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)

In a way there are always problems with sources. Academic does not guarantee good. Non-academic sources do not guarantee bad. There may be journalists writing articles about WWII topics relying on memories of people still living and producing quality material about matters historians have not dealt with and in such cases I would trust that journalist more than historian who has not gone deep into some minor issue. Also, if there would be material in scientific journals about some subject that contradicts the materials in other journals about different matters, what should we do then? Two examples: geological sources state a source of ther term to be a place that has never ever existed. Well stated, academic sources, but their field just is not geography and history... Also, lots of history journals have described a certain river in our country as a winter road, as rivers usually were. And yet there are laws of geography that state such rivers can never be used this way, as the ice on rivers that flows put of big shallow lakes can never be thick enough to be used in such way - but historian's role is not to know all the facts about the way the rivers freeze. This fact has been mentioned in popular journals, while it contradicts scientific journals, of which none deals with that problem as it is quite unique situation in our country and the rule is not widely known. Thus my answer would be "false", but not in the strong sense. I would not go with your implications but number two. In lab leak question I would go by first, in holocaust questions go by number two. And that is : yes, things are not simple. Nothing is ever easy. Scientists are specialists, not magicians who know everything, and thus there can be better specialists than they are in subjects that do not fall strictly into their speciality. Or We may call it true, but then we have to add: but be careful. Be very careful.Melilac (talk) 19:00, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

My takeaway from the above fairly long discussion, as far as it has gone thus far, is that the Due and undue weight section of this policy is unclear on this point. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:37, 11 July 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)

@CycoMa, one approach that seems to work for academic subjects is trying to figure out which authors you should be considering, rather than which documents. It's tough in some fields, especially controversial fields, but try putting something like foremost expert in intersex into your favorite search engine, and see what you find. Mine suggests that you might want to start by looking at Sharon Preves and Eric Vilain.

Also, consider contacting your local library and asking if you can talk to a reference librarian. If you tell a reference librarian that you're looking for "mainstream scientific sources", you may get a few good leads. (I'd specify "mainstream scientific" so they realize that you're not looking for autobiographies, political stuff, etc.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:01, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Are you talking about a political topic or a technical/scientific topic? On "political", IMO as we moved into the post-objective-journalism era, the wp:due section has moved from one from what was merely unusable (expecting editors to do a synthesis tally of sources) to one that has an unusable foundation and thus provides no answers until it is repaired to emphasize expertise and objectivity on-the-topic. On the technical/scientific side there is more hope before then per the guidance provided by Sharon Preves Crossroads and WhatamIdoing. North8000 (talk) 01:33, 8 July 2021 (UTC) North8000 (talk) 12:41, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

North8000 well I Edit articles and research relating to religion and the biology of sex/sexual reproduction.

Let’s just I see a good amount of fringes views regarding these topics. Especially in the biology of sex where I see source make outlandish claims just to please some political group. Like there are sources claiming there is no difference between males and females. I could bring up more examples but, I’m afraid of offending anyone.CycoMa (talk) 05:50, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Based on just taking a quick look IMO those are some areas that are a blend of science and politics. I don't see direct factual conflicts between the two, instead it is over the (re)definition of words and leaving out some straightforward scientific info due social or political goals. Hopefully the advice from Crossroads and WhatamIdoing can help.North8000 (talk) 12:44, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

CycoMa, if you give us some concrete example of a viewpoint of unknown weight, I hope I will be able to demonstrate how that problem should be approached. --Paul Siebert (talk) 02:32, 31 August 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)

"WPL:WEIGHT" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect WPL:WEIGHT. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 10#WPL:WEIGHT until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. dudhhr_Contribs 04:38, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

What if other editors refuse to listen to your arguments?

Here is something that I have always been considered about.

Editors have their own personal beliefs and points of views, at times it hard to convince them why a certain source is reliable or whether on how mainstream a certain view is.

I’m not entirely sure where I should comment this at.CycoMa (talk) 05:31, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

The best evidence of being right is having others agree with you. Do not attempt to convert your opponents, try to convert their audience.^{taken from User:DGG} SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:54, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

In my experience, if you feel like your arguments are being ignored, there is often some miscommunication. Maybe the other person didn't realise what the significance of your point was, or maybe they have a reason why it's irrelevant and you don't understand that yet. In any case it may be worth simply asking directly about that ("Okay. What about my point about XYZ?"). This way you don't only kind of force them to respond to it, you're also showing that you are interested in what the other person has to say. But that's just my two cents. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 10:12, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Using non-neutral terminology in an article because it's the name of the article being linked to

I'm looking for help in finding an NPOV-related policy, guideline or advice that can help with answering the question as to whether it is acceptable to use a non-neutral, but common term, for a subject in another article simply because it is the common term and is the name of the subject article.

The specific article that I am concerned with is Treachery of the Blue Books, which is apparently the common name for the "Reports of the Commissioners of Inquiry into the State of Education in Wales" (which is one of the subject article's redirects). There are many articles referring to this report, and there is a bit of a dispute going on between myself and Llywelyn2000 as to:

1. which term should be used in the other articles when referring to the reports
2. if the full name is used on its own in another article, whether the link should be directly to the redirect or piped to the common name
3. if the full name is used first in another article, whether the common name should always follow it with the link made there
4. if both names are used in another article, whether the link should be placed on the first-used term or the second - or both

All I've managed to find so far is stuff about using common names for articles and about the creation of redirects for other terms. I cannot find anything related to the NPOV aspects of using the common name in other articles or in the piping of links to the common name.

Thanks for any help with this. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:16, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

At last, you show the true colour and reason for your last 2 weeks of editing on Wikipedia, DeFacto! Interesting! 350 edits based on two articles: Welsh Not and Treachery of the Blue Books between 20 August and today 4 September. You started with the Welsh Not, in tandem with User:Cheezypeaz, then went on to the Treachery of the Blue Books. In order to change the title of this Wikipedia page, which for some unknown reason is offesive to you, you created a new redirect here, and subsequently changed around 15 links in other articles to your chosen term. This, shows that your opinion was set out from the start to change the course of history. Unbelievable! Here's ac example whereby you deleted the de facto term 'Treachery of the Blue Books' and added your own. Same with this one and a multitude of others! This is pov, and goes against what is said in the sources, over the last 150 years, in both Welsh and English literature.

NB The term was first used in Welsh, Brad y Llyfrau Gleision; 'brad, here can be translated as 'treachery', 'treason' etc

To answer your basic question: sources, sources, sources. For over 150 years, the term used has been 'Treachery (or 'treason') of the Blue Books' (which reflects an older Welsh term: 'the Treachery of the Long Knives'), and the report is named 'Blue Books report', or similar. The report's title hardly appears, only on facsimiles of the actual report etc . There are 11 sources on the page. In order:

1. BBC - Not once is 'Reports of the Commissioners of Inquiry into the State of Education in Wales' used. However, Treachery of the Blue Books is used.
2. Snapshots of Welsh History - The relevant chapter is called 'The Treason of the Blue Books'. The book also contains the words: The Report, known throughout Wales as 'The Treason of the Blue Books... but no mention of DeFacto's 'Reports of the Commissioners of Inquiry into the State of Education in Wales'
3. A Union of Multiple Identities - Not once is 'Reports of the Commissioners of Inquiry into the State of Education in Wales' used, other than once in the article's notes. However, Treachery of the Blue Books is used 3 times in the book's text.
4. The Tempus History of Wales - Not once is 'Reports of the Commissioners of Inquiry into the State of Education in Wales' used. However, 'Treason of the Blue Books' is used 5 times.
5. National Library of Wales - Article Heading is Brad y Llyfrau Gleision (Treachery or Treason of the Blue Books). Mentions the report's heading once and 'The Treachery of the Blue Books' and Blue Books twice each.
6. Geoffrey of Monmouth and the English Past - no mention of either
7. The Welsh Academy Encyclopaedia of Wales - I have a signed copy by all three editor, Welsh version, so the English translation of this book might be different. Main chapter title: Treachery or Treason of the Blue Books. Mentions the title of the report once, and 'Blue Books' throughout.
8. For Wales, See England - Not once is 'Reports of the Commissioners of Inquiry into the State of Education in Wales' used. However, it does mention, "Published in 1847 and popularly known as the Treachery of the Blue Books (Brad y Llyfrau Gleision), the report portrayed Wales as an immoral, unclean and backward nation"
9. 'Presenting Saunders Lewis - I can't access this book.
10. Llanellen's almost forgotten hero of the Welsh language - Not once is 'Reports of the Commissioners of Inquiry into the State of Education in Wales' used. However, it does say: The "Blue Books" (published in 1847) were the official reports of a government enquiry into the state of education in Wales. And 'Blue Books' mentioned 7 times.
11. 'Why Wales Never Was: the failure of Welsh nationalism - I can't access this book; requested from library.

The above books mentions the 'Reports of the Commissioners of Inquiry into the State of Education in Wales' only 3 times.

More importantly, the main modern historian on Welsh History, John Davies, author of The Welsh Academy Encyclopaedia of Wales and the Penguin classic History of Wales, says that the name 'Treachery of the Blue Books' "took hold of the public imagination to such an extent that ever since the report has been known by that name."

It is irrelevant what DeFacto's opinion is, or mine for that matter, Wikipedia honours solid, reliable sources. Treachery of the Blue Books has been used and referenced over the last 150 years, in the overwhelming majority of sources. Defacto asks: which term should be used in the other articles when referring to the reports. Linking and piping too: sources in the context of the individual article. I say: sources, sources, sources, otherwise we get lost in povs and politics. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 08:08, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Llywelyn2000, you miss the point. I totally support using common names (whether neutral or not) for article titles and have never argued, and never intent to, that non-neutral names should not be used for article titles if they are accepted to be the common name.

My question is about the policy on the use of the non-neutral names in other articles. My view on that is that the name used in other articles should fit the context and comply with NPOV, which in the examples you gave would probably mean using the proper name of the report.

And please don't personalise this, just keep to the point: should the name used in other articles follow the principles of WP:NPOV or not? -- DeFacto (talk). 08:49, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Llywelyn2000, DeFacto There is something wrong with the name when you are trying to link to the report but have to say "Treachery of the Blue Books". Having said that I don't care. Just out of interest I checked your first two examples. The BBC site has to explain what it is referring too and your second example includes the report's full name in the first paragraph. Someone did suggest splitting the article into two. One for the report and the other for the reaction. To repeat myself : I don't care. Cheezypeaz (talk) 09:02, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

DeFacto: You say, "don't personalise", yet you say, "you miss the point"! My remarks are directly aimed at links in other article; you will have seen that I wrote, 'Linking and piping too: [importance of] sources in the context of the individual article", both of which are discussed. POV is dependent on sources. 'Non-neutral names' are quite acceptable if that is what is used in academic sources. Stick to reliable, academic sources, and NPOV will be achieved. [Sorry about the bold text, but I've said this now four time in our discussions, with no avail.]

Cheezypeaz: I get your point here. The way the above sources deal with this, is to mention 'The Treason of the Blue Books report' or simply 'the Blue Books reports', rather than list the whole hog. I agree the BBC source doesn't use the term 'Reports of the Commissioners of Inquiry into the State of Education in Wales'. 2nd source - that's exactly what I said!

I'll speak generally. If something is not right, it's this: that an user can work the wiki system, and change links, hide / delete words they don't like by piping links etc, and then, when they have enough links using their chosen term they will change the article's title - without any regards to the sources - and without the enwiki community being aware of it, or just ignoring it. That's pov.

Lastly, DeFacto, why do you say that the words 'treachery', 'treason', 'blue' or 'books' are "non-neutral names"? And which one, please, is the innocent offender? Llywelyn2000 (talk) 14:13, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Llywelyn2000 To clarify 1) The point I was trying to make was that whenever the report is referred to as the "Treachery of the Blue Books" that source then has to go on to explain what the phrase actually refers to. 2) The "Snapshots of Welsh History" linked above states "the 1847 Report of the Commissioners of Enquiry into the State of Education in Wales" before it says "The Report, known throughout Wales as the Treason of the Blue Books..." Cheezypeaz (talk) 19:42, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Llywelyn2000, but you do miss the point, totally. This isn't the WP:NPOVN board where the POV used in an article is discussed, this is the talkpage of the WP:NPOV policy. where I'm asking for advice on the policy with respect to the labels used on links to articles which have non-neutral titles (but perfectly legitimate title per WP:COMMONNAME). We can discuss the specifics of the article on the article talkpage, not here on the NPOV policy talkpage. What we want here is advice as to which policy points apply to that discussion. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:49, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

DeFacto -My advise to you on "the policy, with respect to the labels used on links to articles which have non-neutral titles", is that the overriding reliability of sources should be the deciding factor. You raised the "specifics of the article" yourself, when you mentioned Treachery of the Blue Books in your second opening sentence! My advise is relevant to all articles and to all links to articles. It is the granite of reliable, neutral sources that gives the second pillar its strength. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 05:16, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Llywelyn2000, where reliable sources may be ok for facts, the opinion or agenda of their authors is not necessarily neutral.

I came here to seek advice about policy, and the first response is traditionally "which article has this problem ocurred in?" I tried to pre-empt that, and to also pre-empt the next common question from other parties involved in any dispute by pinging you as a matter of courtesy. However, I didn't anticipate the wall of irrelevant text that would ensue though, and which has possibly deterred watchers of this page from chipping in with constructive tips. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:09, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I also note, DeFacto, that you didn't answer my question: why do you say that the words 'treachery', 'treason', 'blue' or 'books' are "non-neutral names"? And which one, please, is the innocent offender? Thank you. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 08:15, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Llywelyn2000 sorry, I assumed that question was rhetorical! It's my opinion. "Blue books" is factual, the reports came in blue books, so there's no neutrality problem there. It's "treachery"/"treason" that, in my very humble opinion, is the problem - that is a point of view, so possibly one of many. Sure it became a common name for the reports in Wales, which might be enough to justify the article name (WP:COMMONNAME allows non-neutral names if they are demonstrably the most common name) but that does not mean it it suddenly becomes neutral enough to stand alone as the name used to refer to the reports in any other articles. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:27, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

So, you believe that 'treachery' and 'treason' are offensive; if so, against who? Who is offended? The Welsh? The church clerics? The British establishment? In my view, both terms are completely neutral; but please, I'm very interested to hear your opinion. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 14:50, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Llywelyn2000, this is not relevant to this discussion which is intended to be about which policies apply. I'll happily discuss it on the talkpage of an appropriate article though. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:35, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

That's your opinion. End of my input here. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 16:46, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

WP:POVNAMING is also relevant to other articles. Correct?

WP:POVNAMING's policy on the choice of name used for a topic, is also relevant to other articles.

Example: the widely used names "Boston Massacre", "Teapot Dome scandal", and "Jack the Ripper" are legitimate ways of referring to the subjects in question within other articles. These names have been discussed by their communities, and have been accepted. Their use therefore is acceptable in other articles. Is this correct? Llywelyn2000 (talk) 04:34, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Is this a general question or is this being asked due to a specific dispute? If it’s the latter it would be best to let people know what precisely the issue is.--67.70.24.141 (talk) 04:48, 7 September 2021 (UTC)