Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view

Updated definition of "Obvious pseudoscience" in FAQ § Pseudoscience

In Special:Diff/996952192, I edited the definition of "Obvious pseudoscience" in WP:NPOVFAQ § Pseudoscience to keep it in sync with the ArbCom ruling in the Pseudoscience case, from which this definition explicitly is quoted. In particular, I updated the quoted definition to reflect the ruling's 2 July 2010 amendment. Especially as I am fairly new as an editor, I felt I should post a notice of my edit here at WP:NPOV's talk page — which has over ten times as many watchers as WP:NPOVFAQ — so that, in case I made some mistake in making this change, the community has a better chance to catch the mistake. —2d37 (talk) 09:53, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

@2d37, I'm not sure that was ultimately helpful. We have a bit of a problem with people disagreeing about what constitutes "obvious" pseudoscience. When you tell them that it has to be as obvious as Time Cube, then people stop trying to say that things like Lamaze technique or Prayer are obvious pseudoscience. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I've tried to WP:Build the web to some related terms in the FAQ: paranormal, protoscience, and non-scientific. Maybe if editors are more aware of the more specific and relevant alternatives, then they'll have fewer disputes over whether an article must include the exact word pseudoscience. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:50, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: Well, I won't object if you or someone else prefers to revert my boldness. In case it might be helpful, I note that I see that WP:NPOV § Fringe theories and pseudoscience links to WP:FRINGE/PS, which offers some alternative examples of pseudoscience, such as astrology and water memory. —2d37 (talk) 08:25, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I suppose it doesn't help, though, as none of its examples is as obvious as Time Cube. —2d37 (talk) 08:27, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Added considerations of RECENTISM/time-factors to UNDUE

Something that I've long considered and think this is one of those aspects to add is that within the advise of UNDUE, that we should caution editors about trying to establish UNDUE/DUE/WEIGHT too soon after some event or the like, as WP:RECENTISM outlines. I don't know exactly how to word it, and so this is more throwing the idea there, but basically we'd want editors to give time for viewpoints to settle down after some event (particularly ones that are emotional or contentious) before trying to write in opinions, analysis, etc. into an article. (This is separate from "Reactions" to disasters or other similar events, which are generally factual statements of how gov't reacted to events). Ideally we'd want editors to wait for longer-term secondary analysis (academic) of those viewpoints but that usually is years in the making, but the short-term should avoid trying to establish what is DUE or UNDUE in the hours and days after such an event. Some weeks or so after the event has settled out, then editors will have a better place to start judging where DUE/WEIGHT sits to include commentary and analysis, ideally using sources displaced farthest from said event to use to judge DUEness. The DUE/WEIGHT view that is set out immediately after an event may not change in those weeks (eg most of the same views related to the Jan 6 Capitol attacks remain the same today), but it is better if we don't rush in include that right after an event until we can judge if that's really the correct view or not.

By extension, this also implies that UNDUE/DUE/WEIGHT should be best judged by sources far removed in time from the event or situation, if possible. Eg: the US media's view of the Gulf war while it was happening compared to modern sources is far different. With that, we do have to be aware of WP:PRESENTISM issues that can arise if we're too far separated from the event and there have been major shifts in social and political norms that would put that event in a different light if one moves too far.

How to word this in, however, I don't know how it would best fit. --Masem (t) 15:57, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Think tanks, NGOs, mission-based organisations

• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Think_tanks

The discussion at RSN is increasingly focused on DUE weight and balance - things that fall under the NPOV policy - rather than just reliability. As such, the conversation may be of interest to watchers of this page, and your input would be appreciated. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:51, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Do we prefer academic sources?

I've been looking at some of the bickering at COVID-19 articles, and specifically the "lab leak" question.  One of the difficulties with this subject is that one 'side' is more prominent in the existing academic literature than the other 'side'. I'm here to ask what I think is a simple question about determining WP:DUE weight and avoiding WP:GEVAL fallacies. (Perhaps if I'm lucky, you'll be able to show me that the question is not so simple.)  Here's the question, in a true/false format:  "When sources disagree, editors should generally determine due weight by looking at high-quality academic sources instead of popular press."

If you think this is a true statement, then in has these implications:

• Something a scientist says outside of the formal literature (e.g., in news media, an open letter) gets much less weight than something a scientist publishes in the formal, peer-reviewed scientific literature.

• Something a politician or government official says in (e.g., a press release, a political magazine) gets much less weight than something that appears in an academic journal or a book published by a university press.

• Something an economist says in the popular press (e.g., in a daily newspaper, in a blog post) gets much less weight than something that an economist writes for an academic publication.

If you believe this is a false (or oversimplified?) statement, then it has these implications:

• Something a scientist says outside of the formal literature is (sometimes or always?) just as important and valid as something a scientist publishes in the formal, peer-reviewed scientific literature.

• Something a politician or government official says is just as important and valid as something that appears in an academic journal or a book published by a university press.

• Something an economist says is just as important and valid as something that an economist writes for an academic publication.

From the perspective of how this affects editors:

• If you believe this statement is true, then:  When there is a dispute between sources, you should discard (most/nearly all?) lower quality sources, and use only (primarily?) the highest quality sources.  
  • For example, in the "lab leak" question, you would determine due weight by considering only peer-reviewed scientific literature, and not letters to the editor, scientists quoted in the news, etc.
  • For example, in articles about the Holocaust, you would determine due weight by considering only peer-reviewed academic literature and books published by university presses, and not articles in popular magazines or content generated by politicians.

• If you believe this statement is false, then:  When there is a dispute between sources, you should include perspectives from all sources, regardless of whether they are low-, medium-, or high quality; whether they are academic or popular sources; etc.
  • For example, in the "lab lead" question, you would determine due weight by treating politicians being interviewed on talk shows, scientists quoted in news articles, etc. on equal footing with peer-reviewed literature.
  • For example, in articles about the Holocaust, you would determine due weight by treating the claims of politicians or stories in the popular press on equal footing with academic works by historians.

(Obviously, my question assumes that the subject in question is something that academics study, but perhaps there is an equivalent to "academic sources" for subjects that don't attract much academic attention.)  

It might be simplest to treat this as a WP:Straw poll:  Is my true/false sentence true or false? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:42, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Do we prefer academic sources? Yes, and for some good reasons. It is not an absolute rule, but a preference. Academic sources tend to be more reputable.

"When sources disagree, editors should generally determine due weight by looking at high-quality academic sources instead of popular press." Yes, easy. Popular press sources are not so reputable. They are in fact the least preferred acceptable sources.

"Something a scientist says outside of the formal literature". A scientist may be a good source of non-independent secondary source comment in their primary source publications. It is great when this happens, because journal publications are not easy reading. I dispute the validity of the question of "less weight". A secondary source scientist TV interview does not support or contradict a primary source journal publication, but interprets it. Unless you have the scientist asserting the publication is in error, in which case you have a scientist gone rogue.

Something a politician or government official says? Well yes, one does better to never trust a politician or government official, not unless you know for sure their underlying motivation for making the statements.

Something an economist says in the popular press? Both the scientist and economist are academics. Reputable academics do not assert primary source material in the popular press, TV or magazine. Over a beer, yes; being recorded, no.

"If you believe this statement is true"? Question: Why would I "believe" a statement? Answer: because it is published in a format with a reputation for fact checking. TV and popular magazines have less reputation for fact checking than academic journals. This is a rule of thumb, some popular media does "fact checking" and some journals are disreputable.

"For example, in the "lab leak" question". This example is characterised by the complete lack of reliable primary sources. The topic transforms into "beliefs on the lab leak hypothesis". If and when the virus source is discovered, disproving the lab leak hypothesis, all pre-proof sources will be discarded, old speculation-based Wikipedia articles might even be deleted.

"in articles about the Holocaust" This is a worthy example. The Holocaust features many facts and many opinions, and much analysis. I would only "trust" academic sources, but popular media is useful for determining notability of subtopics.

Easy true. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:05, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

There's a line at WP:MEDRS that says "Primary sources should not be cited with intent of "debunking", contradicting, or countering conclusions made by secondary sources." Would you subscribe to a similar line that said something like "Non-scholarly sources should not be cited with intent of "debunking", contradicting, or countering conclusions made by scholarly sources"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:37, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

No. This is slipping into poorly defined motherhood language. A "primary source" is well defined at primary source. What is a "non-scholarly source"? I think "scholarly" is different to "academic"; scholarly referring to methods and rigor of methods, in research but more so in logic and writing. I think "non-scholarly sources" is synonymous with "bad sources", and "scholarly" with "good". "Bad sources should not be cited with intent of "debunking", contradicting, or countering conclusions made by good sources"? SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:20, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

The wording "If you believe this is a false (or oversimplified?) statement, then it has these implications: ..." is telling me in advance the possibly-bad results if I tick the false box. Thanks, I prefer to figure out implications myself: by ticking false, I'm suggesting that I respect editors who don't just tick boxes. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:04, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

@Peter Gulutzan, I have not generally had good luck with discussions that don't involve clear examples. I end up with editors telling me things like Coca-Cola's website isn't written and published by Coca-Cola, Inc., because multinational corporations employ too many lawyers to self-publish their own marketing materials. I would be happy for you to tell me what I've gotten wrong or nuances that I've overlooked. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:40, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I think that it is perfectly clear that we prefer academic sources for the type of topics that academics study and write about. For medical assertions or claims, sources that comply with WP:MEDRS should be mandatory. On the other hand, there are many notable topics that are not covered by academic sources. If a professional baseball pitcher throws a no-hitter tomorrow, coverage in major reliable newspapers' sports pages is perfectly adequate for updating the biography. If a winner of the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine dies tomorrow, then that same type of newspaper is a reliable source, and we should not require a MEDRS source to update their biography. In the case of the COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis, we are dealing with, in effect, a hybrid topic that combines medical content with political and sociological content. We cannot expect MEDRS compliant sources to deal with the sociopolitical aspects but we ought to insist that only MEDRS sources be used for any of the overtly medical content in articles covering this topic. However, there are excellent sources in the popular press that can be used to discuss the sociopolitical aspects until academics get around to writing books that are then published by university presses on this topic in years to come. I do not think that the comparison to the Holocaust is very useful here, because that catastrophe ended 76 years ago and we have a plethora of outstanding published academic work that covers it thoroughly. The lab leak hypothesis, on the other hand, is still developing and the final story is yet to be told. So, I think that it is acceptable to use high quality, in-depth newspaper and magazine articles as references for the sociopolitical aspects of this developing topic, while simultaneously insisting on MEDRS compliant sources for the medical aspects, with the understanding that the article will be updated and improved as better sources are published. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:41, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Cullen. Sure, yes we should determine due and undue using scholarly sources .... for the type of topics that academics study and write about. Bonewah (talk) 13:50, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I would hope the answer is true, although it seems exaggerated to me to say that Something a politician or government official says is just as important and valid as something that appears in an academic journal or a book published by a university press. follows from the negation of When sources disagree, editors should generally determine due weight by looking at high-quality academic sources instead of popular press. (Disclaimer: As above, I am fairly new as an editor. I felt I should wait for more more-experienced editors to comment, but few seem to be doing so, so I guess I will.) —2d37 (talk) 03:12, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Genocide is evil

Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. Sometimes, when genocide is sanctioned by God, it is a necessary evil, but it absolutely always may be described using the word "evil". Wikipedia shouldn't say in an instructional article For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action" Here is a better example ...an article should not state that pepperoni pizza is the best flavor.... Genocide being evil is not in the realm of opinion, while pizza toppings superiority is in the realm of opinion. You the man(converse) 09:44, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia must stay pretty much amoral, even with respect to genocide. Whether genocide is evil or not is still an opinion that cannot be spoken in Wikivoice, mostly on the basis that we would have the issue of when certain actions are to be called genocide or the like. --Masem (t) 13:16, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Plus, we are here to provide and people come here to get information, not characterizations.North8000 (talk) 13:22, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

How do you measure majority view?

How do we find an accurate way to measure majority view? Like let's say you find 50 reliable sources say 2+2=5. But, Google makes it hard for you to find 150 sources that say 2+2=4.

When I research a certain topic a certain view seems mainstream at first glance but the more I did it becomes more clear the idea is fringe.

I know this sounds weird but it happens.CycoMa (talk) 08:19, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I suspect that this is a case of much of the popular press, and possibly politically biased or activist sources, saying one thing while the peer-reviewed literature of relevant experts says something different. GMOs are one topic like this. In such cases ignore the popular press (people should always be ignoring the clearly politically biased sources but some don't) and go with what the peer-reviewed sources say. If they conflict, follow WP:DUE and WP:FRINGE. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:53, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

What if a certain topic is hard to stomach

As someone who edits on some controversial topics. There are moments where I realize certain information or sources are problematic. But I feel guilty for removing a problematic source.

Or there are times where I afraid to put a certain detail in a article because I know it’s controversial.

Like I have to put in certain facts that come off as controversial to certain religious groups or certain minority groups.CycoMa (talk) 07:24, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Would it help to classify the sources as “reputable” or not? SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:45, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe well here’s the thing, in some situations reliable sources contradict each other, and this isn’t like minor differences in some situations in like major differences. In other cases sources may agree on something but, they are inconsistent with each other.

Also sometimes some facts aren’t just controversial to religious groups. They may controversial too the point they may come off as sexist, homophobic, racist, transphobic, or bigoted in nature. I don’t know it just feels wrong to put in information that may be used by hate groups to justify bigotry.CycoMa (talk) 18:14, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

If it's controversial, it's probably best to clarify that it is "widely believed" or use an in-text citation (i.e. "A report by the Blue Sky Research Agency indicates that the sky is blue."). This gives less of an impression of bias than just inserting controversial facts with references. - ZLEA _T\^C 13:48, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

So much depends on the specifics (information and sources) that there is no “one-size-fits-all, right answer”. Broadly speaking - Wikipedia is not censored, so we should cover controversial topics if they are noteworthy… the question is HOW to cover them. When a noteworthy topic is controversial, we normally don’t phrase things as being fact… instead we phrase them as being opinions, and mention who holds which opinion - and let the reader determine for themselves who they trust more. However, some opinions are so fringe that there really isn’t any controversy, except perhaps in the minds of a few adherents. This is when our WP:UNDUE policy steps in. Blueboar (talk) 18:56, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

That makes sense since we don’t, for example use allegedly in the sentence The shape of Earth is nearly spherical. There is a small flattening at the poles and bulging around the equator due to Earth's rotation in the Earth article because some flat earthers you YouTube dispute it.--70.24.249.16 (talk) 22:02, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I know we have a shortcut for a situation like this (it's not on NPOV, and I can't recall what it was) but its related to that we are not censored. If it is a "hard to stomach" topic but reported in RSes (and considering UNDUE if that's an issue) without any exaggeration, there is no reason we should not report that the same way; we don't need to weaken or hide a fact that may be disgusting to some. If its only coming from one source, or if only non-RSes are reporting it that way, and other sources avoid the issue, we can avoid the issue too. If its the point where the sources are reliable but split, I would definitely hedge on the less-descriptive versions, unless its clear that the description version is needed (eg if we're using a direct quote).

I do note "without exaggeration" as you'll sometimes see even quality RSes slip in a few unnecessary words when talking about gruesome acts, eg ("The suspect then plunged the bloody knife into the husband's chest." rather than "The suspect then stabbed the husband." We'd prefer the latter if that's what is most offer used.) --Masem (t) 19:15, 24 June 2021 (UTC)