ludwigs2 16:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Revised RFC langauge

Given the comments above, I propose the following language for the RfC:

There is a growing consensus of editors at Wt:NPOV that it is inappropriate for a broad policy to discuss issues that relate specifically to only one topic area. At the moment, the policy includes two such discussions: discussing the issue of pseudoscience at WP:PSCI and the issue of religion at WP:RNPOV. It is proposed that both of these sections be removed from the policy. PSCI (which is based on an important arb-com ruling) would be merged into WP:FRINGE.

Does this accurately portray the question in a neutral tone? Blueboar (talk) 12:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RfCs are supposed to be worded entirely neutrally. As I said above, I'd suggest wording close to:

Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view. There is a proposal to remove two topic-specific sections, one on pseudoscience, the other on religion, so that the policy provides only a general overview.

Personally I'm fine with the wording you suggest, but you're saying explicitly what the majority view is, so someone could object that it's not neutral. Also, calling the ArbCom ruling "important" depends on perspective. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 16:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good point... what about:

Comments requested as to whether it is appropriate for a broad policy to discuss issues that relate to only one specific topic area. There are currently two topic-specific sections in the NPOV policy that do this: WP:PSCI (relating only to pseudoscience) and WP:RNPOV (relating only to religion). It is proposed that these sections be removed. It is further proposed that the section on pseudoscience should be merged into WP:FRINGE.

Is that better? All of the rational for or against the proposal would be left to commentary. Blueboar (talk) 17:03, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That seems fine to me. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 17:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you intending to post this, BB? SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 19:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please put in a link to the arbcom decision/ruling. -- PBS (talk) 20:03, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I have been busy, and this is not on the top of my priority list. If someone wants to post the RfC before I get around to it, go ahead. Blueboar (talk) 21:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel an RfC is needed, so I wouldn't want to post it myself, though I'm fine with the idea if someone else wants to do it. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 02:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality and article titles

Basically the same issues are discussed in the "Article titles" section of this page, and at WP:Article titles#Descriptive titles and neutrality. To avoid duplication and the difficulties of maintaining the same text in two places, would it seem a sensible approach to do a brief summary of the principles here, and the details at WP:AT?--Kotniski (talk) 19:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is one of these situations where the same issue needs to be discussed on two pages from different perspectives. I am not too worried about the exact language being the same (or different) as long as the broader concept being presented is the same on both pages. Blueboar (talk) 21:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with both of you: with Kotniski that there is too much detail here, and for the most part readers should be directed to WP:AT; with Blueboar that the issue still needs to be discussed here.

I favour greatly reducing this section. Much of the first and last paragraphs are waffle. And note that this policy needn't guide readers all the way to choosing a title; it need only guide readers to the point of recognising which candidate titles are acceptable per this NPOV policy. They may find ten such candidates, in which case it is up to WP:AT to guide them to choose the most appropriate one.

I propose the following:

"Like article content, article titles must be in the neutral point of view. Neutrality in article titles is assessed by considering the breadth of usage of a name, not by seeking meaning in the name itself. That is, we accept names used in neutral sources, and reject names used only by biased sources. Because Wikipedia takes a descriptive rather than prescriptive approach to article titles, names that are used by neutral sources are considered neutral even if they incorporate non-neutral terms: Boston massacre, Tea Pot Dome scandal, Edward the Confessor and Jack the Ripper are all neutral article titles because they are all names used by a consensus of neutral reliable sources.

When there is no consensus amongst neutral reliable sources on how to refer to a topic, a descriptive title is constructed. Neutrality is especially important in these cases because it ensures that article topics are placed in the proper context, preventing the article title itself from becoming a source of contention and polarization. Therefore descriptive titles are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality."

Hesperian 00:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We do not usually use "neutral reliable sources" to determine names we use "reliable sources". If we went the way of "neutral reliable sources" then do we exclude all American, British, Irish, and Canadian sources when deciding on what to title an article like "Patriot (American Revolution)" and American sources for "Extraordinary rendition"? This is for a good reason. It would appear odd (and non neutral) if an article had one name, yet the majority of reliable sources used within an article used another. We usually use article titles that reflect usage not ones that are politically and culturally neutral. -- PBS (talk) 01:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, thinking about this some more, it would actually make sense for this page not to have a section on article titles per se, but on the terms we use to name things (which includes article titles as well as section titles and the way we refer to things in article text). Then we can refer people to WP:AT for issues that apply specifically to article titles.--Kotniski (talk) 12:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as "neutral sources" go... PBS has it right... we have to be neutral, not the sources. I suspect what Hesperian really means by "neutral" is more along the lines of "third party" or "independent" (although these terms have their own problems).

As for Kotniski's remarks... I would agree that the concepts presented in the NPOV#Article titles section should translate to section and sub-section headers (all the more so because these are more likely to be descriptive than be proper names, and so should be neutrally worded). Blueboar (talk) 19:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BB although I understand why you are doing it, I do not think that mixing advise on article titles and section heading is a good idea, because we have had a demarcation between titling of a page and the content of a page. I think that penning these two together will throw up more problems that it solves.-- PBS (talk) 19:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I was just responding to Kotniski's comment. More a conceptual statement than a desire for action.Blueboar (talk) 02:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying they should be penned together entirely; but there are principles we can state about "naming" in general (that's what I'm suggesting should go on this page), and there are aspects or applications of thsoe principles that relate specifically to article titles (that's what I'm suggesting should go at WP:AT - obviously with appropriate links between the two sections). This just seems most logical to me. Of course, it leaves entirely open the question of what the guidance should be (on which there seems to be some quite substantial disagreement, judging by discussion at WT:AT), and I suspect that what we end up saying will be fairly vague, but this is just a proposal on how to divide the information in an intuitive manner between the two pages. --Kotniski (talk) 08:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The guidance should be on one page with a brief description on the other. The argument for keeping it here is in the words of the old WWII song "were here, because were here, because were here" and until recently (when it was moved there from a guideline) there was no mention on the AT policy page about NPOV and this section has been on NPOV, more or less as it is, for years. However it could be argued that the whole section should be moved to AT as the editors most aware of NPOV problems in titles are more likely to be looking at AT than NPOV. -- PBS (talk) 19:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the guidance specifically about article titles should be on the article titles page, and that guidance more generally about neutrality in naming (which seems to be absent at the moment, though it shouldn't be, since it keeps coming up in various contexts) should be on this page. The present setup is somewhat messy, illogical and incomplete. A draft as to how to do this is at User:Kotniski/Neu - comments and co-editing are welcome there.--Kotniski (talk) 10:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Attribution

In an article about some topic raising disputes among scholars. It can be article about climate change, historical event, philosophical position, political movement. While using some author as a source. Is it important what position author holds regarding the subject, is it important to mention that position in the article, and what rules regulate that? Thanks! --windyhead (talk) 20:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, attribution is often very important. Besides this policy, look at WP:Verifiability and WP:Identifying reliable sources, and WP:No original research... all of which touch on this idea. You should also check out WP:Attribution, which while not a policy or a guideline, sums the issue up well. Blueboar (talk) 02:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So may we somehow process to make changes to the rule? What the addition could be? --windyhead (talk) 12:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If your question is whether we may mention, or even highlight, the name of an author of a source in the text, the answer is yes. It is up to the editor to decide whether to use just the publication's name, the author, or both for in-text attribution. Typically we'd want to focus on the better known. See this section relating to fringe theories, but the principles are similar for all topics. Crum375 (talk) 12:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. What about author's position regarding the subject? I. e. the Vegetarianism article refers to a scholar who is known to be vegetarian. Or the opposite. Would it be better the article to mention his position as well? --windyhead (talk) 09:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would say yes, this is often noted in our articles and it is practiced in media and scholarly works. Unomi (talk) 09:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So how about this addition to Attributing and specifying biased statements section: If the author is known to adhere to (to hold) some position on a subject he's discussing, and there is a reliable source for that, it is good the author's position to be mentioned. Please improve. --windyhead (talk) 10:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is getting into instruction creep here. Most of the time, an author's position on something will be obvious from what he says, ... on the other hand, if it is important to explicitly mention it, that can included in the attribution. We need to give editors lee-way to phrase things as they feel best. Blueboar (talk) 14:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, and what must be done if there's a dispute about if the best way to phrase is to include the position or not to? --windyhead (talk) 13:41, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Homeopathy

Dear Sir/Madam, I observed that the articles on Christianiy, Islam, Hinduism, Osteopathy, Naturopathy,

Chiropractic etc. are good and positive and there are forks to the articles on Christianiy,

Islam and Hinduism which contain all the criticism. The article on Homeopathy as well as

its fork for criticism ('http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Homeopathy/Criticism'), on the

other hand, are both negative and bad; so can we make the article on Homeopathy good and

positive like all the other articles and put all the criticism on its fork? If there's a

rule that both articles should be full of criticism, then we must make the matter in the

criticism fork available in the main article for Christianiy, Islam and Hinduism also. Thanking you, Yours faithfully, Dr.Vittal (talk) 05:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't always observe its own policies, hence the inconsistency you note. This is because there's no effective procedure for enforcing it. You can try Wikinfo for a wiki with official policy of sympathetic point of view. Peter jackson (talk) 09:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, though, in this case Wikipedia's policy is pretty well enforced. There is a reasonable consensus among the scientific community that the basis of homeopathy is pseudoscientific - there is no known scientific test, up to and including the most sensisitive spectroscopic analysis, which can distinguish homeopathic preparations from placebo. Guy (Help!) 12:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fringe

I have a couple of concerns on the recently vigorously edited fringe section.

The first is to note that there may be (particularly in fringe areas) multiple minority views, so the wording should not explicitly state there is only one. I have made a change in this direction. A related point, which I haven't addressed yet, is that the may be no majority view at all, with all views minority views. This is often the case in a contentious area. Better text (yet to be determined) doesn't need to make the assumption that there is a majority view, and could indiciate what to do in this case.

The wording seems ambiguous to me as to whether the reliable sources related to the topic as a whole (or possibly, even wider scope), or just the fringe area itself. Reliable sources on a fringe area are much narrower and skewed compared with reliable sources on a wider area, and I am proposing that the fringe sources are not wide enough to use, and if this was already the intention, that this be clarified in the text.

The changes which removed science as the unique source to NPOV seem reasonable at first sight. I like the shorter section. But science when correctly carried out is by its very nature NPOV, ruthlessly discarding old theories when better one come along. And NPOV procedures like this result in science. Is it worth mentioning something about science (or the scientific method) lest we slip back into an age of superstition and "revealed Truth" unchallenged?

Stephen B Streater (talk) 21:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just for information's sake: Science is not NPOV; science is prejudicial, ruthlessly (as you say) discarding theories as they fail according the the rules science has established for itself. Science is a system which tries to distinguish between theoretical claims based on their ability to account for empirical observations. Where scientists have opinions, they are opinions of the form "We accept theory X, because of all the theories available, X fits best with what we see under controlled investigation." Scientists make no claims about things where they have not (or cannot) perform controlled investigations or make empirical observations.

NPOV is tangential to that. NPOV says "We present all relevant theories in some rough balance according to their prominence, but we do not evaluate those theories (i.e. reject or accept them) except as they are evaluated in reliable sources". Where science has made definitive claims, NPOV requires us to present them as such. Where science has not made definitive claims, NPOV prohibits us from presenting a scientific perspective that does not exist in sources.

Science is a point of view (POV) built built around a particular (an highly restrictive) epistemology. Where science is performed and applied correctly it is a powerful POV that almost always outweighs other opinions (that is the entire raison d'etre of the scientific method: to provide an epistemological framework for making decisive claims about the world). Where science is performed badly or applied outside the restricted realm in which it has epistemological power, it is just another point of view (and a spectacularly unconvincing one, at that).

just so it's said. --Ludwigs2 22:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A nice defence of fringe views, but not actually relevant. Consider cosmology: the neutral point of view is the one followed by the scientific mainstream, because it's a scientific concept. Science follows objectively verifiable truth, fringe theories follow WP:TRUTH, which is different. Some of the bitterest disputes on Wikipedia centre around attempts to assert parity between objective reality and subjective WP:TRUTH, for example the creation-evolution debate. Evolution is a scientific theory, creation is religious one. A scientific theory can be abandoned and refined where conflicting evidence appears, a religious theory can't because all new evidence is weighed according to how well it fits the faith so conflicting evidence is rejected. So where something is purported as science - for example the study of some observed phenomenon - it is the scientific mainstream that has the neutral point of view. And yes, they can get things wrong, resulting in them correcting themselves form time to time. Guy (Help!) 12:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you're saying, and that that's a commonly presented argument here on wikipedia, but it is not (strictly speaking) correct. Science tries to make an approximation of 'truth' through verification; neutrality (in the wikipedia sense) is not about 'truth'. For something like cosmology we present the scientific viewpoint, yes, but we do not present the scientific viewpoint because it's neutral. We present the scientific viewpoint because it is (by virtue of being a well-developed scientific claim) the most prominent viewpoint, and neutrality requires us to represent the most prominent viewpoint as such. The same goes with the creation-evolution debate: evolution is the most prominent viewpoint in the scientific world (it is prominent because most scientists believe it, because it fits the available evidence well) so neutrality requires us to present evolution as the dominant theory in scientific contexts. In the context of Abrahamic faiths, the balance is different - creation has far more prominence, evolution far less (different people believe different things, because the criteria of belief are different in religious contexts), and so NPOV requires a different handling. The problem of non-scientific things that are 'purported as science' (such as creationism) is an interesting one, but the scientific point of view isn't neutral with respect to them: from the scientific point of view such things are straight-out wrong. Again, NPOV insists that we give evolution first billing in scientific contexts not because science is neutral, but because evolution has gained prominence in the scientific world because it fits the available evidence.

'Fringe view', incidentally, is not a scientific concept, and the way it's used on wikipedia it's not even an analytic concept. In the real world it seems to be a reference to funky ideas that are expressly framed as scientific but have little or no scientific standing; on wikipedia it has become a catch-all term for any number of distinct types of topics, with no real rhyme or reason that organizes them. It's this mish-mash that polarizes the issue and causes people to confuse scientific efforts at establishing truth with editorial neutrality. I don't really see why the whole 'fringe' thing was ever adopted; it seems to me that balancing topics based on prominence is more than adequate to maintain neutrality, and the whole Fringe issue creates far, far more contention and strife than it actually resolves. but there may be some historical reason that I am not aware of. --Ludwigs2 16:21, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The view that fringe topics should be biassed towards their own references would lead to, at the very least, inconsistencies across the encyclopaedia. At worst, a nonsense idea would refer to nonsense sources - dressed up as legitimate. Giving priority to scientifically tested ideas (ideas which, as they are independently verifiable by anyone, carry dominant weight where they are applicable) is one way to avoid this. How would you suggest avoiding nonsense dressed up as legitimate point of view? Stephen B Streater (talk) 16:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why we deal with fringe topics the way we do is all discussed at WP:FRINGE. Have you read it? Blueboar (talk) 16:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@ Blueboar: yes, I have, several times. did you have a specific section in mind, or was this just a general comment? I'm happy to go reread the whole thing again, if that's what you had in mind.

@ Stephen B Streater: I don't see how that applies to what I said. first, I don't think 'fringe topic' is a coherent concept on wikipedia (though it has its uses), and second, I don't know where you got the 'biased towards their own references' bit. can you clarify? I'm a scientist, I like science, I do science, but science is a practice which only works in its own limited and well-defined domain (an ever expanding domain, of course - science is always going where no science has gone before - but it can only go where it can apply its own rules in a sensible way). --Ludwigs2 17:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see the relevant sections of WP:FRINGE have also been edited recently resulting in a similar unsatisfactory result as this policy has. As that guideline summarises this policy (and not the other way round), I think here is a better place to discuss and fix first. The improvements can then be moved to the guideline. It talks optimistically about majority of reliable sources, but isn't clear to me on whether sources respected within a fringe field should be treated as reliable, and hence the mainstream view, or unreliable but noteworthy as a secondary view. Stephen B Streater (talk) 19:39, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the WP:FRINGE guideline is not just a summary of this policy... it is also a summary of WP:NOTE (it started as a notability guideline for Fringe topics) with a touch of WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOR tossed in. Blueboar (talk) 19:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which reminds me that we need to rfc the pseudoscience as per the earlier discussions. Blueboar (talk) 19:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think your RFC, though worthy of comment, is orthogonal to my points - it talks about where things should be presented rather than what the policy should be. It seems that no one will admit that we are creeping towards a POV bias for each article, rather than NPOV for every article - which is a different thing. Or put another way do we want an encyclopaedia which is NPOV as a whole, or one in which every article is individually NPOV? The latter is much stronger, and implied by the no fork/single article policy. Stephen B Streater (talk) 21:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry.... I did not mean to imply that there is a direct connection between this thread and the RFC... the thread simply reminded me that I had put the RFC on hold because it dealt with the same broad topic. Yes, the RFC is purely about where this material should be presented. Not about what the policy should be. Blueboar (talk) 16:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

patience stephen - I haven't gotten back to this thread until just now. I don't know what you mean by 'creeping towards a POV bias for each article'; can you provide an example? I will say that there is no general 'NPOV stance' that can be applied uniformly to every article in wikipedia: each article needs to accurately convey information about the topic in question, and that will mean that what is NPOV in one article may be different than what is NPOV in another article.

a source can be reliable without being mainstream. for instance, if you take a topic like ESP, there is an awful lot of material (and even some well-formed research) available. These are certainly reliable sources for discussing the topic of ESP, but are hardly mainstream. They would not be considered reliable sources for, say, psychology. Of course, you have to make certain that a topic like ESP is not presented in such a way that it appears to be mainstream within its article (that would not be neutral), but given that consideration there is no need to assume that NPOV for ESP would be the same as NPOV for Cognitive Therapy or NPOV for (say) Quantum Mechanics. if you see what I mean... --Ludwigs2

You may be answering a different point to the one I'm raising, or I may not agree with you - it's not clear to me yet. If, hypothetically, there is a fringe group which believes some rubbish, and has published sources detailing the rubbish, are you saying that these sources should be treated as mainstream for the article or not? You appear to be saying that they should. But then suppose that the fringe beliefs are inconsistent with generally held scientific theories. The question is whether the fringe or the scientific view should be given most weight in the article. I'm not simply talking about the most text. Should the impression left on a reader be "This fringe view is probably reality" or should it be "This is probably nonsense"? Stephen B Streater (talk) 09:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Ludwigs that the concept of fringe seems muddled. There are a variety of possible types of candidates here:

theories held by a very small minority of reputable experts, published in reputable sources; an example of this might be Roger Penrose's theory that gravity is unquantized; he's certainly a highly regarded physicist, but I don't know whether anyone else agrees
theories held by a small number of experts, but for religious reasons (e.g. creationsism), & not published in reputable sources
theories completely outside the academic world

Even that's probably an oversimplification. Peter jackson (talk) 09:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that some of Roger Penrose's ideas are certainly fringe ;-) But then in some of the areas he writes about, there is no established majority view - something I raised at the start of this thread. My more fundamental question still remains unanswered though - is WP a place for Cultural_relativism or a place which sits outside any local beliefs. The wording on fringe as it stands is not clear to me. Stephen B Streater (talk) 10:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So that's 3 of us agreed on that. Peter jackson (talk) 14:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@ Stephen B Streater: I believe you've misunderstood me. again, let me reiterate: a source can be reliable without being mainstream. A book about some rubbish (assuming it's a well written book) can authoritatively describe that rubbish, and would be a perfectly reliable source for doing so. There's no reason to assert that what the book says is true; however we can assert that the book is accurate within and constrained by the misbegotten premises of the rubbish it talks about. To the extent that such a source (or the topic in general) makes claims that fly in the face of scientific reality, we are (obviously) required to introduce scientific clarifications, but beyond that we can use fringe sources to describe and explain the rubbish so that readers understand it. The problem on a lot of fringe articles is that some editors have gotten the kooky notion that we should try to define or explain non-mainstream concepts from a purely mainstream perspective; this produces wildly inaccurate, uninformative, and badly sourced articles - since of course, the mainstream doesn't have a whole lot sensible to say about non-mainstream material, except to ridicule it. It's a bit like insisting that we write our article on UFO cults strictly from the Christian perspective, since the Christian faith is mainstream in the English speaking world. --Ludwigs2 15:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.s (just noticed this comment, sorry): NPOV is not cultural relativism; again, a clear description of something is not the same as a claim to facticity. I can make a very good description of a unicorn, but this does not imply that I believe unicorns actually exist. --Ludwigs2 16:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. My views are much closer to yours than I had feared :-) Of course, a RS in an area may say that the area is WP:TRUTH, but however reliable it is at describing aspects of the area, it would not be impartial on the overall validity of the area. In fact, I imagine that most detailed accounts will think they are talking about reality. Stephen B Streater (talk) 20:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should topic specific issues be discussed in a general policy

Please consider joining the feedback request service.

An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following list:

Wikipedia policies and guidelines

When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Comments requested as to whether it is appropriate for a broad policy to discuss issues that relate to only one specific topic area. There are currently two topic-specific sections in the NPOV policy that do this: WP:PSCI (relating only to pseudoscience) and WP:RNPOV (relating only to religion). It is proposed that these sections be removed. It is further proposed that the section on pseudoscience should be merged into WP:FRINGE. - Blueboar (talk) 19:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll kick this off by saying that I suspect two of the broadest areas with the most vociferous POV pushers are pseudoscience and religion, which are both fundamentally untestable belief based systems. If these are the areas which are causing editors the most trouble, many hours of strife may be saved by determining the WP approach in a single place - namely here. In this scenario, other areas of potential contention, such as commercial motivation, could also be sorted here. I wouldn't be opposed though to wikilinks to each problem area with brief directions from here. Stephen B Streater (talk) 21:39, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Stephen that brief directions from here may be warranted. We could mention a list of general trouble areas such as religion, pseudoscience, and biased terminology like "terrorism", as examples, with links to specialized sub-pages that deal with them, like WP:FRINGE and WP:WTA. But going beyond a mere mention on this page would clutter it with details, while inviting disagreements and instability. Crum375 (talk) 21:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with Stephen. We should not attempt to strip WP:NPOV of these two very helpful examples of NPOV as should it be applied at Wikipedia. People often have trouble understanding NPOV and without examples the policy could be interpreted to suit the editor – someone wanting to promote Reincarnation research as a serious scientific endeavor would read NPOV to suit their purpose, while someone wanting an opposite approach would argue that NPOV supports them. Johnuniq (talk) 00:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with these two improvements on my comments. Stephen B Streater (talk) 21:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If you have not already done so... please read the previous discussions on this... starting a few threads up (with WT:NPOV#Does consensus rule here or not?) and continuing through several subsequent threads. It will explain what lead to this RFC, and give many of the arguments in favor of (and a few against) the idea. I don't think it is necessary to repeat them all again here. Blueboar (talk) 02:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been wading through all this stuff. Will revert if I discover anything which changes my mind. Also, happy that this discussion is focusing on the issues. Stephen B Streater (talk) 21:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose removal of fringe theories section. That points of view held by an extremely small minority don't belong in Wikipedia, should be in NPOV. The section on religion can be moved out. -- Rico 23:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um... Rico, have you read the section in question? I don't think it says what you think it says. (And the section that comes closest to saying that is WP:UNDUE, which isn't under discussion.) Blueboar (talk) 02:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

POVed quotes On Philip Larkin

almost-instinct says on Wikipedia_talk:Quotations#Unable_To_Post: "For the biogs sections I chose quotes that had some relevence to that section of Larkin's life. The other quotes are from popular poems and can stand alone."

We already have an article listing of Philip Larkin's Poems.

His choice of quotes is representing a certain point of view, specifically his, and using ~~this~~these quotes creates an opinion that wikipedia endorses. These quotes should be moved to wikiquote. Can we get more feedback?96.52.92.106 (talk) 03:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the complaint is too strong. Every selection of facts involves a judgment by the author on what is useful for the reader. It is quite impossible to summarize, say, a 500 page biography in 1000 words without making lots of choices--that is what or editors do all the time. Selecting poems of use to the reader is in the same category as selecting what facts to present, in my opinion. Rjensen (talk) 03:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These excerpts from poems are poved, tho. For example, if you are picking salient facts from a 500 page book, these facts must be verifiable from other independent sources.174.3.123.220 (talk) 04:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If an editor boils down two different 500 page books into one 1000 word article, there is even more selectivity required--selection is what Wikipeduia is all about, it is not a POV. Rjensen (talk) 04:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But the quotes have no explanation to their inclusion. They are jut boxed up in a corner. We are left to guess why they are there. Maybe the quotes could be introduced by prose saying, "This is a representative quote of (insert stage of Philip Larkin's life here):". But if we include that, wouldn't that be pov? If not, then original research?174.3.123.220 (talk) 05:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 165: / Line 165: @@
 ::::Yes, regardless of which is the oldest, I also prefer the version we have on top at the moment (i.e. the slightly longer one). Although it could still be vastly improved (in fact this whole page could - do we really need all this waffle just to tell people to be neutral?)--[[User:Kotniski|Kotniski]] ([[User talk:Kotniski|talk]]) 07:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
-:::::It can be improved by adding two sentences I proposed above. [[User:QuackGuru|QuackGuru]] ([[User talk:QuackGuru|talk]]) 17:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
+:::::I think we should keep the current lead of ASF and not rewrite it. It can be improved by adding two sentences I proposed above. [[User:QuackGuru|QuackGuru]] ([[User talk:QuackGuru|talk]]) 17:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 People should be aware that there might be a few editors who are against the broad consensus version and long standing meaning of ASF policy and want to rewrite (or [[WP:POINT|possibly destroy]]) policy. [[User:QuackGuru|QuackGuru]] ([[User talk:QuackGuru|talk]]) 17:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)