Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view

---

The project page associated with this discussion page is an official policy on Wikipedia. It has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. Before you update the page, make sure that changes you make to this policy really do reflect consensus.

---

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.

Is 'Anchor baby' NPOV?

The term 'Anchor baby' has been used by government leaders, policy researchers, academics, law enforcement, and others. Still, some people say that the term is pejorative. Does using it violate NPOV? Does NPOV mean avoiding articles, words, whatever which anyone finds offensive?-198.97.67.56 (talk) 14:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The specific term is slang, which is inappropriate for an encyclopedia article in the first place. Considering that the anchor baby article identifies reliable sources that call it derogatory, I have a feeling that using it outside of a quote or clearly attributed statement would have obvious problems with NPOV. There has been substantial discussion on whether using openly pejorative terms in any way, shape, or form runs into problems of tone. I personally wouldn't use it outside of a direct quote, others would avoid it entirely. SDY (talk) 17:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe the term is slang and, yes, there are sources which call the term derogatory, but I think the central question is 'should something be avoided just because somebody is offended by it?' I mean, should white power, institutionalized racism, evolution, gay, etc. be removed from wikipedia because somebody finds them offensive? The other question is "what is a reasonable alternative to anchor baby?" "the first children born in the United States to illegal aliens" is more than a bit wordy - especially if it gets used over and over again.-198.97.67.56 (talk) 12:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

There is a Birthright citizenship in the United States of America article which has a wordy but neutral title. Considering that there is no definition in a respected dictionary, it's at the very least a neologism, which is something that's specifically avoided. SDY (talk) 21:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how long words have to be in the English language before they are no longer considered neologisms. Anchor child has been used since at least 1987 (that's the earliest I could find it in the Los Angeles Times Magazine (Dec 13)) and Anchor baby has been used since at least 1997 (in the Providence Journal Bulletin (Jan 7)). Words that are more recent and which are used in Wikipedia include blue state, red state, swing state, corporatocracy, and Islamofascism. -198.97.67.57 (talk) 18:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Several of those have similar problems, I would admit, but WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't really a convincing argument. Whether the term is notable is a point I don't have a strong opinion about, though it's really more the property of a dictionary than an encyclopedia. Anchor baby is not used in everyday conversation like email or other "new" words. It's also not so much offensive as loaded language, exactly the same way "corporatocracy" and "islamofascism" (which are also neologisms).

Neutrality is, unfortunately, subjective. That reliable sources have indicated that the term is pejorative is pretty strong evidence that it's a phrase to avoid. SDY (talk) 01:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia policy, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a convincing arguement. Specifically, the policy states, "When used correctly though, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes. The problem arises when legitimate comparisons are disregarded without thought because "other stuff existing is not a reason to keep/create/etc." -198.97.67.56 (talk) 16:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The essence of otherstuff is essentially that the arguments must stand on their own merits, not simply because similar pages exist. At any rate, notability isn't the question to answer on this particular talk page, so let's get back to neutrality. The article currently has reliable sources calling the term pejorative. Unless there are other reliable sources that dispute that assertion, I would hold that the term is not neutral. Calling Mahmoud Ahmadinejad an Islamofascist equally obviously fails NPOV. SDY (talk) 01:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The article has quotes sources which aren't reliable - in the Chicago Times article I couldn't find the statement which it is suppossed to support, can you? But that same article does state that Doug Rivlin, a spokesman for the National Immigration Forum (a leading immigrants rights group) said he doesn't consider the term particularly offensive. The Sun-Times article is by an author for whom I can find no other article written other than this one - is someone with unknown credentials who wrote one solitary article a reliable source?-198.97.67.56 (talk) 17:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

just another article from a random google search. Browsing the google results, it appears to be a term used in two contexts: 1. People who have a particular view on immigration reform in the US, and 2. Opposition to the term (and in one case opposition to the opposition of the term). Since wikipedia doesn't take sides in that debate (or any), adopting the language of one side or another isn't particularly neutral. SDY (talk) 23:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Do a search on anything related to the Illegal immigration issue and you'll find the majority of the links are to people who are either pro or against illegal immigration. That's all you're seeing here. And because you'll find the same thing on any other term you want to use (such as Illegal immigrant), there's really nothing we can do about it.-198.97.67.57 (talk) 13:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the term "myth"

I wanted to ask if it would be ok to add a note about about the word myth, similarly to the "fundamentalism" note already in the FAQ. It's a frequent concern on many talk pages of articles that use the term, creation myth for instance. Some articles editors have gone so far as to add an entire section on it within the article, for example Islamic mythology and a similar section was just trimmed from the Christian mythology page. It's also justified on pages like WP:WTA#Myth, and several templates have been made that mention this too. It seems the complaints are generally based on neutrality, so I'm hoping a small note here is ok instead of the mess that is out there now. If it is ok, I don't think an entire paragraph is necessary - maybe something similar to the template that is being used on several of the pages? Ben (talk) 11:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? Asking if you can add a note doesn't tell us much unless you say what you think the note should say. A lot of the complaints about the term are simply invalid and used as an attempt to push POV in articles, and I would most strongly oppose any note worded in a way to coddle those people, for example. DreamGuy (talk) 15:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know the best way to word it, so all I could do was suggest the wording used in this template. I'm not trying to coddle POV pushers, I'm just hoping that a note here will allow editors to point users who don't like the word to a central point, and free them up from having to deal with it on an article by article basis (and there are many such articles) by writing up templates, entire sections in articles, etc. Cheers, Ben (talk) 22:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

If you start flagging religious myths, will you also flag Camelot and Mickey Mouse? To flag a story as "myth" is actually a POV. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. If there are published authors who denied the veracity of a story, NPOV says you must include their opinions too. If an article complies with NPOV, there is no need for a flag. Emmanuelm (talk) 13:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't intend to flag anything. In fact, I intended to start removing templates and notices from articles that discussed use of the term if there was a central place (ie. here) discussing it in general. Ben (talk) 14:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

NPOV in general and pressure on publications

scientists aren't stupid by any stretch, but isn't this furthering our notion of science as a cosmology?

the npov policy creates undue pressure on science publications for knowledge. while that's what science is there for it excludes other points of view that aren't scientific or popular purely on that basis. an example is the sadam hussein comment by kerada in the npov page: let the evidence of his shortcomings convince people of his evil. well that's going to take some editorializing AND what if all the research done on hitler was just to prove how much of a prick he was? someone has now done that for you. now that burden of knowledge that's been given to science/popularity has come back to render objectivity useless. letting the facts speak for themselves is a good way to enforce the majority POV over the minority. solution i have none, just noticing what i thought was something worth discussing...

bean 208.127.12.221 (talk) 19:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure I follow your reasoning but I want to clarify one point dear to my heart : Scientists strive to be objective, not neutral. If the difference between these two concepts is not clear in your mind, Wikipedia is partly to blame. I tried in the past to remove the word objectivity from this policy article -- the section There's no such thing as objectivity clearly equates objectivity with neutrality -- but was swiftly reverted. Emmanuelm (talk) 13:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Why is there no article called Neutrality?

Cross-posted in Talk:Objectivity (philosophy)

Neutral and Neutrality lead to a disambig page, not to an article. Neutrality (philosophy) is a red link. There is an article called Objectivity (philosophy), and the disambig page actually directs the reader to it, as if the two concepts were synonymous. But in the Objectivity article, there is no section called Objectivity vs. Neutrality. This absence is hard to understand from Wikipedia, the champion of neutrality. Is this the result of a policy? Emmanuelm (talk) 14:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Ironically, it may have been deleted due to multiple users complaining of the article not being written from a neutral point of view. Man, that would be so funny (yet sad) if true :-|. But to be honest, I don't know. It may be down to the reason I jokingly gave above, or to something else. Maybe you could request for someone to start the topic? Or start it yourself? You may on the other hand want to ask someone like Jimbo. Plus, I would hardly describe Wikipedia as The Champion of neutrality, for neutrality is (to many) the fatal flaw in this site. So many controversial topics have been given varying degrees of protection to stop people adding extreemist views. Thats why so many people disuade others from using Wiki as a source for issues such as Adoption or Euthanasia. Because you'll always find people replacing one bias with another. A Prodigy^Talk 21:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality (philosophy) now exists. That's what happens when you undo a Wikidragon. Emmanuelm (talk) 18:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Overloading citations

I've come across this question and i'm not sure where policy stands in this. Does adding multiple citations to a particular POV in order to make it seem more important or prevalent make an article biased? Is this covered by Wikipedia:NPOV#Article_structure? --neon white talk 14:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

New policy proposal and draft help

Wikipedia:Scientific standards

I have drafted a new proposal and would like help in clarifying, adjusting, adapting, and improving it. It is based on five years of work here at Wikipedia (not always the prettiest, I might add). I think it summarizes the opinions of a great majority of editors as to how to handle scientific situations. This proposal serves as a nexus between WP:NPOV and WP:RS for cases where we are dealing with observable reality. It is needed because there are a lot of editors who don't seem to understand what entails best-practices when writing a reliable reference work about observable reality. I don't pretend that this version is perfect, and would appreciate any and all additions, suggestions people may have for getting to some well-regarded scientific standards.

Note that these standards would apply only when discussing matters directly related to observable reality. These standards are inspired in part by WP:SPOV but avoid some of the major pitfalls of that particular proposal. In particular, the idea that SPOV even exists is a real problem. However, I think it is undeniable that we should have some standards for writing about scientific topics.

See also WP:SCI for another failed proposal that dovetails with this one. I hope this particular proposal is more in-line with the hole I see in policy/guidelines for dealing with these situations.

ScienceApologist (talk) 19:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Controversial Olympic article/NPOV help

I'm running into some difficulties with the articles Jiang Yuyuan and Yang Yilin. To summarize, these are two of the athletes involved in the Olympic gymnastics age controversy. There are reliable and verified sources suggesting one birthdate, and other reliable and verified sources suggesting another. Ergo, neither can be taken as undisputed truth, and to agree with one or the other would be to violate NPOV. In the interest of NPOV, and in the hopes of stopping infighting between editors on one side of the debate or the other, the birthdates in their infoboxes have been listed as "Disputed". The controversy is explained and cited in detail in the body of the article, along with both possible birth dates.

Other editors have preserved the "disputed" tags so they are there by consensus. I've felt that this is the best way to stop edit warring and to create a neutral article. However, we've had an influx of IP editors who insist that the disputed tag is wrong, we should use the birth date on one of the reliable sources and not the other, etc. etc. etc.

I'd appreciate any advice, criticism and help from editors on these pages, and the use of the 'disputed' tag. At the moment, the largest article of controversy is Jiang Yuyuan. Thanks. DanielEng (talk) 05:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Not having spent any time looking at the particulars, my take is that if it were me I would footnote the "Birth date: Disputed" entry in the infobox with an explanatory note about conflicting sources, and cite those sources. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 11:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like an excellent suggestion to me. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to you both! I've taken that suggestion. DanielEng (talk) 02:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Let the facts speak for themselves

I have added WP:MORALIZE as a shortcut to the Let the facts speak for themselves section.   — C M B J   10:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed expansion of WP:WEIGHT

This was proposed by another editor on another page, and I think it's a good idea, so I'm posting it here for comments:

Neutral point of view requires that viewpoints be presented in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. When considering the relative weight to be given to different viewpoints, the extent to which those viewpoints are held among Wikipedia editors is not a criterion; it is only their relative prominence in reliable sources relevant to the topic that is to be considered.

This obviously belongs to the WP:WEIGHT section; it expands on the idea that weight is determined by reliable sources, not merely editor consensus. I believe that the impetus was ongoing hassles with Homeopathy, which is one of those topics that primarily attracts only the true believers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Facts & opinions

The policy says (more than once, I think) that we have to give due weight to all opinions in reliable sources. WP:RS defines a reliable source as one with a reputation for fact-checking. Can anyone explain why a reputation for fact-checking is relevant to the status of opinions? Peter jackson (talk) 16:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia policies don't distinguish between opinions and fact. See WP:V. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I've often been concerned about this issue. The basis of the "fact-checking" approach camr from WP:BLP, and necessarily so, because the law describes the sources that have to be used to avoid legal problems in terms of fact-checking, and the language has to reflect this legal requirement. However, I believe it was a mistake to expand this definition outside its BLP-specific context. For example, it has very little application to science sources. Science editors generally prefer sourcing prestigious journals and reputable experts. Prestige and reputation in science generally come from interesting novel theories, new research methods, and similar types of research results, not from the sorts of literature cite and data checking that is typically delegated to graduate students and which the prestige people rarely do themselves (and often don't do well). The highest-prestige journals print the front-line stuff, results which haven't been replicated precisely because they are fresh and hence are particularly tentative (Prestigious journals print scoops, not results which have been established long enough for people to replicate. The old, more certain stuff simply isn't as prestigious). Much as is true in science, reliability in many other fields is actually based mostly on reputation as on authority. Authority and reputation may or may not have much to do with how well one checks facts or is reputed to check facts. As you note, in subjects which are essentially matters of opinion, it has no relationship at all. The policy itself is an example. It has little empirical basis; facts were simply not checked before coming up with it. Yet it is relied on. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 18:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Recent rewording of UNDUE

I don't think the following is clear at all. It could even be read as contradictory to the preceeding paragraph:

Minority views appropriately receive full attention on pages specifically devoted to them—Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. But on such pages, though a view should be be described fully in the necessary detail,, some appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint should be made where relevant; such pages are not intended to rewrite majority-view content solely from the perspective of the minority view.

So I reverted it:

Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them—Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. But on such pages, though a view may be described in detail, appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint should be made wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view.

Seems like this should be worked out here. --Ronz (talk) 00:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Recent diff

[1] I am taking my own medicine and bringing this revert (which I see as part of WP:BRD) to talk. The first rewording changes "can receive attention on pages" to "can be presented in articles". My issue here is that presentation of a minority opinion is not the only thing that can happen in pages devoted to the minority opinion. In particular, major detractors of the minority opinion and appropriate framing should also be presented. My fear is that this subtle change in wording may mislead some editors into thinking that we can present minority opinions microcosmically on their own pages without any other text to distract from their presentation. The next problematic word change is the change from "though a view may be described in detail" to "minority view should be described in detail". This goes against the very spirit of WEIGHT and also may run afoul of WP:NOR, WP:RS, WP:V, etc. considering that a "detailed description" may not be had based on WP:PSTS considerations, for example. Minority opinions should be described to the extent that they have been described by secondary sources: no more, no less. Removal of the phrase "wherever relevant" is extremely problematic as well because without it we give a free-pass to describing minority theories in an in-universe setting rather than from an objective NPOV setting. Finally, "nor to rewrite minority view positions from the perspective of the majority" was inserted, it is claimed, in the interests of "fairness". However, the fact is that if the only secondary sources we have exclusively reference "minority view positions from the perspective of the majority", there will be no way around this issue. The framing of the minority opinion will always be in the lens of the majority: that's the whole key to the WEIGHT proviso. Finally, if someone proves something that "none" believe, then we've run into a weird situation where the person who proved the thing doesn't believe their own proof. Just too weird for my tastes. So there's the gauntlet. Please someone pick it up. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

lol - please, let's not make it a gauntlett. I'd rather just discuss the issue. Let me go through what you said point by point:

1. "My fear is that this subtle change in wording may mislead some editors into thinking that we can present minority opinions microcosmically on their own pages without any other text to distract from their presentation." That, I think, is a valid fear. the balance I was trying to strike here was between articles which solely present the minority-view to the exclusion of every other perspective, and articles that are primarily critiques of the minority view to the exclusion of the view itself. however, when you look at the entire sentence in context - "Minority views can be presented in articles specifically devoted to them, since Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. In such articles, the minority view should be described in detail, with appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint" - it seems clear that this would not be a problem
2. "though a view may be described in detail" to "minority view should be described in detail" - since we are tqalking about minority views in this paragraph, I can't really see the difference between these two phrases (except that the latter is clearer).
3. removing 'wherever relevant' - that's a stylistic change I could go either way on.
4. adding "nor to rewrite minority view positions from the perspective of the majority" - you are incorrect where you assume that the "framing of the minority opinion will always be in the lens of the majority". there are always sources which will frame the minority opinion in its own perspective. these sources are perfectly valid for establishing what the main beliefs of the minority view are, and can then be tempered and given perspective by including mainstream sources. the problem comes when you try to talk about a minority viewpoint only from the perspective of mainstream sources; that can only produce a biased misrepresentation of what the minority position actually is.

that being said, I think the revised version is clearly better, though I can see how it might need some revisions. --Ludwigs2 19:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

1. I disagree strongly with such a distinction even being possible on Wikipedia. "Criticism of..." articles are generally eschewed. See WP:POVFORK.
2. The difference is that the proposed sentence states directly that minority theories should be presented in detail and makes no allowances for cases where this is impossible.
3. No further discussion necessary.
4. Your concern seems to be that minority views won't be described if we use sources which are not in lock-step with that view. This is a rather dramatic claim and I do not think there is consensus for this sentiment. In particular, I believe that excluding mainstream sources from the ability to describe, contextualize, and frame minority views is such a dramatic departure from standard operating procedure on Wikipedia that I don't think we can make any more progress on this issue. I think you'll have to show that there actually is a consensus at this encyclopedia that minority views should be described on their own terms. Also, since the wording of the policy does not mention describing minority viewpoints only from the perspective of mainstream sources, I think your attempt to attack this interpretation is a solution looking for a problem. After all, those who hold to minority positions can also produce biased misrepresentations of what their position actually is. Take a look at intelligent design where the main claims of the proponents as to what the view actually is has been shown in a court of law to be misleading at best and outright lying at worst. We are under and obligation at this encyclopedia to make sure the reader is aware of this. Eliminating mainstream sources from the description of this particular subject would be a great disservice to readers of this encyclopedia.

ScienceApologist (talk) 19:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

While I agree with SA's concerns, I think they are groundless. We will still have to present the contrast between mainstream and minority views.

"However, the fact is that if the only secondary sources we have exclusively reference "minority view positions from the perspective of the majority", there will be no way around this issue."

This isn't true: we can use sources written by fringe proponents with appropriate ATT to describe their views, then we can also describe the view of the secondary sources.

"The framing of the minority opinion will always be in the lens of the majority: that's the whole key to the WEIGHT proviso"

I highlight this here for the community. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever heard someone of agreeing with groundless concerns. Simply put, if there are no reliable sources that acknowledge that the minority perspective is had by a particular person then that particular person's self-published pronouncements should not be used in Wikipedia. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

SA - what are you talking about? usually it's better to read what was written before responding, rather than just spouting off what ever happens to be in your head at the moment. nowhere did I advocate 'criticism only' articles, or the exclusion of mainstream views.

you're just spewing gas. if you'd take the time to discuss the matter, you'd see that I'm not arguing with you anywhere near as much as you think I am. please pull yourself together and try again. --Ludwigs2 22:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

"usually it's better to read what was written before responding, rather than just spouting off what ever happens to be in your head at the moment" and "you're just spewing gas." are two comments that are both uncivil and needlessly personal. Please consider striking them. I also commented on your edit-summary attacks in an edit summary of my own. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Ludwigs, you've been blocked what 2,3,4 times over the past couple of months? You shouldn't be attacking anyone like you just did. Please refactor. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I see no reason to refactor (except possibly the part about spewing gas, which is unnecessarily colorful). the fact of the matter is, SA's response has little or no bearing on the issue at hand, and is a gross misrepresentation of what I said. how would you have dealt with that problem? I could explain it again, if you like... --Ludwigs2 01:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Questions on UNDUE

As long as WP:UNDUE is in a fluid state, there are issues we have discussed elsewhere which would do well to be addressed and maybe clarified if there is enough agreement. Such as, to what extent does UNDUE restrict the content of an article about a minority view? Does it exclude any sources per se? Etc. PSWG1920 (talk) 04:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

UNDUE is not in a fluid state. --Ronz (talk) 15:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I meant since UNDUE is getting considerable attention, perhaps now would be a good time to get opinions on those questions, and clarify it if there is enough agreement. PSWG1920 (talk) 15:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with your suggestions, PSWG1920. Sorry. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE concerns the amount of coverage different views of a topic should receive, and as such is nothing to do with whether a given article should exist, or whether a particular source should be used. I think it is a mistake to try to set out how each wikipedia policy affects each other policy, not least because there are so many of them. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Repeating PSWG1920's questions:

• "to what extent does UNDUE restrict the content of an article about a minority view?"
• "Does it exclude any sources per se?"

--Ronz (talk) 15:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• WP:RS and WP:V are what restrict content of an article about a minority view.
• NPOV makes no claims on sourcing.

ScienceApologist (talk) 16:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

As all three of Wikipedia's core content policies note, in their leads, it is a serious mistake to interpret any of them in isolation from the others. The content of all articles, including those on minority views, is governed by WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. Using a poor-quality source may violate WP:V; using it to advance a novel conclusion may violate WP:NOR; or giving it equal time to "rebut" the conclusions of much more reliable sources may violate WP:NPOV. Generic questions about policy are almost always futile, because the applications are often content- and subject-specific. That's what article talk pages are for. The policies aren't ends in themselves, but means to build a serious, respectable reference work. MastCell ^Talk 18:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that's quite correct, MastCell. the content of articles is not governed by policy; if anything, the content of articles is governed by consensus, and policy is used to help settle disputes where consensus fails. in an article about a minority view, it seems reasonable that any reference which gives a clear description of the minority view should be acceptable, so long as that view is not presented as true, or as validated or accepted by any group other than its proponents. --Ludwigs2 18:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

No. While de facto consensus rules on content, de jure consensus cannot overrule policy. This is most prominent in cases of WP:BLP but it applies elsewhere. Please read WP:CONEXCEPT. A reference which gives a clear description of the minority view may be acceptable if the reference is reliable. Even if some random guy writes a webpage on some minority view that is very clear, that is not an acceptable source for an article on the minority view unless it can somehow be established that the source lives up to WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:NOR. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well said. --Ronz (talk) 18:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed not. Content is driven toward building "a serious, respectable reference work" (nod to MastCell), using the application of policy via editor consensus. The latter are tools. Where consensus goes against policy in a content issue, either the policy should be changed (via consensus!) so as to be more conducive to writing a good encyclopedia, or the policy should be enforced against (perhaps temporary) consensus, again with the thought of writing a serious, respectable reference work. The forest must not be lost for the trees, even though the trees make the forest. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

MastCell. first off, I don't think anyone suggested that we use a webpage "some random guy" made; that would be a bit silly, and a complete strawman argument. that aside, consensus de jure can, should, and does override policy when policy is extended beyond where it's supposed to apply. as it says in wp:reliable#Extremist and fringe sources:

Organizations and individuals that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist should be used only as sources about themselves and in articles about themselves or their activities; any information used must be directly relevant to the subject.

noting the important "only", of course, this suggests that such views are perfectly reliable sources for expressing minority views in minority topic articles. trying to exclude them would be a narrow and over-extended use of policy which ought to be ignored. As long as the comments about primary sourcing in wp:primary are kept in mind, where's the problem?

Yak. did you seriously just suggest that consensus is only a tool? wp:consensus says "Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making", which seems pretty specific. --Ludwigs2 22:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

No, the "only" is your insertion, which renders the statement quite different than what I originally meant. Your WP quote actually suggests it is indeed a very powerful tool (or perhaps metatool, if you wish to split hairs), which I agree with. But it is not infallible (like, say, the law of gravity); WP:IAR exists as an acknowledgement of that, as well as that "adhering to policy" isn't either (though both work just fine an awful lot of the time). Baccyak4H (Yak!) 04:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Nothing is infallible, and wikipedia is never going to be 'right', and basically I agree with you. I just start to frown a bit when I hear editors start to talk about the various core policies as though they give some special access to the truth. NPOV, NOP, and VERIFIABILTY may be really good rules, but they don't quite constitute a holy trinity, if you know what I mean...

Application to articles about a minority view

My main point is that UNDUE could more clearly distinguish its application to articles about a minority view from its application to more general-subject articles. Perhaps it could be split into two subsections? PSWG1920 (talk) 18:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand the problem. If the subject is <mumblefrotz>, then the aspects of <mumblebfrotz> should be presented in due proportion to their importance to <mumblefrotz>. Importance is determined by how much attention reliable sources place on that aspect (and not, say, the attention given them by Wikipedia editors that happen to be adherents). (Please remember that said attention can be positive or negative: "X is complete garbage because..." is still attention, and it's not just reliable-sources-among-proponents that you survey for this purpose.)

If the topic itself is a minority view, then you do not redundantly repeat the majority view at great length -- not because we're presenting the minority view as being correct, or as being without critics, or even as being plausible, but because the details of the majority view are largely irrelevant to a description of the minority view (and if they aren't irrelevant, then the articles need to be merged). To give an example, if you have an article on the Beliefs of ancient Romans, you don't fill that article with long descriptions of the beliefs of all other times and cultures (although you may certainly mention them by way of explaining concepts, providing enlightening contrasts, or eludicidating the widely accepted demerits of the beliefs held by ancient residents of Rome, such as the idea that firefighting ought to be run by private companies that wouldn't put out the fire until you agreed to pay their price).

What exactly is the problem that we're trying to solve? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. The article that PSWG1920 and Ronz have in common is Bates method, a discredited early-20th century idea that eye exercises could eliminate refractive vision problems. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was just explaining that but there was an edit conflict and now I see there's no need to. UNDUE has been cited there a few times, but it seems to me that most of it is more applicable to whether and to what extent the Bates method merits mention in a more general optometry-related article than what should and shouldn't be in the Bates method article itself. Hence my suggestion for a more clear distinction between UNDUE's application to an article about a minority viewpoint and its application to a more general-subject article. PSWG1920 (talk) 19:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

"Generic questions about policy are almost always futile, because the applications are often content- and subject-specific. " MastCell has here hit on the principle which we need to incorporate specifically: weight is relative to that subject of an article, as are the sources which are acceptable (FRINGE already says that almost).

The the content of articles is governed by policy in that it is goverened by WEIGHT and RS etc., and consensus cannot overrule policy. However, it's true that a ref which would not be acceptable in one article will be in another, due to the information needed. A reference which gives a clear description of the minority view may be acceptable even it if it is not an intrinsically reliable source: a Creationist is a good source for what Creationists believe.

"Even if some random guy writes a webpage on some minority view that is very clear, that is not an acceptable source for an article on the minority view unless it can somehow be established that the source lives up to WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:NOR." This is utterly wrong, and we should make clear that it is utterly wrong- unless it is meant that you could establish the guy as an expert on the fringe subject (whether believer or no) and then use the source. Sometimes to explicate what a fringe idea is about, you have to use self-published or otherwise unreliable sources. This is ok, as long as you use ATT.

"My main point is that UNDUE could more clearly distinguish its application to articles about a minority view from its application to more general-subject articles. Perhaps it could be split into two subsections?"

Excellent suggestion: let's do it.

"I do not understand the problem. If the subject is <mumblefrotz>, then the aspects of <mumblebfrotz> should be presented in due proportion to their importance to <mumblefrotz>."

WhatamIdoing, the problem is that a lot of people object to this very obvious principle.

The principle we need to incorporate is that the weight we give to anything is realtive to the subject of the article. This is an utterly obvious principle which is unconsciously used on every article. Yet, because it's not explicated in policy, people can argue against it in specific instances, to the detriment of the article and NPOV. MastCell and WhatamIdoing are right. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes to explicate what a fringe idea is about, you have to use self-published or otherwise unreliable sources. This is ok, as long as you use ATT. You cannot simply attribute everything and make it okay. This is the essence of the synergy between WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:RS. Reference to an unreliable/self-published source should only be done to establish the perspective of that person, when it is determined by other means that this person's opinion is somehow relevant to the prose at hand. If other means establishing a reasonable editorial need to include this person's perspective as explicated by their own self-published unreliable sources cannot be determined, we simply do not use the source at all. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

That's right, but the intrinsic reliability of the source may not be an issue, relative to what the mainstream believes or scientific consensus. One can use a book or article if the source is acknowledged to speak for the field. Even if it isn't mainstream or scientific. In other words, reliable sources are relative to the subject being discussed. We should specifically incorporate this obvious principle, as people often argue that because the source is not reliable in one sense it is not reliable in others. However, if a self published source is acknowledged to speak for a field, it can be so used. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no way a self-published source can speak for a "field". It can speak for the self-publisher (who, in some cases, may encompass the entire group of people who are active in a fringe field). ScienceApologist (talk) 22:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

---

"The framing of the minority opinion will always be in the lens of the majority: that's the whole key to the WEIGHT proviso"

This is absolutely correct for articles on mainstream subjects. Some editors here also think it is correct for articles on fringe subjects. We should put something in WEIGHT to specifically address it, so that it will not be an issue in the future. Please comment. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not adopt the sympathetic-point-of-view which is a feature of wikinfo. Inasmuch as the encyclopedia is going to be neutral, it must position itself in such a way so that the best sources are appealed to across the board. Martinphi's proposal would have the effect of declaring reliable sources unreliable in articles devoted to fringe topics if they are judged by editors not to be supportive enough of the fringe topics. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

No. I never said any such thing. And it wasn't my proposal that Weight is relative to the subject of an article: I think it was MastCell's here, and others. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

SA - again, that's a complete strawman argument. reliable sources are (of course) reliable universally, but reliable sources should be presented according to their particular weight in a topic, and within a minority viewpoint article mainstream reliable sources are relatively minor voices compared to a discussion of the minority viewpoint. a reader who reads a article on an off-beat subject ought to come away from it with FIRST a clear understanding of the perspective of that off-beat subject, and SECOND a recognition of why mainstream sources disregard that subject. if either is missing, or if the mainstream sourcing prevents a clear understanding of the off-beat topic, then the article is biased. --Ludwigs2 23:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no consensus at all on Wikipedia that within a minority viewpoint article' mainstream reliable sources are relatively minor voices compared to a discussion of the minority viewpoint. In fact, quite the opposite. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

again, if you would quit arguing and actually discuss the matter, we would come to an understanding very quickly. I'm not unsympathetic to your position; I'm just trying to introduce some common sense into it. Obviously, if you have some off-the-wall concept, the best person to describe the off-the-wall concept is someone who advocates for it. Mainstream sources do not have a lot of insight into off-the-wall concepts, because (again, obviously) mainstream sources think the concept is off-the-wall. Mainstream sources are necessary to place the off-the-wall concept into proper worldly perspective, but they are not particularly useful for saying what the concept is. now, you may be of the opinion that off-the-wall concepts don't belong in wikipedia at all (which strikes me as opposed to wp:notability and wp:notcensored, but may be worth discussion), but if they are included, they should be described accurately and critiqued fairly. correct? --Ludwigs2 01:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

What makes you think I'm "arguing"? In any case, the best person to describe the off-the-wall concept is not necessarily someone who advocates it. I think mainstream sources have a lot of insight into off-the-wall concepts and I find a lot of them give excellent descriptions for what off-the-wall concepts are. I summarily disagree with your assessment that off-the-wall concepts should have their descriptions sourced to their proponents. I don't think that there is a consensus for this idea at Wikipedia, either. This is not me being argumentative, this is me being honest about what I think. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

ok, I'll take this as non-argumentative and respond in kind. my concern here would be that a mainstream source (except in those cases where they are being particularly careful and sensitive) will present a fringe view exclusively through the lens of mainstream views. thus, when you get to some of the more demented ideas in the world, mainstream sources will tend to present them simply as demented, and miss the very elements that made that demented idea make sense to its followers. Advocates don't have that problem: they will present the demented idea as though it were the most perfectly logical thing in the world, and the reader will be able to see how someone might have believed that demented thing. then the mainstream views can come in to show why it is demented, and the reader will have learned much more than would have been possible simply by reading the mainstream views, while still avoiding the possibility that they might get sucked into the demented worldview. now if you get a careful and sensitive mainstream source that adequately does the job of presenting the demented view and refuting it, then that source is truly excellent. but if not, then I think the best way to reach something akin to NPOV is to carefully balance advocates who understand the logic of the demented view and mainstream sources who can keep things firmly rooted on the planet earth. does that make sense? --Ludwigs2 02:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

It's the consensus view that requires WP:RS. When we write about, for example, Time cube, we MUST use primary, self-published sources, and not pretend that it is anything more than one person's view, and must be so attributed in order to satisfy WP:V. If you can't write a neutral summary of a minority viewpoint from primary sources without implying it is anything more, you shouldn't be editing. --Raevaen (talk) 06:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

balance

I revereted this edit - "and give precedence to those sources that are most reliable and verifiable." to the balance section, because I think it confuses the issue. really I object to the 'give precedence' phrase, which makes it sound as though other perspectives should be discounted. is there a better way to phrase this? --Ludwigs2 19:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

You also undid edits to UNDUE, which is being discussed above.

As far as the changes to balance go, i'm not happy with the wording either. I'm more concerned that it should tie-in WP:OR though. --Ronz (talk) 20:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The entire section is suspect. I've always contended that NPOV != balance. The fact that we have WEIGHT is an indicator of this. Should we maybe get rid of the entire section? Does it add anything? ScienceApologist (talk) 20:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

hmmm... it seems to me that what the section was originally trying to say was an extension of what it says at the top in wp:Neutral_point_of_view#The_neutral_point_of_view. the extension being that some preference should be given to sources that are attempting to be neutral (as opposed to sources that have a clear bias or agenda). interesting thought, though I'm not sure how well that could be assessed in a discussion. is that kind of thing a useful addition? --Ludwigs2 01:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

As is often the case, we have no real way of determining which sources are "attempting to be neutral" and which aren't. Unless we have some standards that can help us determine this, I say that this is probably a vestige of an earlier understanding of NPOV. I don't see many people arguing about the neutrality of a source anymore. The issue of WP:RS and WP:V tend to trump those considerations, especially considering our WP:YESPOV ideal. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Question on NPOV / UNDUE weight, for a minority view

Should we include minority views even when we KNOW that such a view is provably totally wrong, especially when also offensive? When a view is wrong, does it not then automatically become a tiny minority view even when 1% of people would hold it? Surely, a few vocal and notable proponents of such a ludicrous view do not make such a view notable enough to seriously include it into a main article on such a subject; especially when there already exists an article to the idiot view! Wouldn't we make ourselves a laughing stock to include crackpot theories into otherwise well written, coherent articles?

Thanks,
 — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 20:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE answers your concerns about inclusion of minority views, methinks. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I also contend if you have enough WP:RS to verify inclusion, then it moves beyond a minority view. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

You mean, should we describe the viewpoint that Hell is eternal even though it is utterly offensive and wrong? Read WP:NOTABILITY also. However, I like the principle: if it's wrong, it's minority, and doesn't get mentioned. I could use that a lot =D But really, I think you are getting mixed up between fringe views in articles on mainstream views, and fringe views in their own articles (people do that a lot). No, a 1% view would not get mentioned in a mainstream article, or would be given no more than a sentence- if that, and only when the proponents managed to get into a lot of the sources. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought Hell was other people? Like in that play where the same four or five people are stuck on the same talk page, having the same discussions and the same conflicts over and over again for eternity? Oops, did I say "talk page"? :) MastCell ^Talk 22:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead, two literary figures on the verge of existential autonomy, but finding themselves forced to live out their roles in Hamlet eternally. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 01:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Heh, heh, you funny. Since we seem to agree on the general principle (above sections), and it would be possible to make things clear enough to clean up this whole mess, why not help out? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Two words: learned helplessness. MastCell ^Talk 05:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

lol - it's like I always say - society is a wonderful thing that's ruined because we have to share it with others. we can't omit a view because it's offensive. we can omit a view because it's not a particularly significant point of view within a particular topic, although (so I think) if the point of view is notable enough to have its own article, then it ought to get a fair reading within that article, if nowhere else. that last point, however, seems to be contested... --Ludwigs2 01:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

You're right. The last point you made is contested because NPOV != fair. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, this helps. Martin-phi, about "getting mixed up": I am not asking about articles devoted to fringe topics but I intend to get clear about mentioning fringe views in the main articles of the same topic. // ScienceApologist, thanks for the WP:FRINGE link. It says: "Other well-known, reliable, and verifiable sources which discuss the theory first are required so that Wikipedia is not the primary source for such claims." The problem is when among these 1% crackpots there are some high-profile politicians, (other) actors, and scientists (e.g. with Scientol***), it is then clear that Wikipedia is not going to be the primary source for such nonsense. But must we reverse this principle: when these fringe views have been amply reported upon, and even criticised for being wrong, would then such views merit mentioning in any main article even when they are wrong and offensive? // OrangeMarlin, would such a view, when they managed to have it published in several reliable newspapers etc., be necessary for us to mention in wikipedia's main articles or can we safely leave it out since we can PROVE it is wrong? // Ludwigs2, I agree that such a view should get a fair treatment in its "private" article. But what in "main" articles?
And a further question: what if we leave out this crackpot view, can we also leave out the facts which it claims support it? These facts would be agreed upon, as well as reported by RS, but they serve no other purpose than to advance the agenda of the minority view and make it LOOK credible. When we KNOW the minority view to be wrong, such facts are useless in the main article and we should not include them, in order not to annoy or confuse our readers. Right?  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 05:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

One would think so, but it is all about whether they get the press in the reliable sources. Sorry, but WP works on a level over common sense sometimes, because humans don't. In this case, who determines it's wrong? As WP editors, we're not supposed to be in that business. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

After much discussion of WP:UNDUE...

...We don't seem to have "solved the problem". Perhaps I can offer an outside view. Please consider the following hypothetical timeline of events:-

1. An editor sees something they think needs changing in an article, so they boldly change it.
2. A different editor reverts the change, citing policy WP:XYZ.
3. Several editors discuss the matter on the article Talk page.
4. A consensus emerges that, as currently written, WP:XYZ does indeed support the reversion of the original change.
5. Other editors join the discussion, and, amid cries of "zOMG, WP:XYZ says what??!!1" and "Dude, that is so not how we do things, whatever WP:XYZ says," consensus is reached that the text of the policy must be updated to again be a widely accepted standard that all editors should follow.
6. WP:XYZ is changed.

Not bad, eh? Now, imagine the above sequence without step #5. It doesn't look so good, does it? Arguably a classic example of WP:POINT. I do hope that that isn't the case here. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 01:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and the *point* I'm trying to make is that the way we do things, in every article, is to make WEIGHT be relative to the subject. How much weight we give it is dependent on the subject and the sources. That's what we do, except in certain rare circumstances when editors don't like how the subject would be treated. Then we give some other view (fringe or mainstream) more weight. If we but explained and incorporated the common, commonsense practiced and practical notion that WEIGHT is not an absolute, we would solve a lot of problems. For example, the article on Atheism is not mainly about mainstream views- it's about Atheism. Atheism is a fringe view, but nicely treated. Why? Because WEIGHT is relative to the subject of the article. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)