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.

Wikipedia:Neutrality

How about renaming this page to Wikipedia:Neutrality (which already links here) and extending it with badly needed aspects on issues of relative coverage other than just the issue of POV pushing, which this policy page traditionally gives far too much attention? I think most non-neutrality in articles is due not to a POV mindset, but to a rather innocuous ignorance on many different aspects of article writing and layout.

Also, I'd welcome something on the imo hugely problematic POV issue of criticism sections. I dorftrottel I talk I 05:18, November 25, 2007

Nevermind. I dorftrottel I talk I 05:27, November 25, 2007

Good summary quote

I found this in Robert Nozick's Philosophical Explanations:

"If a person is wondering whether or not to believe p, can't we offer him reason to believe it as help?" Yes, if your help is neutral. But do you also offer reasons for not believing p? Do you pursue with further reasons for p if the first fail to convince?

Maybe it could be added somewhere in WP:NPOV? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-11-26 13:57Z

AN INDIVIDUAL IS FREE NOT TO BELIEVE.... BUT THEY ARE NOT FREE TO ABUSE OR OFFEND... STOP OFFENDING MUSLIMS... STOP OFFENDING PROPHET MUHAMMAD... REMOVE PICTURES OF PROPHET MUHAMMAD IMMEDIATELY ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.232.46.210 (talk) 11:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Unreliable reliable sources

Is there a policy that describes how to handle a situation where most of the normal sources are suspected to be biased? Imagine, for a moment, that you are working on the Soviet Union Wikipedia, and you are inside the Soviet Union, and all your fellow editors are inside the Soviet Union, and most available information is published by the government. Suppose you are writing an article on Stalin and want to list how many people he killed. But "official" estimates say he didn't kill anybody. "Official" estimates say he made the entire country happy (although you yourself know several depressed people, officially they are classified as "extremely happy"). How would NPOV be achieved in such a situation?

To put it another way, if the emperor has no clothes, but all the kings officials, and even diplomats visiting from other kingdoms, insist he's quite well dressed, and if about half the people have seen the king walking around without clothes, what does NPOV demand from the "best-dressed list"? Is the king on the list or not? Is he on the list with a footnote? Is he put on a separate list? How about the list of people who don't wear clothes; does the king get put on that list even though he is officially well-dressed? Readin (talk) 15:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, policies are pretty clear. Wikipedia content must be verifiable - cited to reliable sources ("Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made.") There are strict guidelines which constrain the use of self-published sources.

We are not working on the Soviet Union Wikipedia, and we are not inside the Soviet Union. If the Emperor has no clothes, it has no doubt been noted in a published source. If it hasn't, then it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Dlabtot (talk) 16:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Although we are not in the Soviet Union, I think the original question has merit. To cite a more murky, but perhaps more tangible example, consider the class of articles on alternative health (e.g., Energy medicine, Alternative medicine, Complementary and alternative medicine). In this case, officials (e.g., mainstream scientists) and diplomats (e.g., scientifically trained contributors) insist that the king (e.g., subtle energy based treatments) are quite well dressed (e.g., total nonsense). But there are many people (e.g., practitioners, scientific minority) walking around the kingdom seeing, from their perspective, no clothes (e.g., the stuff works). This results in a skeptic vs. believer conflict. The dominant view seems to be that mainstream scientific perspective is the correct one and the alternative perspective is bunk. The problem with this is that these pages tend to degenerate into The-Skeptical/Scientific-Perspective-On-Topic-X. My question is this ... who defines the Neutral point of view? Should neutral not be taken with respect to the field? Should we start adding fundamentalist religious criticisms to all the scientific articles? Perhaps one could formalize the notion the "view from within" and "view from without". Forgive me if I have taken this topic on a tangent. Being completely new to Wiki, I felt it better to join the closest matching commentary than raise a new topic. I see variations on this theme several places on this page.--Mbilitatu (talk) 21:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Whatever the 'belief', the standard for inclusion in Wikipedia is notability. If a significant number of reliable sources haved published coverage of this belief, it warrants inclusion in Wikipedia. When discussing that belief, sources should be appropriate to the claims made. The current effort by a certain band of editors to define reliable sources as those that publish from a particular point of view, specifically, the soi-disant 'scientific' point of view, is destined to fail, as it is significantly at odds with the NPOV policy. Dlabtot (talk) 22:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like to agree, that there is a lacune in our policies. See below for more. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 07:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC) i.e. (#Selection bias leading to NPOV violation?)

Worked on the part about objectivity.

It was a bit wishy-washy, so I worked on it a little bit. The way it was written, it suggested that editing with bias is OK. [1] ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 19:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

reverted, see edit summary. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Francis, your summary did not seem to contradict my edit. I think it has to do with the word "judgment," which may connote an intolerance for other views. Do you agree that users should use "sound judgment"? And would it be better if the word judgment were replaced with a synonym, like assessment? From WP:NPOV:

One can think of unbiased writing as the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate...

...a neutral reader to fairly and equally assess...

We should, both individually and collectively, make an effort to present these conflicting views fairly, without advocating any one of them...

The point was to clarify that users should attempt to exercise good judgment and attempt to make edits based "on observable phenomena without bias."

☯  Zenwhat (talk) 19:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

"Sound editorial judgement" is guideline stuff, not policy stuff. Sound editorial judgement is that "extra" thing needed to write more than average articles, but which eludes policy wording. It certainly eludes your proposed rewritings.

My edit summary:

"basing one's judgment" is exactly NOT "what editors should do", READERS should be able to base their judgement on neutral descriptions - editors shouldn't impose their judgment by what they write (bolding added)

One of your sentences I had removed:

One common understanding of objectivity is that it involves basing one's judgment on observable phenomena without bias. In accordance with neutral point of view and verifiability, that's precisely what editors should do. (bolding added)

As for your first quote, here's the bolding I'd apply:

One can think of unbiased writing as the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate [...]

I'm quite sure that's a part you missed thus far (replacing "all relevant sides of a debate" by "observable phenomena"), and which makes the difference w.r.t. objectivity: objectivity assumes one side of a debate (the "objective" side), and writes from that side. That's something a reporter who writes an article in a newspaper can strive for, but it is unworkable for an encyclopedia where every article is co-authored by anyone who cares to get involved. Then "objective" is useless, because the "objective" approach can be different depending on background of the author, and can nor should be imposed on other authors of the Wikipedia encyclopedia nor on the reading public. Instead, Wikipedia chose and still chooses to let different biases co-exist on the same page, while biases can't be excluded altogether (beware of the person who tells you s/he is totally unbiased - doesn't exist). In this way articles as a whole approach "lack of bias", while biases should balance each other. This is what the policy means by the "neutral point of view", which is a "point of view" (see 2nd paragraph of WP:NPOV#The neutral point of view), but which is not a synonym of "objectivity". --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Journalists make no assumptions about objective "sides." That's an appeal to authority. Their analysis is intended to be objective -- meaning based on evidence and bias-free. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 22:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

No analysis is "objective", any analysis bears the marks of the (background of the) individual performing the analysis. Whatever an analysis is based upon, no two analyses will be exactly the same, even when their authors independently strive for objectivity and avoidance of bias.

And, as said, whatever a single author of a newspaper article strives for, it has little bearing on how to write an encyclopedia where any paragraph can be co-authored by an indiscriminate number of authors. One person's "objectivity" is another person's "bias". Wikipedia policy does not try to avoid the unavoidable. Well, sure, if more editors would grasp how to put that basic premise of Wikipedia's NPOV policy in practice, there wouldn't have been any need to list so many names here --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I fully support Francis Schonken's revert. We certainly don't want to advise folks to edit based on what they decide is the "Objective POV" Dlabtot (talk) 23:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Frank Schonken, the claim that there is "no such thing as objective analysis." Is that a fact or is that just your personal opinion? ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 01:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It could be both, it could be neither (false dichotomy). Really, I don't see why whether or not that is my personal opinion would make any difference for the content of the WP:NPOV/FAQ page.

As said, a choice was made (probably before either of us got involved in the Wikipedia project) on how to go about with objectivity in this project. At first glance that choice may even seem surprising, as Wikipedia's founder was inspired by Ayn Rand (Objectivism!). So it seems (although I'm probably not expert enough on these matters to write this) that even Wikipedia's founder's personal opinion on objectivity wasn't the sole determining factor for what went in the NPOV policy and what didn't (neither did Jimbo ever say otherwise). --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Here we go again, confusing objectivity & neutrality. I will repeat myself : objectivity is feasible but incompatible with the NPOV policy because objectivity implies judging the credibility of an idea and, hence, expressing a point of view. Emmanuelm (talk) 12:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Those who are incapable of doing this are worthless not only to this project, but to society in general. Bensaccount (talk) 15:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Francis Schonken, to rephrase my question: Your assertion that "Objectivity does not exist." Do you believe that is a reliable, objection assertion or is it your subjective opinion, and therefore unreliable? If you don't consciously believe you're being objective, but rather, you're knowingly thinking in your head, "ROFLMAO! I'm so biased!!! Let me see how much of my subjective views and opinions I can publish in this place!!" then while it's theoretically possible your opinion might be correct, you are hurting Wikipedia and violating policy.

Bensaccount put it very harshly, but he's right. Such an attitude does not belong on Wikipedia or elsewhere, for that matter. See Eel wriggling, Sophistry, and Nihilism. If you don't believe it's possible to "objectively evaluate" sources, it's hard to follow how you could adhere to WP:NPOV. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 08:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Bensaccount sounds a bit ad hominem. People have views. Their views might lack evidence, or consistency, that does not make them worthless as people, no matter what you think of their arguments. Can we stick to attacking the argument? Thanks. I do agree that the word "objective" is an issue. I don't think there is an objective "side" to an argument. Editing under policy is a process, not a position. We should have no position except to edit within the policy. That is, what we think of the world in general, or in particular, should not weigh on whether we can edit under the policy restrictions. Wjhonson (talk) 21:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Wjhonson, it's not the existence of views that I'm objecting to. Scientists and journalists have views as well, but what makes them good scientists and journalists is the ability to move beyond their views and analyze the facts objectively. Editors are worthless if they can't let go of their views or avoid using Wikipedia to push their own biases. This idea is already reflected in existing policy, as shown above, so avoiding the word "objective" and the nonsense here here seems silly. It's not true. It seems like it's just up there to make Francis Schonken feel good. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 21:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

An open question: What is a "neutral reader," in fact? ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 21:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

One point at a time. If you could express each suggested edit in the form:Here is what it says

blah blah blaq

and Here is what I want it to say

blah blah blaggerblaq

it would be helpful for those of us who like to address changes at an atomic level. In that form we can see, right here, the possible effect of the change, instead of needing to review stale edit fights. Thanks Wjhonson (talk) 22:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Wjhonson, I posted a diff above. I want it to be worded strongly. As it stands now, it supports Factual relativism, which is in violation of WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:FRINGE. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 00:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I find what you posted above to be difficult to understand. It's likely that I'm particularly slow-witted. Could you re-post showing what the language currently says, and what you'd like it to say? I think if we could deal with a single edit at a time, we'd understand a bit better at what you're driving. Wjhonson (talk) 01:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is the same diff I posted above. [2] ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 14:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The idea that only the observable is real is an important idea in human thought. Wikipedia includes this idea. But it also includes other ideas. Human beings have tried to make sense of their lives in multiple ways. Including a multiplicity of ideas and perspectives is considered part of what makes Wikipedia valuable. Maybe Factual relativism is a bad idea. But maybe not. It's not our job to make those types of judgments. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 17:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Shirahadasha, in general Wikipedia should not make judgments, but as Bensaccount noted above, if somebody does not believe in facts or the capability to attempt to be objective, then it is impossible for them to follow Wikipedia policy and collaborate. It would be impossible for such a person to follow either WP:V and WP:NPOV. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 18:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Another way of wording it: NPOV is teleological not ontological. Users should consciously attempt to be without bias and try to objectively verify and determine the reliability of sources, through critical thinking. This says nothing of the ontological claim of whether "objectivity" actually exists.

Referring to the relation between objectivity and NPOV as a strictly "empirical question, not a philosophical one" is absurd. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 17:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Deadly nightshade

Hello. I would like to add a sentence to the Deadly nightshade (aka Belladonna) article which in effect states: Deadly nightshade is used in homeopathic remedies. I have found sources which verify this statement - Discovering Homeopathy: Medicine for the 21st Century By Dana Ullman, The Oxford Book of Health Foods By John Griffith Vaughan & Patricia Ann Judd, and Family Homeopath by Robin Hayfield - all of which have been found to pass WP:RS according to this conversations at WP:RSN. It was further suggested there that we quote and attribute the source which is being used such that the sentence would read in effect: According to The Oxford Book of Health Foods, Deadly nightshade "is included... in homeopathic preparations for acne, boils, and sunburns".

Now, the question of undue weight has been brought up as an objection to inclusion of such a sentence. The objection is based on the thought that homeopathy is a fringe science and thus it represents a minority viewpoint. (I'm not sure that it matters, but homeopathy - though perhaps maintaining a minority view in the world of science - is widely used throughout the world and Deadly nightshade is a very popular ingredient for remedies, and in the context I wish to include this sentence, there are no scientific claims being made about homeopathy nor are any theories being presented.) Anyhow, my thought is that by only giving a one-sentence mention in the article, we would not be giving this information any undue weight, but rather providing information about the topic which is actually quite interesting.

My question: Does the inclusion of one sentence such as - According to The Oxford Book of Health Foods, Deadly nightshade "is included... in homeopathic preparations for acne, boils, and sunburns". - in the article Deadly nightshade violate WP:UNDUE?

Thanks for your time. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I'll move over here to, but am happy to wait for more views before I join in again. Stephen B Streater (talk) 22:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd appreciate it. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to take the focus away from Levine2112's question, but would like to point out that this is part of a much larger issue currently being played out at several similar articles about plant species, including (but not limited to) Thuja occidentalis (see also the recent discussions on the project page, especially here, here, and here). Between the systematic deletion of any mention of a plant species being used in homeopathy (however well documented or neutrally worded) and the persistent disparaging of any references that is cited (these sources not supporting homeopathy but simply documenting the fact that the plant is so used), I have much the same concerns that he does. MrDarwin (talk) 22:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like responders here to be aware that we've extensively discussed this topic already at reliable sources noticeboard and all sides already agree that all or some of the works above cited are "experts in their field of study" and so that portion of the issue shouldn't be reargued here. We're here more specifically to address on-point, our sub-section on undue weight and how it might apply to this case. Thanks! Wjhonson (talk) 22:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, no-one has an agenda of removing "all" homeopathic mentions, there was simply a concern about weighting. At the begining Levine proposed that any mention of a substance in a published source on homeopathy was sufficient to put a mention in an article, which lead to concern about virtually every material article having to have a mention, so it was requested that notability had to be established. Jefffire (talk) 08:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

To be clear, there is a slight difference to notability and prominence. The former is usually applied to articles. The latter is applied to ideas and POV contained in articles. A yucky distinction, but one that has to be made in order to avoid people complaining about notability guidelines being inapplicable to these discussions. In point of fact, notability and prominence are very similar, but since there is no community consensus for applying notability directly to article content, we should be careful what words we choose. ScienceApologist (talk) 10:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

So notability (WP:N) is not pertinent to this discussion, WP:DUE or WP:UNDUE is. Perhaps we should completely avoid using that term notability in this discussion. Anthon01 (talk) 11:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

If we can all simply assume good faith then we can just make the replacements in our mind without having to make a big fuss over it. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Undue weight tutorial

I will now offer an explanation for how undue weight should be applied in articles pertaining to these kinds of situations. For the purposes of this explanation, it is necessary to define a few terms:

1. The subject of an article is considered to be the thing that is represented in title of the article. In the case referenced above, the subject is deadly nightshade.
2. The category of an article is considered to be the broader topic to which the subject is considered a specific instance. In the case referenced above, the category is plants.
3. The connected idea is the contentous fact, statement, or point-of-view asserted to be of import to the subject. In the case referenced above, the connected idea is the homeopathic use of deadly nightshade.

Undue weight states as an opening sentence: "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." This is the sense in which the connected idea needs to be evaluated. Effectively, it is the prominence of the connected idea with reference to the subject that needs to be established in order to justify the inclusion or exclusion of an idea per the undue weight clause. I will note that this is different from the prominence of the connected idea with referece to the category. While a minority or fringe opinion may be prominent relative to a category (e.g. astrology is prominent relative to astronomy) the same minority or fringe opinion is not necessarily prominent to all subjects in that category (e.g. there is no reference to astrology on the radio astronomy article).

The only way to determine the prominence of a connected idea with respect to the subject is to find reliable sources that assert the prominence of the idea with respect to the subject. What makes a reliable source? A reliable source in this instance is any mainstream independent source that is about the subject in question. Note that sources which are about the connected idea or dependent on the connected idea are not reliable for establishing the prominence of the connected idea to the subject. For example, a homeopathic desk reference on plants is not a reliable source for establishing the prominence of the connected idea of the homeopathic use of deadly nightshade to the subject of deadly nightshade. However, a mainstream field guide to plants that mentions that deadly nightshade is famous for its application in homeopathy would be a mainstream independent source that could be used to establish the prominence of the connected idea to the subject. In the case of deadly nightshade, there have been two separate problems plaguing the sources offered for inclusion by those hoping to establish the prominence of the connected idea to the subject. In some instances, the sources referenced were not about the subject of the article but rather were about the connected idea. In this case, the connected idea is clearly a fringe subject (inasmuch as homeopathy is pseudoscience) so such sources are subject to extra scrutiny. So a book on homeopathy that mentions deadly nightshade only shows that deadly nightshade may deserve mention in some article devoted to homeopathy. According to fringe guidelines, sources that are strictly about fringe material cannot really be used to establish the prominence of fringe material with respect to a mainstream subject. I have summarized this idea succinctly as the principle of one-way linking. Alternatively, some of the sources offered by those asserting the prominence of the connected idea to the subject were purportedly about the subject of the article (or at least the category of the article) but were not independent of the connected idea. So, for example, a book on the homeopathic uses of plants does not establish the prominence of the homeopathic use of plants outside of the purview of those interested in homeopathy. In order to establish prominence fairly and neutrally, it is necessary to find a source that is independent of homeopathy which asserts the prominence of homeopathy to deadly nightshade. If no independent mainstream sources can be located which assert the prominence of the connected idea to the subject, then the connected idea does not deserve mention in the article.

There is precedent for the application of this principle where the connected idea was found to be prominent through the use of mainstream independent sources on the subject. A particularly relevant example for this discussion where proper sourcing was done to establish the prominence of a connected idea to the subject of an article was what happened in the domesticated sheep article. In this example, User:VanTucky was able to point to a mainstream, independent source that mentioned that certain sheep producers had employed homeopathy in the health maitenance of their flocks. This effectively established the prominence of the connected idea of homeopathic remedies for sheep ailments to the subject of domesticated sheep. There is now an appropriately weighted sentence in the article which discusses the implications of this connected idea to the subject.

ScienceApologist (talk) 08:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

This sums it up accurately. In the case of Deadly Nightshade, one might think that if homeopathy was important to deadly nightshade it would be easy to find independent articles on deadly nightshade which mention homeopathy. In fact, no one has been able to find one so far, casting continuing doubt on the significance of homeopathy to the topic of deadly nightshade. Stephen B Streater (talk) 09:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

And I contend that the Oxford Book of Health Food is such a source. My contention was confirmed at WP:RSN by every outside editor. This book satisfies your desire to have an independent reliable source - a bar which I believe you are setting WAY too high. Regardless, your high bar has been met with this book which fully supports this statement for inclusion: According to The Oxford Book of Health Foods, Deadly nightshade "is included... in homeopathic preparations for acne, boils, and sunburns". -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

My understanding was that this book was not proven to be a reliable source on the importance of homeopathy to deadly nightshade, only the importance of deadly nightshade to homeopathy. Stephen B Streater (talk) 22:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Quite the opposite. This is a from a book about health foods (of which I guess Deadly Nightshade can be considered). And this is from an article in said book about Deadly Nightshade specifically, not about Homeopathy. Hence, if anything, this source shows the "importance" (more like "relevance") of homeopathy to deadly nightshade. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Am I the only one who sees the unintended irony and humor involved in attempting to assign undue weight to one's opinion by calling it a "tutorial"? Dlabtot (talk) 19:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

You are free to add your own views to the tutorial if you disagree with the portrayal so far. Stephen B Streater (talk) 22:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

This rant, mistakenly labeled a tutorial, is so wrong in so many ways, it's better left alone to sink under the weight of its own bombast. The real issue here is summed up quite well by Wjhonson (talk · contribs) below. Dlabtot (talk) 16:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought it was very clear and well argued. If you can't pinpoint any errors, then I can accept that. Stephen B Streater (talk) 16:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

LOL, sure, pretend that it is "without error". Like wisdom engraved on tablets and handed down by God. That's a good one. Dlabtot (talk) 16:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

There's a perfectly good undue weight tutorial at WP:UNDUE. That's what people should read if they want to be tutored in undue weight. Dlabtot (talk) 16:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

No one is saying you have to explain your criticisms. Equally, your link to WP:UNDUE is helpful. Particularly this comment by Jimbo: If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not. In the UK and US, homeopathy is used by 1 in 50 who have medical treatment - ie some fraction of this in the population at large. And deadly nightshade could be some miniscule fraction of this. Stephen B Streater (talk) 17:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The Homeopathy article should be discussed at Talk:Homeopathy, Belladonna, at Talk:Deadly_nightshade They are not subjects in which I have any interest. Dlabtot (talk) 18:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Someone brought the discussion on the relevance of homeopathy to deadly nightshade here. That is what we are discussing now. If you have no interest in them, I suggest you don't join in. Stephen B Streater (talk) 18:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

An analogy

The plant is used to make a homeopathic "remedy," but nothing from the plant ends up in it. Electronics are used to make paper, but nothing from the electronics ends up in the paper. It is reasonable to mention electronics in an article on paper making, but it isn't reasonable to mention paper making in an article on electronics. Likewise, it is reasonable to mention the plant in an article on homeopathic remedies, but it is undue weight to mention homeopathy in the article about the plant. MilesAgain (talk) 22:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Who is the speaker?

I have found so far, the discussion to be very productive at eliciting the issues surrounding where we do and don't include minority viewpoints. It would be instructive for editors to present an answer to the question: When we include minority viewpoints, do we only do so, from the viewpoint of the majority? That is, do we allow minority viewpoints to be expressed in their own language? Thanks.Wjhonson (talk) 20:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I've asked a few other contributors, whose opinion I respect and who seem to have a clear understanding of past policy debates to weigh in, to wit: Slimvirgin and Blueboar. I would note for all editors above, that this process is not to conclude what we've previously decided, but rather the possibility of coming to a new conclusion or opening the process to further consensus-gathering to reach a clearer interpretation or possible new policy language to clarify the situation. I.E. it's a process, not a judgement. Wjhonson (talk) 20:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Do have any examples of where this makes a difference? LinaMishima (talk) 21:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the minority view, if it is expressed, should be expressed by saying that it is a minority view and saying what the view is in the terms of the minority. We should have the humility to realise that the majority view is not always correct, or at least that the minority view might contain a grain of truth. Stephen B Streater (talk) 22:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

And with this statement, we know exactly where this view is coming from: According to The Oxford Book of Health Foods, Deadly nightshade "is included... in homeopathic preparations for acne, boils, and sunburns". I don't think it is a minority view that DN is used like this; rather I think it is a minority view that it is a scientifically effective treatment. But we are not saying that. Are we? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Well that's an interesting way to slice the cake. I think we all agree that DN is used in homeopathic preparations, and the source is pretty neutral on that. The question maybe is: does anyone outside homeopathy care?. We haven't found any evidence that they do. If we ever do, then something along the lines of the Oxford quote above looks quite good. Stephen B Streater (talk) 22:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone outside of homeopathy care?

• Academic botany books
• Rheumatology, one of the most highly regarded Medical journals [3]
• University of Marland Medical Center

• Warts -- for warts of any location except plantar. [4]
• Prostatitis - specifically if there is a forked stream of urine [5]
• Belladonna -- for seizures that occur in individuals with a high fever [6]
• Lupus - Thuja occidentalis - [7]
• Lyme - [8]*

• Whitman College - (Top ranked) Enviro studies dept.[9]
• Cedars-Sinai Medical Center - When the prostate is enlarged - [10]

Would you like more? --Anthon01 (talk) 23:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see deadly nightshade mentioned in the articles I looked at. Please could you point out were the warts article mentioned the use of deadly nightshade as a homeopathic cure of warts? Similarly the rheumatology link didn't mention deadly nightshade as a homeopathic cure of anything, as far as I could see. Stephen B Streater (talk) 08:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, most people don't care about most things in Wikipedia. If this is a use of Deadly Nightshade popular enough to be verifiable (which it appears to be), it deserves mention (probably under its own section: Homeopathic use). SBHarris 22:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Right on. Though I can see how having its own section might possibly be giving it too much weight. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure having your own section header per se confers the caché of importance (like the "rich sardine"- just one per can...") A seperate section header can also be simply a separation for topics that don't fit with others. You can view as being like the wall of a leper colony. It's more the length of discussion that needs to vaguely correlate with relative minority interests. And of course these things are hard to balance. Does once great historical interest balance minor present interest? And if so, how much? Depends on how much ancient history interests you. "Interest" always has a subjective component. Wikipedia rages with an ongoing war between the classicists ("Arisotle's essays are more important than Nintendo Wii games, even if more people DO care about Wii!"), vs. popularists. My own feeling is that the way to maximize the happiness of both classes, is to put it ALL in, somewhere. That's the luxury of a non-paper encyclopedia. SBHarris 23:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Your logic is sound, Sbharris. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Just sticking your finger in the air and saying that something is interesting is rather a subjective way of deciding what goes in here. Different people will have different views. We look for independent third parties who think information is worth adding. If homeopathy is so important to deadly nightshade, there should be many deadly nightshade articles outside homeopathy which give homeopathy some prominence. I haven't seen a single one yet. Stephen B Streater (talk) 08:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) Reverse the tables and ask the same question Stephen. You're couching the language. We should be discussing whether or not we present the minority viewpoint, from their own internal sources. That is: what is a viewpoint? Is it the view others have of you? Or the view you have of yourself? Does the majority always speak for the minority? That's really the issue we should be discussing.Wjhonson (talk) 08:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

My initial feeling is that the majority and/or significant minorities should decide what is important, and the minorities should speak with their own voices. I think the problem here may be caused not just because there is a schism between the mainstream and the alternative (ie pseudo scientific) theories of reality, meaning that there is little cross over, but that the alternative theories have vociferous support and an over optimistic view of their own significance. I would be interested to see some hard facts, for example how many people took homeopathic potions made from deadly nightshade last year. My suspicion is that very few did. It's one thing to list a cure as a possible cure. It's quite another for anyone to actually use it. Compared with the billions of doses of Zantac taken annually, the use is insignificant. Do we have any proof that even one homeopathic dose using deadly nightshade as described in this Oxford source was actually administered? You might think that if homeopathy was so important in this case, there would be many sources (apart from self-promotional homeopathic ones) which mention it. Conversely, the absence of homeopathic mentions in any general deadly nightshade source is very important. But I may have missed one, so I remain open minded. Stephen B Streater (talk) 10:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I have had related experiences before here. The areas which I work on or which relate to my hobbies seem very important to me, and some of them are important generally. But others are ignored by the outside world. Only adding things which are recognised by the world at large helps keep Wikipedia from becoming an indiscriminate collection of information. Stephen B Streater (talk) 10:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

My apologies for posting Thuja data before. Please note, Belladonna is deadly nightshade.

• U of SF - those most commonly used in the treatment of headache pain are belladonna [11]
• Belladonna and Bryonia are classic homeopathic remedies often used for an inflamed appendix[12]
• University of Maryland Medical Center

• Ear infection - [13]
• Belladonna - for throbbing headaches that come on suddenly [14]
• Infantile colic - [15]
• sinus congestion and headache - [16]
• and 28 more - [17]

• University of Chicago Medical Center [18]
• Oregon health and Science University [19]
• University of NH [20]
• Cedar-Sinai - Urinary Tract Infection - [21]
• Uof T Medical - Belladonna (Deadly Nightshade) is used when the classic symptoms of inflammation are present: pain, heat, erythema and swelling. [22]
• Cornell U. - throbbing headache [23]
• [24]
• MedlinePlus - helps in IBS - [25]
• Nat Cancer Inst - Dictionary - exhibits antiinflammatory activity - [26]
• Clinical Trials.gov - ongoing study - [27]

This is just a small sampling of independent articles which discuss homeopathic belladonna a.k.a. deadly nightshade. Anthon01 (talk) 13:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Some of these, such as University of Maryland have some good points. The page discusses appendicitis. It includes However, no scientific literature supports the use of homeopathy for appendicitis indicating that it is not a homeopathic source, but it does still think it worthwhile including: Belladonna and Bryonia are classic homeopathic remedies often used for an inflamed appendix, which according to the strictest interpretation of my rule would indicate that homeopathic Belladonna could be included in the appendicitis article. It is still possible that homeopathic treatment of appendicitis is so marginal a use of belladonna that it doesn't warrant a mention in the belladonna article. So to summarise, these medical articles are not conclusive for including homeopathy in the belladonna article unless it is also shown that homeopathic medicine is an important use of belladonna - what has been shown is that belladonna is important in homeopathy. The easiest way to show this is to find a book which discusses belladonna, which talks about uses in homeopathy. Nevertheless, one argument which hasn't been used is that a certain amount of space is allocated to medicinal uses in the WP article and also in general medical references, and so it would be reasonable to mirror this proportion of medical use in the WP article (provided this was enough to make a coherent entry). Stephen B Streater (talk) 16:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

For godssake! I'm an opponent of homeopathy (as you see from my userpage), but I'm also a big believer in fighting hypocrisy. Wikipedia is full of articles about odd and superstitious things, including all articles related to religion. And articles referencing religous ideas in articles about OTHER things! What counts is not the "importance" of this stuff (that's subjective), but the frequency of mention of these ideas in verifiable sources. If you google "belladonna", the FIRST reference that comes up, is a homeopathic one! And there is a "belladonna + homeopathy" link referenced as a major one from there. That pretty much means the use warrents a line in the belladonna wiki, end of argument. I don't care if the use is wrongheaded and crazy and stupid and quackish. It's done, and done frequently enough to have all kinds of commercial links. Wikipedia is about what humans DO, not what they SHOULD do. As a rationalist, I don't think people should join the Scientologists or the Mormons, or pay any attention to Fatwas or Talmudic arguments, but (guess what?) my personal opinions in the matter doesn't count, insofar as encyclopedia-worthiness. Enough people disagree with me that their opinions should be represented HERE. SBHarris 21:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

When I looked up belladonna in Google, the top non sexual/WP hit I got was this, which is a long article about deadly nightshade which doesn't mention homeopathy at all, despite a long medical section. You may believe that homeopathic use of belladonna is common or important, but then you may like to explain why none of the (non-specifically-homeopathic) articles mention homeopathy. My explanation is that homeopathy is a self-promoting industry which publishes a lot of propaganda (in non reliable sources) so they get high up in the Google rankings - but that they are basically irrelevant. If they are as important as you say, there must be many reliable articles about belladonna which talk about homeopathic uses. But the ones I have listed before, and this most recent one, do not even mention the homeopathic use of belladonna. All the ones I have found so far ignore homeopathy, which leads me to believe the article should to. And just because some articles contain rubbish doesn't meant that the one I am working on should too. Rather, all unsupported irrelevant or marginal information should be removed from articles making them shorter, cleaner and clearer. Stephen B Streater (talk) 21:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

You missed this "Hahnemann proved that tincture of Belladonna given in very small doses will protect from the infection of scarlet fever, and at one time Belladonnna leaves were held to be curative of cancer, when applied externally as a poultice, either fresh or dried and powdered." Now, what say you? Anthon01 (talk) 21:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

That first sentence is a tad dubious, which may remove it as a reliable source. Stephen might have wrongly identified it as one. Jefffire (talk) 21:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Predictably he'll say he doesn't believe it, even if the article says it. BTW, I'm a bit astounded that the top reference on google has moved to the "sponsored links" side, just in the hour since I checked it last. Does that mean this change happened just today? At any rate, it's advertising. Apparently the only advertising that links to belladonna, if you search google for that single word. And it's a homeopathic pharmacy [28]. You can't "ignore" homeopathy any more than you can ignore astrology. So what if it's self-promoting? So is every politician, even the bad ones. That doesn't make them non-encyclopedic. SBHarris 21:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

A reasonable guess. But actually my problem with this is that the very small doses mentioned in the article are not homeopathic doses, which would be billions of times smaller. The article is not talking about homeopathy. Stephen B Streater (talk) 22:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I missed this comment. If you are correct, then Hahnemann was poisoning his patients. Anthon01 (talk) 01:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

In fact this reference to Hahnemann was clearly about a homeopathic remedy. Anthon01 (talk) 02:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily. The figures quoted for the eye of 1/50000 grain are very small and given as safe. As the part you are referring to talks about scarlet fever, this is relevant - an account of early controlled trials to test the efficacy of belladonna to help scarlet fever (mentioning the earlier homeopathic claims): Begbie concludes: It is our opinion that experience has altogether failed to recommend the employment of belladonna, and that we should now be prepared to abandon the practice, as not only insufficient but absurd. (Begbie 1855, p 101). Just because something was incorrectly thought to be helpful does not merit its inclusion in an encyclopaedia. Stephen B Streater (talk) 08:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm finding that this repeated mischaracterisation of the discussion very unhelpful. This isn't about censoring anything, its about ensuring proper sourcing. Now it's probably highly likely that we will find a suitable source for the uses of belladonna in homeopathy, but the discussion is also deeply confused by the push to put homeopathic mentions into a much larger number of article where its prominance is much more limited. Jefffire (talk) 22:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I think people are people. We can't force everyone to live by science anymore than we can by religion. Both are important to to all of us and both need to be represent in a general encyclopedia. For some science is the new religion. Attempts to sanitize WP from fringe or pseudoscience, unscientific concepts IMO, are unacceptable and in effect censorship. I would consider these arguments against inclusion more justified in a scientific encyclopedia.

Jefffire: There are a large volume of sources already provided. I think WP should be about inclusion, not exclusion. I'm sure we will find sources for the most prominently used plants in homeopathy. I'm not sure they will meet the high standards of those who are opposed the mention of pseudoscience concepts in wikipedia. Anthon01 (talk) 22:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[Response to last but one paragraph] If you read all the policies and guidelines, you will see that Wikipedia is not supposed to reflect the views of its editors, but the views of published reliable sources. This usually acts against inclusionism. This is not something I think is good or bad - just what Wikipedia is. If you like inclusionism, you can go to Wikinfo, for example. Stephen B Streater (talk) 22:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Not willy-nilly but inclusion based on RS and V. Anthon01 (talk) 22:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Stephen B Streater (talk) 08:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:SIGNIF

I want to point out that WP:SIGNIF is currently simply a redirect to WP:N, but as the above discussion (and other discussions that have occurred from time to time) makes clear, determining significance of points of views is different from the notably of subjects. I would encourage making WP:SIGNIF a stand-alone guidance and putting an articulation of what is involved in determining which viewpoints are signficant there. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 01:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It almost seems as if some who are involved in this current brouhaha just don't "get" the concept that a minority view could be significant, and still be absolutely WRONG! LOL. Well, duh. Yeah, a lot of the significant viewpoints that people have and have had throughout history are indeed totally WRONG! No wonder the world is in the state it is. Nevertheless, I think Wikipedia must present all significant points of view published by reliable sources, and we can let the facts speak for themselves. Dlabtot (talk) 03:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep. There's a longish article in Wikipedia on Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations. And another on Flat Earth Society, and yet another on Young Earth creationism. Another on Free energy suppression. These are minority opinions important enough to have articles devoted mainly to them as major topics (most of the contra evidence actually exists in other articles). So? SBHarris 03:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The fact that a viewpoint may be notable, and get its own article, doesn't necessarily make it a significant viewpoint in an article on another subject. Notability and significance are completely different concepts. Notability occurs in isolation; significance is measured with respect to a field of other viewpoints. Lots of actors, philosophers, scientists, and religious figures have their own articles, but a lot fewer have their viewpoints included in the Acting, Philosophy, Science, or Religion articles. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 06:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. All that has been demonstrated in this particular case is that belladonna is significant to homeopathy. There might even be enough material for an article on all the experiments people have done which show that there is no benefit to scarlet fever patients from taking belladonna. But what has not been demonstrated is that homeopathy is worth a mention in the belladonna article, any more than the numerous other subjects which belladonna is important to are mentioned. Just because a subject (like homeopathy) is notable, it doesn't mean that it is important to everything it uses. Another subject like this is Jamie Oliver, a celebrity chef in the UK. He cooks leeks, peas, beans, goose etc, but is not mentioned in those articles. Similarly Homeopathy uses belladonna, but is not mentioned in that article. Stephen B Streater (talk) 08:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Permit me - with all due respect - to show a possible flaw in your comparison using Jamie Oliver. Jamie Oliver is a person notable for cooking. Much like Samuel Hahnemann is a person notable for homeopathy. Now your comparison would be applicable if we were trying to include information about Hahnemann in this article. But we are not. We are trying to include information about his profession. So, using your analogy, would we be more likely to see mention of "cooking" in the beans article or "beans" in cooking article? Clearly - and you can check this out for yourself to be true - cooking (as a use) is mentioned in the beans article, but beans are not mentioned in the cooking article. A direct comparison reveals that homeopathy (as a use) should be mentioned in the belladonna article, while mentioning belladonna in the homeopathy article would be a little too specific. There's really no beans about it. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 10:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a good point. Of course a lot more people eat cooking than use homeopathy. Here's a proposal: I'll come up with a (non-cooking) publication on beans which mentions cooking, and you come up with a (non-homeopathy) article on DN which mentions homeopathy. Then we will all be happy. Isn't it surprising that it is proving so hard to find such a DN publication? I had assumed that they would common, but every day which goes by makes me realise that homeopathy is less relevant to the subject. Stephen B Streater (talk) 12:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually I have already found such a book (a non-homeopathic book, not the non-cooking book). Remember The Oxford Book of Health Food? I found this quite readily. So in your opinion, can we include the info now? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean the sentence: As far as can be discovered, there is no experimental evidence to support the use of belladonna in homeopathic medicine? Stephen B Streater (talk) 18:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

What absurd lengths people will go to claiming sourcing! ScienceApologist (talk) 18:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps people come to Wikipedia to check claims of homeopathic use though. If it is mentioned elsewhere in sceptical publications, we can think about giving similar weight here. Stephen B Streater (talk) 19:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

What has been demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt is that homeopathy is relevant to botany. That's why the botany department of the Natural History Museum has a botany project called "plants and Fungi used in Homeopathy". We therefore have a perfectly adequate non-homeopathy source, i.e. a botanical one interested in classification, which can be used to source the use of various plants in homeopathy.Number48 (talk) 18:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

And here's another source that contains general information on DN which includes homeopathy anongst it's medicinal uses. [29].Number48 (talk) 18:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

So we have a number of articles which give perhaps 5% of their medicinal use to mentioning homeopathic uses. To me, the OUP one looks like it would be one of the better references in WP (as a whole) to a sentence about 1 or 2 lines long, perhaps added to a renamed Obsolete medicine section - perhaps renamed Other medicinal uses. This would not give undue weight as an entire section (which it does not receive in the references), but will demonstrate the issue has been considered by the world outside homeopathy. Stephen B Streater (talk) 19:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the sentence could read as such: According to The Oxford Book of Health Foods, Belladonna "is included... in homeopathic preparations for acne, boils, and sunburns" however "there is no experimental evidence to support the use of belladonna in homeopathic medicine." Sound reasonable? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I really don't see the need for so many qualifiers. Jefffire (talk) 21:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

What would be your suggested wording? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The reference will make it clear where it comes from. We could say: Belladonna is included in homeopathic preparations for acne, boils, and sunburns despite the absence of scientific support for its use.[30] Stephen B Streater (talk) 08:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

How significant is the absence of evidence? Have studies disconfirmed or just not been performed? —Whig (talk) 08:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Studies have been performed for various claimed uses, and have all showed no discernable effect. I quoted an early one a few days ago[31]. When making medical claims, the onus is on those making the claims to provide evidence that they are not just talking rubbish. We can't include a claim in this encyclopaedia just because some one said it.Stephen B Streater (talk) 08:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

No, of course we cannot include non V/RS claims. But it goes both directions, we can't make non V/RS negative claims either. —Whig (talk) 09:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Given the source we are using, I think Stephen B Streater's wording is acceptable. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 15:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

"eye of newt and toe of frog, wool of bat, and tongue of dog are frequently included in witch's brews, despite the absence of scientific support for their use." do you see the problem here? As soon as we say, "witch's brews", it is unnecessary to go further and point out that there is no scientific support. It is a statement that those things are included as ingredients, not a statement that witch's brews are effective. The question of whether or not witch's brews are effective does not even arise. But are witch's brews effective? Res ipsa loquitur. Dlabtot (talk) 16:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but my point is that the source which we are using for Belladonna actually does say: There is no experimental evidence to support the use of belladonna in homeopathic medicine. I figured why not include it? Especially if it is a compromise that will appease those otherwise wishing to keep this information off the page. Of course, if a reliable source was produced which negated the statement - a source which showed that there is experimental evidence to support the use of belladonna in homeopathy - then, of course the statement should be removed. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree - later experimental evidence trumps a prior lack of experimental evidence. The difference between witches brews and homeopathy is that some claim that homeopathy is supported by science, so a clear statement it is not is required. Putting homeopathic uses in WP automatically gives them some credence, and we wouldn't want people to think that the homeopathic claims were scientifically supported when they are not. PS The recent reduction in obsolete medicine section solves another undue weight issue! Stephen B Streater (talk) 19:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm speaking strictly in terms of what is the best style to use. Homeopathy is quackery; rational people understand that; non-rational people aren't going to change their minds because every time homeopathy is mentioned in Wikipedia (if ever, lol), we add a disclaimer that says it has no scientific basis. Such a disclaimer is simply unnecessary. But I recognize that given the ongoing battle raging on many pages, questions of what the best style for an encyclopedia to use are considered somewhat secondary. Dlabtot (talk) 19:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you comments regarding style. Unfortunately style in this case takes a back seat to compromise. Anthon01 (talk) 22:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the consensus (though not necessarily unanimous view) is now to include a proportionate mention. The warning balances the fact of the entry. I have added this to the article (!) as I think any further debate will be more balanced between different views from this point rather than the lack of mention position of the article. Stephen B Streater (talk) 19:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

To answer your specific point, the article in the original source thought it was worth mentioning , and as we are using this as our reliable source, I think we can safely mention it too. Not mentioning it may risk accusations of editorial bias. Stephen B Streater (talk) 19:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Scientific justification

I don't understand how a statement about people's beliefs or behavior could be regarded as non-fringe only if the belief or behavior itself is considered scientifically justified. If the use of belladonna for folk or homeopathic remedies is a significant human use of the plant, and this can be reliably documented, judgements about the reasonableness of the beliefs or behavior involved would not seem to matter. Since human beliefs and behvior are often characterized as unreasonable, omitting statements about them based on opinions of their accuracy/value, rather than on objective considerations such as observed frequency of occurrance, would seem to pose WP:NPOV difficulties . Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 19:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. But here we can do better, by providing a wikilink to the article about the beliefs, so people can explore the idea for themselves. Stephen B Streater (talk) 20:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

There are editors who will not have it, and so it is their on POV that will prevail. Anthon01 (talk) 20:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree with SBS; we should provide a link to homeopathy so interested readers can go there and learn more - that's the advantage of an electronic encyclopedia! -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

And I don't want to get in revert wars with editors who seem to be ignoring NPOV in this particular instance. Edits such as this seem to me to be disregarding NPOV (and V and RS). -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Does the inclusion of this text in anyway violate WP:NPOV

There is a lot of talk above. More editors favor inclusion than not. Those that are against inclusion maintain that the NPOV policy should be interpreted such that a source must be presented which shows not that Deadly Nightshade is notable to Homeopathy but rather that Homeopathy is notable to Deadly Nightshade. I have asked for passages from NPOV which justify this rationale and still have not see an answer. Meanwhile, many references have been provided all confirming that Deadly Nightshade is in fact used in the preparation of a homeopathic remedy. This usage has been notable enough to be researched in a few dozen studies published in notable scientific journals, and written about in both homeopathic and non-homeopathic books; most relevant to this discussion is its mention in the Oxford Book of Health Food and its description in Medline. Using these sources, we can easily devise a sentence which in effect would read: Deadly nightshade is included in homeopathic preparations for acne, boils, and sunburns despite the absence of scientific support for its use. It's neutrally worded from the sources and totally verified. The question which we would like answered here remains: Does the inclusion of this text at Deadly nightshade in anyway violate WP:NPOV? If so, how? Please be specific. If not, can we please include this text and move onto something better? Please! :-) -- Levine2112 ^discuss 03:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, it's no worse than any of the other mentions of uses for Deadly Nightshade (though whether that section at all should be there is another debate). If those stay in, there's nothing wrong with a mention of homeopathy. The reason, I suspect, that there's such a big deal about this is because there was a massive push by a group of pro-homeopathy editors to include mentions of homeopathy across the encyclopedia, in only tangentially-related articles. If these mentions had been made by neutral editors, I doubt there'd be much of an issue. But then the "defense" started to overflow, and so now you have another group trying to eradicate mentions of homeopathy wherever possible. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 04:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Chicken or egg --- who started it seems pretty irrelevant. Thank you for weighing in on the question of whether inclusion of this material is appropriate. I agree with your assessment that it is. Dlabtot (talk) 05:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Infophile: So let's agree with the other group of editors, the ones who are trying to expunge homeopathy, that only the most significant use of plants for homeopathy will be supported for inclusion, significant based upon the standard used here with belladonna. Anthon01 (talk) 11:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

How about we just leave those articles alone? At this point, any edit from either of these groups is just going to look like POV pushing. Leave these articles the way you found them (with regards to mentions of homeopathy, other positive edits can stay), and fight your battles elsewhere. (To be honest, I'd prefer the fight to stop completely, but I'm trying to be realistic.) --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Undue V Fringe

What happens when when you have a topic that conflicts with mainstream science, but where mainstream science's contribution is so small that it's actually the minority view?

For example, where you have a something fanciful that many people believe is true which is highly notable because it has substantial media coverage and popular culture coverage, but which has never been scientifically investigated because scientists just shrug their shoulders and say "nah, that's not possible". Making the unscientific popular view the majority view and the scientific opinion the hard to WP:V minority view?

How does undue weight apply. Do you approach the topic from the mainstream perspective even though there is no real mainstream perspective to speak of, or do you approach it from the majority perspective even though it is unscientific because it is the perspective from which weight applies?

More specifically, what happens when the topic is only notable because of the unscientific majority belief? - perfectblue (talk) 21:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It depends how something is presenting itself. If a subject wishes to present itself as being scientific, then it must be presented giving weight to the majority scientific opinion. However if a subject presents itself as a belief, with more of the article dedicated to aspects of this belief rather than claims of effectiveness or method of action, then the scientific opinion matters little to the subject. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - if no such claims are significantly made, then no such evidence is needed, but the reverse applies equally. LinaMishima (talk) 21:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Fringe status is with respect to a particular framework. The Great Story, for example, is an excellent example of fringe theology, opinion representing itself as theology which isn't accepted as legitimate by mainstream theologians. The same story might not be fringe with respect to a different framework. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 23:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to point-out that our project is not to write a scientific encyclopedia, so the initial discussion is perhaps a false dichotomy. We're simply writing an encyclopedia. Take for example Ginseng. This plant/herb is mentioned in literally dozens of what you might call health food, folk medicine, and homeopathic uses and yet receives not much attention in the way of peer-reviewed medical uses. Although we consider peer-reviewed journals to be a more reliable source than not, in a case where there is scant peer-review, we simply have to go with what we have.Wjhonson (talk) 01:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

LinaMishima, sadly, I've fought this battle many a time on pages with editors who seem to believe that every topic should be tackled solely from a scientific perspective, which is a bit silly since this most often occurs on pages about urban myths and legends where there is no scientific perspective other than "it's just a myth". I'd like something written into policy to stave off people trying to treat myth and science in the same way. So long as the introduction makes clear that the page is about a myth it shouldn't matter that there is no scientific credibility in it. - perfectblue (talk) 11:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Your comment above If a subject wishes to present itself as being scientific, then it must be presented giving weight to the majority scientific opinion seems to contradict WP:WEIGHT which says 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 spelled out in great detail, it must make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. So appropriate reference is the correct reading. Anthon01 (talk) 12:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I think Anthon is agreeing with me - that if something presents itself as a myth, legend or belief then it should be addressed first and foremost as a myth, legend or belief, whilst if something purports to be a science, then the appropriate frame of reference is that of science. If someone can suggest a means to enhance the wording of the section to make this 'framework' aspect clear, perhaps we could discuss clarifying this? LinaMishima (talk) 16:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know where you got the impression that he is agreeing with you, considering that he explicitly disagreed. I disagree as well. This idea of a 'framework' under which 'a subject wishes to present itself' doesn't appear in the policy for several good reasons. One being that 'subjects', such as don't possess the ability to 'wish' nor do the poseess the ability to 'present themselves'. People, that is editors, must present the topic, and the frame of reference (another way of saying point of view) under which they must be presented is not a scientitific or mythic one but a neutral one, which represents fairly and, as much as possible, without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources). Undue weight also quite clearly says that it applies to "Articles that compare views", and then goes on to state that, as Anthon01 has already quoted, "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 spelled out in great detail, it must make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view." Note also that nothing in the NPOV policy treats the scientific view as a special case in any way. Dlabtot (talk) 19:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps not, but LinaMishima is correct regarding how topics are generally addressed here. The goal is to write an encyclopedia that could function as a respectable reference work. Topics that identify as "scientific" are generally treated from a scientific-majority perspective. ArbCom has codified this widespread practice in one of their more oft-cited decisions: "Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Wikipedia aspires to be such a respected work." In other words, on "scientific topics", there is a fairly clear overlap between SPOV and NPOV. The difficult detail, as always, is what constitutes a "scientific topic", and that can only be resolved on a case-by-case basis and not by generalities. MastCell ^Talk 19:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The scientific point of view is not a competing policy with WP:NPOV. The WP:SPOV shortcut links to a page that says it is: A historical page is either no longer relevant or consensus has become unclear. Dlabtot (talk) 19:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

SPOV was rejected as a separate policy because of concerns that it would be applied outside strictly scientific fields, and because its salient points were already better covered under WP:NPOV. Nonetheless, the "scientific" point of view does overlap dramatically with the neutral point of view on scientific topics, given the goal of creating a useful and respectable reference work, as ArbCom has affirmed. MastCell ^Talk 19:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

As you rightly point out, SPOV, is not a policy, it is a point of view. Therefore it can't by definition, 'overlap' with the policy that states how it, and other points of view, should be presented. If you want to claim that ArbCom "has affirmed" otherwise, you should provide a quote or diff that says that, not one that says something quite different from your assertion. Dlabtot (talk) 21:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Re-read the ArbCom ruling [32]. Overviews of scientific topics are expected to be in line with respected scientific thought. Discussions of the SPOV proposal are somewhat of a red herring here. As for the discussion at hand, you seem to be advocating an 'absolute point of view', that there is such a thing as a truly neutral and purely objective view on anything (the closest thing to this is logic, which is the basis of the scientific method...). As irrational beings with instincts, emotions, upbringings and opinions, with experience of but a single ball of rock (in almost all cases), we simply cannot ourselves be the arbiters of what the absolute point of view is (however tragic this inability may be). As such, the best we can rationally achieve is an impartial point of view, including all opinions upon a matter in accordance to the prominence of each in relation to the others and those within related and interworking fields of study with relate to the subject to hand, and with respect to the direct topic at hand rather than those which relate but are not directly the subject in question (the wording of this entire passage is, I admit, utterly awful). What ultimately governs this coverage is, and may be widely observed to be throughout wikipedia, the notability of the various aspects of a subject (as much as a generally prefer to avoid notability). This is why we do not devote the majority of the article on a religion to the 14th century discussions over the importance of cheese to the faith (unless, of course, this forms the basis of the faith). Similarly, this is why we talk about the impact that a person themselves had in greater depth to that of their son's impacts upon the world. I could go on and on, but it should be clear that some form of determination has to be drawn as to what gets covered within an article, it is simply impossible to compartmentalise subjects in individual articles otherwise, and similarly those matters of greater importance to a subject must be covered in more depth. If someone reading this is feeling very kind, they may wish to translate much of the waffle here into plain english, it is most hard to write about such subjects without using terms such as neutral, impartial, weight, and so on! LinaMishima (talk) 23:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Since I never said or implied anything that remotely approximates what you say I "seem to be advocating", I don't have any response to your response to an argument I did not make. Dlabtot (talk) 23:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

As i understand it, Wikipedia has expressly rejected favoring scientific points of views as opposed to other points of views. Views are significant with respect to (a) sheer numbers (the most common popular viewpoint is generally significant) and (b) contribution to general culture/knowledge etc. Scientific points of view have made a major contribution to general culture and hence scientific points of view are essentially always significant, but religious, humanistic, philosophical, and other points of view are often significant as well. Viewpoints need to be represented as such. One good reason for including more than one viewpoint is that different viewpoints influence each other and can change each other over time. For example, half a century ago environmentalism was thought to be a non- or even anti-scientific point of view, whereas it is now commonly thought of as a scientific point of view. But non-scientific thought about the environment affected the cultural environment in which scientists did their work. The ArbCom ruling is limited to theories that purport to be scientific (if they claim to be scientific, then that claim must be backed up by mainstream science), and doesn't apply to general culture and other viewpoints that don't claim to be science-based. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 02:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Well put. Dlabtot (talk) 04:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Prominence

I have reverted the addition of the simple redirect called WP:PROMINENCE which adds nothing to the page as it's simply a redirect. This addition wasn't discussed and no attempt to find consensus is recorded on this page. I'm not sure what the intent was, so please clarify. Thanks. Wjhonson (talk) 09:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

This is an extension of the disagreements that have been going on surrounding the addition of homeopathy on plant pages. The editor who provided the UNDUE WEIGHT tutorial above[33] has taken to creating his on wording to replace long-held shortcuts with his own terms, which has the effect of conflating and causing [in some case has caused] confusion in discussions. I wrote First there was the notability of citations for which there is no policy, then the prominence of citations, for which there is no policy now there is undue weight across articles and that there is no WP:PROMINENCE, no WP:CITATIONNOTABILITY and no WP:GLOBALWEIGHT policies.[34] In response, all three redirect & shortcuts were created. Here is the PROMINENCE diff. [35] A WP:RFD discussion is ongoing here.[36] Anthon01 (talk) 13:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

"This addition wasn't discussed and no attempt to find consensus is recorded on this page." So what? See WP:BOLD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronz (talk • contribs) 16:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, see WP:BOLD, including Wikipedia:BOLD#.E2.80.A6_but_don.27t_be_reckless. and Wikipedia:BOLD#Non-article_namespaces. Also, WP:BOLD doesn't say anything about someone's BOLD edits not being subject to revert and discussion -- quite the opposite -- see Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle. Dlabtot (talk) 21:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Again: So what? I don't see anything related to creating redirects in the links above. --Ronz (talk) 03:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, you are the one who brought up WP:BOLD. If you believe your own comments are off-topic.... OK. Dlabtot (talk) 19:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I brought up BOLD. My response to you is, "So what?" To be crystal clear, I cannot find anything relevant in your responses here to the discussion. --Ronz (talk) 19:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

OK. Dlabtot (talk) 20:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

(OD) The main issue to me is yes be bold. However. When you're bold on little-viewed pages it can be seen as a great contribution to the project. When you're bold on core pages, you're likely to be reverted and asked to seek consensus on Talk first. Which is what I did. This is especially the case if the bold edit is then being used to bolster one-side in a long contentious content-war.Wjhonson (talk) 01:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me like this discussion has became more one of personal reasons and interpretations than one over the merits of the action taken. Regards to the merits, removing the reference whilst in RfD is perhaps not a good idea, as it could be seen as gaming (commenters follow redir, see that it is not listed here). The original bold edit in question was perhaps not the adding of the redirect's details, but the redirect itself. I shall not comment on that here, as there is another, better, location for that to be done. LinaMishima (talk) 01:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Please consider that newer editors who might be interested in following this discussion may have no idea where that better place is. eg. me. Anthon01 (talk) 02:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Anthon01 the redir itself Wikipedia:PROMINENCE is in RfD at the moment. You can go to the page, then click-back on the "redir from" and then see the RfD tag. Lina Gaming is not removing a disputed, non-talked link, but perhaps rather adding it in the first place. If people are coming here to see the link, they're coming to the wrong place. I'm sure we have several editors who only monitor the RfD list.Wjhonson (talk) 02:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

What sources to rely on

There is a long-standing argument on creationism and intelligent design pages, over how creationist views should be presented. Obviously, the scientific community doesn't support creationism, considers it a purely religious viewpoint, outside the realm of scientific inquiry, etc. I agree that their views should be present in the articles, prominently. However, within the US and the Muslim world, evolution by natural selection enjoys almost no support outside of academia (around 10% in the US according to a Gallup Poll). So should popular views be cited? And what about the views of religious leaders, who overwhemingly support creationism and theistic evolution? It seems to me that the current state of these articles gives undue weight to the views of the scientific community, only because they don't mention any other viewpoint. GusChiggins21 (talk) 16:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

See the above discussion on Undue V fringe. The general consensus seems to be that it depends how people present a concept. If creationism and ID were presented as being theological matters of belief, then they should be covered as such. However if the framework the proponents of a subject desire is a different one, such as being a scientific subject, then they are requesting that they be viewed as a science and be treated as such, with due weight hence requiring that the majority scientific opinion, as requested, is given prominence. LinaMishima (talk) 16:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Stephen B Streater (talk) 19:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Somewhat off-topic - do you have a citation for the claim that only 10% of people in the US "outside of academia" believe in evolution by natural selection? MastCell ^Talk 19:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It's just a belief ;-) Stephen B Streater (talk) 19:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I dunno... it seems falsifiable... :) MastCell ^Talk 20:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd also like to see a citation to the Gallup poll that says only 10% in the US believe in evolution by natural selection. Just for my own edification, if nothing else. Dlabtot (talk) 21:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The poll is in level of support for evolution. Let me clarify what I think the problem may be. It's totally appropriate to have the views of the scientific community featured very prominently in ID and creationism and evolution articles. The problem I see is that it is generally being presented as truth, as opposed to all other views, which are usually called wrong, or pseudoscience. Would it be appropriate to add small sections about popular support for creationism, or support amongst various religious denominations? I think this would help to balance the article, because right now many of the articles seem to be arguing for evolution. Thoughts? GusChiggins21 (talk) 22:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe you have innocently mischaracterized that poll. It doesn't say that "only 10% in the US believe in evolution by natural selection, in fact, it doesn't even mention 'natural selection'. The citation also does not allow you to examine the actual poll, rather, it is a link to someone's analysis of a variety of data. More appropriate would be the USA Today/Gallup poll conducted June 1-3, 2007, which asked: "Next, we'd like to ask about your views on two different explanations for the origin and development of life on earth. Do you think is definitely true, probably true, probably false, or definitely false? Evolution -- that is, the idea that human beings developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life. Definitely true: 18%, Probabley true: 35% " -- Dlabtot (talk) 23:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem with this is that it's only asking about support for evolution, not specifically evolution by natural selection. Most people who support evolution are actually theistic evolution supporters (i.e. the Catholic Church's position). It gets hairy because, strictly speaking theistic evolution is still an appeal to a deity, and generally doesn't regard natural selection as the only method of evolution, or even the main method. So if you only include people who believe that evolution occurred without any assistance from god, I think the 10% number makes sense. GusChiggins21 (talk) 06:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

OK. All I can do is present the verifiable facts, it's up to you to decide if you want to acknowledge them or ignore them. Dlabtot (talk) 06:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

"Would it be appropriate to add small sections about popular support for creationism, or support amongst various religious denominations?" It would indeed be amiss for an article to not talk about the supporters of an idea. WP:WEIGHT does not preclude including such material, not at all - indeed the policy as a whole states that it should be present, simply in appropriate moderation. LinaMishima (talk) 23:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, the consensus on intelligent design, creationism, and evolution pages seems to be that the only support that should be mentioned is that of the scientific community. GusChiggins21 (talk) 06:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, that claim is as inaccurate as the 10% claim. ID claims to be science, period. Hence the scientific viewpoint carries the weight of the discussion. Evolution is science, so ditto. As all leading proponents of creationism dispute evolution, science must again be prominent, unless one is merely discussing creationism as a part of a religious belief -- something that never happens.

Bear in mind too, that like your previous red herring, popular belief, in particular that limited to less than 5% of the world's population is of little or no value in writing a reference work on anything other than popular opinion. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 06:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Reading the Intelligent design article, I am afraid that I fail to see a major issue in this regard (although I will admit that I am biased). The viewpoints and opinions of ID proponents are detailed first in apparently good depth, before then the criticism is included within the relevant section. Responses to criticism might be a worthwhile addition, however, as could greater coverage of polls and their critics. However those are matters best suited to discussion elsewhere, on ID's talk page. If you believe local bias is at work, call an RfC to draw in external opinions.LinaMishima (talk) 12:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

New ShortCut

On my editing break, I've created a shortcut that you might find useful. WP:PSCI. I got tired of looking for it. I think this will achieve consensus without any serious opposition. Anthon01 (talk) 02:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

How to establish NPOV on imaginary paintings

We badly need some clarification on the policy about cartoons and drawings of living or dead people. Should they be considered factual? If so, under what circumstances? If someone draws a picture of a person and the majority of the opinion is that the drawing does not resemble the person in question, should that drawing be still included in the article about the person, just to uphold the POV of a single person (i.e. the painter)? Should we consider imaginary paintings as "fact" or a "POV"? Regarding the painter it may be a fact (that he/she painted the image) but regarding the subject of the painting, how can this be considered as factual? And yes, these questions are emerging because of the issue with the images on Muhammad.

There is this FAQ page about this subject - I am not sure whether this page is a part of Wikipedia Policy, or some sort of ruling based on the policy - the FAQ page says - As there are no accurate images, it is best to use images that are historically significant and/or typical examples of popular depictions. Well, what are the criteria to decide "Historical Significance"? The criterion of "popular depiction" certainly doesn't hold as any depiction of the subject is extremely unpopular. Given Muhammad himself strictly prohibited painting of living things (including himself), is it appropriate to include imaginary paintings of him on his biography simply because "Longstanding tradition on Wikipedia favors any images even representing part of a tradition over none at all"? What is more important, respecting a person's wish that he never be painted, or respecting Wikipedia's tradition that all articles have images? Arman ^(Talk) 10:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Selection bias leading to NPOV violation?

Narrative based fact selection Mechanism

In several articles, I have in the past tried to add facts, which I deemed important to include in order to balance the article, making sure it is NPOV. Such edits were almost always reverted, however, because in the final stage of discussion, they "did not fit into the narrative" of the article.

But:

• when we have a pre-conceived idea, "A", which seems supported by facts by RS;
• when we then find some facts, "X, Y, Z" which seem to conflict with "A", but are also supported by reliable sources, then we have to options:
  1. idea "A" is false
  2. there is an explanation for "X, Y, Z" occuring while A is true.

This explanation itself however, is often subject to debate, for which no independent reliable sources can be found: most reliable sources, if they would say anything about it at all, would have already committed themselves to idea "A". But what if idea "A" could be false?

Such would never get detected, because facts X, Y, and Z were explained away or simply disregarded, whether this "explanation" in turn is valid or not.

The problem I see is that not only Wikipedia is using reliable sources, the reliable sources themselves in turn are also using reliable sources! It is a whole grid of reliable sources who keep repeating what the others say. And all of them use this method: "Disregard facts which do not fit the narrative. They will certainly have some alternative explanation." That is what Narrative based fact selection really amounts to. In my eyes, this mechanism NFSM) looks very much as Selection bias , a common logical shortcoming, which in the end leads to Circular reasoning, another one. (For further reading, if interested, you may also like this text: talk2000.nl)

Therefore, if we insist on using NFSM in our articles, we must have some logical reason for doing so: we either need to be absolutely sure that our narrative is a true account (and would need a very heavy RS which enjoys consensus for this extraordinary claim); or... the NFSM we follow must be known flawless. (— Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk))

I think this would be much clearer with some examples--including more than just any one particular case which you might have in mind at the moment.DGG (talk) 02:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

request rationale

So now I am asking you all to help and show a RS or an authority on logic which indicates that NFSM would be the right way to go about, and that using NFSM would lead to truthful encyclopedic articles? (If we have none, should we not abandon NFSM?) — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 08:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

NPOV and Books

I'm struggling to figure out how NPOV applies to books of pseudohistory or I guess even flawed history books. The example I am working with is Where Troy Once Stood. I started looking at this a few days ago. It had external links to bronze age finds with no clear relationship with the book, it had a sentence in the first paragraph which linked to a personal Amazon page which listed the book as a great book, it had the Odyssey evidence still there, etc. I started by adding a section on linguistics which quotes the author and pointed out that the languages he was discussing didn't exist at the time, and that was left in. I added short sections on archaeology quoting Michael Wood about artefacts found in the Eastern Med, and a short section on geology quoting recent research that shows the geology around Hissarlik (where Schliemann thought he found Troy) matches Homer's description, something that contradicts Wilkens. That was removed on the basis "Attempts to disprove the book's thesis don't belong in the article either--we should stick to what secondary sources say about this book, which is almost nothing." But the arguments about the Odyssey were left in. I then put an external link in to the scientific article about the geology, and that was removed also. (As, to be fair, were the links to Bronze Age finds). But what is left now could almost be a publicity release from the publishers. Not quite, but almost. And that doesn't seem neutral to me. One of the problems is one discussed before, this is so way out few scholars have spent any time looking at it. Thus there are virtually no critical reviews or articles. I've spent quite a bit of book time looking at the archaeology, I know a professor of linguistics who has looked at his linguistics, I know someone who has visited some of the sites in person. But all of this is unpublished original research, verboten on Wikipedia. So is there any way out of this situation where the Wikipedia article is not giving a balanced view of the arguments even if it is describing the book accurately? Thanks. --Dougweller (talk) 10:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Say "this book has received no reviews in academic periodicals" (assuming that to be the case). Make sure of that though, with help from a librarian, and give the source used to determine this. The reader will understand. DGG (talk) 02:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Undue Weight versus Narrative-based fact selection Mechanism?

First I quote two paragraphs from the guideline 19:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC):

• Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.
• Verifiability is only one content criterion. Neutral point of view is a core policy of Wikipedia, mandatory, non-negotiable, and to be followed in all articles. Concerns related to undue weight, non-neutral fact selection and wording, and advancing a personal view, are not addressed even slightly by asserting that the matter is verifiable and cited. The two are different questions, and both must be considered in full, in deciding how the matter should be presented in an article.

When reading these excerpts, they seem at first glance perfectly reasonable to me. Suppose that on a given subject X there exist 2 views, A and B, where A is widely accepted, whereas B is held by a small (but significant) minority; then it would not be fair/balanced to devote 50% of the article to B: that would not be a neutral viewpoint for Wikipedia to take.
But some aspects of this guideline could be mis-interpreted and lead to "censor"ship. When a group of editors feels very strongly about supporting view A, they may want to reduce the attention which is given to group B to 1% or less. Because "undue weight" not only applies to views, but also to facts and statements, they might incline to remove all facts which support view B or seem an anomaly to view A. Now we would have an interesting situation: the article X will be telling the narrative A, supported by all the A-facts, and omitting all the B-facts which might have lead a reader to conclude that A is not necessarily the truth, and that B might be a view worth further attention. Because B and especially all the facts which support it now get marginalized in the article X, it will look to the reader as if A is perfectly supported by the facts, and therefore a certainty — where it is just a (majority) view.
And remember that it is not just Wikipedia which is following this approach; most of the Reliable sources which we base ourselves on are using a similar mechanism: quoting eachother as authority. Now a mechanism emerges, in which the dominant narrative chosen for the article is now steering the future selection of facts, thereby omitting facts which would balance the article and make clear to the reader that one cannot simply decide whether it is view A or view B which is the most correct.
I have not thought of a solution yet, but I assume the ultimate goal of our guidelines is to have articles which can be relied upon to be fair, balanced, and as close to truth as humanly achievable; not a random fantasy based on selective quoting of reliable sources, copying their narrative and excluding the rest of the evidence from public view.
We cannot vote what is true; we have to let the facts decide; and when we cannot agree on which view follows from the facts, a majority should not be erasing the facts which a minority contributes to article X. But, on the other hand, a minority should not be allowed to swamp any article with half-truths and insinuations, thus compromising the neutrality the other way around.
Resuming: a view should be given treatment in proportion to its promenence, but does this mean that facts supporting or weakening that view should be mentioned in proportion to the promenence of the view which these facts are supporting? Wouldn't that distort the whole encyclopic process and lead to circular reasoning? Help!  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind infinity) 19:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that NPOV does not make it clear enough that Wikipedia:facts precede opinions. Bensaccount (talk) 20:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you have an example where the policy has been applied this way? How often? Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 20:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

ultimately, what is not yet known, we cannot talk about. If the consensus of all authorities is false, neither have we any way of knowing this. (adapted from Wittgenstein).DGG (talk) 02:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

We cannot know, but we need not obscure the facts which do not fit to that consensus, either. Especially when they were reported by RS.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 18:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

If there is actual consensus, this implies there is no significant minority view and hence this issue wouldn't come up. The existence of a significant minority view means that that there is no consensus. If this doesn't explain the situation, an example might help. --Shirahadasha (talk) 03:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

If there is an actual significant minority viewpoint -- a viewpoint that is independently notable and supported by reliable sources etc. but nonetheless a minority view on a general topic, one approach would be to have a separate article on the viewpoint describing it in complete detail. The article on the general topic could then refer to the separate article with the complete argument on the viewpoint. Notability involves an absolute inquiry -- one doesn't compare to anything else in determining if a topic is notable -- while significance is relative, it requires comparison with other viewpoints. It should be noted that to avoid WP:POVFORK issues, the minority-view article would need to clear identify the view as a minority one and refer to both the general topic article and any separate articles on other views. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 03:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

True, a seperate article with criticism on article A could be made, but I still feel that an article should be balanced in itsself, and not ONLY by the existence of another article which criticizes the first article.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 18:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Fictional example

When Xiutwel studied physics, in Holland in 1988-1994, Quarks were becoming accepted as a theory, but they were not yet accepted as "the truth". (Basically, a proton was previously considered an elementary particle, and henceforth considered as something which itself consisted of 3 elementary particles.) So we have the old paradigm A (proton is the smallest part), and paradigm B (quark is the smallest part). The theory dates back to the 1960s by the way.

Had wikipedia existed in 1960, it would have listed the proton as an elementary particle. In the years to follow, had we then followed the Narrative based fact selection Mechanism|#NFSM, it would have been "illegal" to include the results of experiments which contradict the narrative "A", even if these experiments were peer-reviewed and published in reliable sources. For no other reason than that the results would conflict with a narrative which was widely accepted in Reliable sources, and that the narrative B was highly speculative, and not supported by reliable sources or notable research institutes en masse.

I would say, leaving out facts as described cannot be the intention of our guidelines. If we were online back in 1960, I wish we would have included any RS-published experimental result, even when it would be at odds with our article's narrative.

We should include all available information, even when it is inconvenient for the coherence of our article, shouldn't we?

Our guidelines do not permit to draw our own conclusions, when reliable sources are not doing so (no original research); we can only report what reliable sources are doing with the information, which might be: report it first and then forget about it. If that is what the RS are doing, then that is all we can (and should) write. But our information would then be the best and most reliable around.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, dedicated to the best info available, neutral and balanced. And complete. — Sockrates dual 18:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

In the historical example, we could easily include mention of both theories since both theories are reliably sourced. The difficulty is (let's further assume) that Theory A, the dominant theory, can be easily explained, while explaining Theory B sufficiently to understand why some people are questioning the dominant theory requires presenting complicated facts that take up more space than is needed to present Theory A. This is not an uncommon situation; alternative theories have historically required explaining small-seeming anomalies in detail and depended on complex experiments (Plank's constant for radiation and relativity come to mind). It could be argued that this approach will discount new theories that turn out to be substantiated. Nonetheless, the policy is weighted, by design, to giving greater weight to presenting the dominant view. One reason is that for every hard-to-explain emergent theory that becomes the dominant view later, there are many that turn out to be mistaken and forgotten, and we use the present expected value of a theory (discounting due to the fact that most emergent theories don't pan out), not its true future value from prophetic hindsight (which we don't have). A separate article with complete detail on the new theory, and a summary in the main article permitting presenting it (but without every detail), is a valid way to balance the interests involved. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 19:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: A very similar hindsight example could be made about companies (among many other things) We know to a near certainty that some of today's companies that are currently comparatively insignificant will become tomorrow's giants. The problem is, we don't know which ones. For very similar reasons, we choose to wait until stature is actually established. We deliberately miss out on the chance to be the first to report on the next big thing in order to ensure that the reported size does not become unduly exaggerated. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 19:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Shirahadasha, I thank you for your contribution. For me, the NPOV policy is quite clear where it comes to balancing of theories in the wording in the article. We could however be more clear about the inclusion of facts. With a fact I mean a direct observable, not the (logical or illogical) interpretation of it. In the above article, wikipedians might want to wish to exclude the results of certain measurements. Fictional example of fact for this fictional example: "In 1960, in experiment so and so, prof. X and his team found that when protons collided with energies higher then Y MeV, the dispersion pattern was not such as one would expect from a point-symmetrical particle." (There is a common agreed notion on what the pattern should look like in view A, and prof. X found a different pattern.) Some wikipedians would then argue: "We should not include those facts. No other team has produced the same results. The findings are probably wrong, due to some undetected measurement fault. They do not fit into the narrative of the article, and we know protons are an elementary particle, so the findings are certainly going to have some logical explanation. There are thousands of experiments worldwide which give false results. We cannot possibly include them all. Ah, here it is: prof. Z of such and such university here states that he believes the findings of his competitor prof. X are wrong. There you go. No need to include it."
I think we need to be clear about when to include such seemingly contradictory facts, and when not. How could we decide?  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 06:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• The argument being put forward here is that facts should be included in an article, solely because they have been reported by reliable sources; merely the addition mentioning of a given fact by sources is deemed sufficient for inclusion, regardless of whether or not it has any accepted relevance to the article, or subject at hand. Essentially, the argument proposed is that articles should consist of a selection of facts reported by reliable sources, with no consideration payed to whether or not any reliable sources believe that the facts have any bearing on the subject. For instance, to expand on the example below, Xiutwel is arguing that experiments which are, and were not, recognized by any reliable source as being relevant to the existence of Quarks or elementary particles should have been included in Wikipedia article about both subjects.
• As one can clearly see, this is an attempt to circumvent Wikipedia's policies on original research in an outright, and bold-faced fashion. The argument is that Wikipedia editors should decide what reported facts are relevant to a given subject, even when no expert, or reliable source believes in the relevance. One could argue that the entire purpose of historians, journalists, and experts in a wide variety of fields is the selective decision of which reported facts are relevant to a given subject. The proposal here merely amounts to the argument that Wikipedians should usurp this role, and act as original researchers — dredging the reported newsmedia, and scientific journals, for facts which they believe are important and relevant to an article; even when the articles, and other experts, do not believe they have any relevance, or importance whatsoever. Put like this, it should not come as any surprise to the average reader that Xiutwel is an ongoing proponent of 9/11 conspiracy theories on Wikipedia — indeed, the process he has just outlined is exactly the method of virtually every "conspiracy theory" researcher out there; the selective choosing of facts which they believe are relevant to a given subject, but which no expert or reliable source believe are. --Haemo (talk) 07:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we should make a distinction between:

• scientific topic
• histirical topic
• actuality topic

there are obvioulsy other categories but let's consider these three to point out a distinction: for scientific and historical topic we have a community (or more than one) of experts that has the authority to decide what is relevant or not and the mainstream POV of these community deserve a greater importance than the POV of little minorities of the communuty. For actuality topic there is a greater problem (especially if they have political implications). In this cases there is not a community of experts that can be considered a legitimate authority to take the decision about what is relevant and what is not. In particular mainstream media (like TV and newspapers) are definitely not in this position.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 09:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Pokipsy76, let's focus on historical topics then. On any part of history, there will be a mainstream view, and there will be tiny minority views of experts and layman who disagree with the main view. Our policy is not to write about tiny minority views. But we do write about significant minority views. But, apart from the view, there are the facts. Modern science is based on several theories. However, they are mutually contradictory, so in their present form the accepted state of the art science is certainly "wrong". We stick with it, however, because we believe it will be close to "the truth" and have nothing better. Suppose now there is an experiment done which contradicts an established theory, should we be forbidden to report this fact in an article? If the fact was presented in a RS, we could include it, even if all of the RS outthere ignore the fact after first publication. Finding sources for our articles is not OR, it is the core business of writing wikipedia. Drawing conclusions which were not drawn by any RS, that's OR. Agree?
How could a RS believe in the relevance of a fact, which is add odds with something they themselves believe in? As a wikipedia, we should not hold believes of our own, but simply report the believes of others. I have my personal believes, but they change and evolve over time, and they do not deserve mentioning in any article. But the facts from which we create our believes deserve inclusion. We have to select facts. The question is: how? Shall we selectively include only those facts which support a single viewpoint, or should we also include facts which might contradict that single viewpoint? Who is doing the fact-picking? We both are, but is the beauty of wikipedia not in the compromise, the neutrality, the consensus? I cannot see how using the NFSM could give the best, neutral articles.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 14:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

We should select facts which are reported as relevant by reliable sources. That's our whole purpose here — facts which "contradict" the mainstream account, but which no reliable sources ties to the subject at all are not relevant to an article. Only an individual's original research makes them relevant — if a fact is truly relevant, even if it contradicts the main account, then as this article tells us we should be able to name prominent individuals who believe it is connected, and source the claims of their beliefs to reliable sources. You are advocating that Wikipedia editors do the fact picking — that's textbook original research, and you just don't seem to "get" that. --Haemo (talk) 19:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

You say: "which are reported as relevant"; I would say: "which were reported at least once". I think that's the core of our difference in view. (Agree?) A reliable source will on the one hand report facts, and on the other hand, in its editorial comments, will report its own view on the facts (interpretation). A reliable source is not in the business of bringing the same news time and time again, they bring new news. So, if a fact is not relevant to their view, they will not bring it up again. As wikipedia however, contrary to most other RS, we should not have a view of our own, but give all non-tiny views fair, neutral and sympathetic treatment. That means: presenting facts from across the spectrum, not only those that are relevant to any particular view. Single-purpose fact selection violates our NPOV policy. Fact selection itself is however inescapable, and we should come to an agreement on how to proceed. I disagree with you that we should blindly copy and paste the work of RS reporting a majority view. That would dwindle the significant majority views, and therefore violate our NPOV intentions.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 12:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Elaboration needed.

I feel as if the inclusion of "images" in the Undue weight section is a little tacked-on. While I agree with its inclusion, it is haphazard to present this concept without elaboration which matches the context of "images"- my concern is that the section notes that it applies, but it doesn't really explain how specific cases should be treated.

Images are quite different from text, and I believe they should get some sort of treatment here which allows the editor to follow policy directly instead of simply going over the rest of the text and assuming that "since [inapplicable note] can't really apply to images, I can overlook this, and since this concept is generally applicable, I should stick with this". This can lead to quite a bit of overstepping in several directions, because there is still a question of "how applicable" the majority of the policy text really is to the inclusion of certain images.--C.Logan (talk) 09:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I would like to distinguish between three concepts: the world "out there", our ideas about it, and the language we use to convey these ideas to eachother. Like words, images are a tool to convey ideas. The policy reads: Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. So the images, when they are not neutral to a debate, should be distributed as such. Now, what more clarity would you like, since I do not understand what vagueness you are referring to?  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 15:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

UNDUE vs DUE

Imo, the undue weight section makes a laudable effort, but only in one direction. I think the concept works both ways and the section should be slightly amended to also warn against censorship in articles. I.e., information that has been covered by reliable sources should be given DUE weight, according to its significance within the entirety of the topic. Otherwise, as is frequently the case, some do game the policy by claiming UNDUE whenever someone tries to improve the completeness and thereby overall accuracy of an article. User:Dorftrottel 12:23, February 19, 2008

• support per above  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 19:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment The policies have generally been stated in only one direction, and consistentlantly. -- we have a WP:FRINGE identifying what to exclude, but no separate WP:SIGNIF identifying what to include. One reason is that we can inforce exclusion of inappropriate viewpoints by removing content. But it's not as simple to "enforce" the ommission of viewpoints that should be included or are underweighted; editors simply have to add the content. We can tag the article, but it's up to editors to balance it. I suspect there is some bias towards what is easier to enforce. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 20:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I've seen a fair cross-section of articles where editors "establish consensus" that certain information should not be included, in spite of reliable sources. — "But it's not as simple to "enforce" the ommission of viewpoints that should be included or are underweighted; editors simply have to add the content." — But many passers-by won't try for a very long time, and some will even revert sourced additions they don't like over and over, and I'm sure everyone has seen it. It can be enforced, and it should be, that's my very concern. Granted, an RfC can be opened etcpp, but many —understandably— don't bother to try that. The question is, why do we install stepping stones for accuracy and completeness in one direction, but not the other? It may be because of more notable experiences where people tried to insert fringe views, but I think the other, more low-level, variant is just as much of a problem and it should be able to simply point status quo guardians to a policy (they tend to deliberately ignore guidelines as being "just" guidelines) instead of having to open a full-fledged WP:DR. User:Dorftroffel 12:11, February 21, 2008
    • Do you have an example of where this is a problem? You seem to have a specific "they" in mind, so an illustration would probably help crystallize the issue. My 2 cents: WP:NPOV already states: "The article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." In fact, it's the first sentence of the WP:UNDUE subsection. I'm not sure that more policy creep is necessary; if there's a problem here, it's with practice, not with insufficient prescription in policy. MastCell ^Talk 18:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Agree we have no need for more instructions to obey (instruction creep), but a guideline in the sense of an instruction manual, which one can read or ignore as liked, would be very helpful. What is DUE? How much is DUE, how much is undue? What is proportion, what is prominence? Are we counting votes? Who is eligable to vote? 2 billion people are Chinese, yet I do not feel they should have a major vote in the content of en.wikipedia. Any hints are welcome. And I would love to be shown some pages where consensus was reached to let certain things out. Do you mean real consensus, where a course of action [was] chosen that is likely to satisfy the most persons (rather than merely the majority).^WP:CON ?  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 12:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems there is nothing there: Help Search  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 12:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

proposal: what is DUE

There is no indication "how much is due". From the phrase "not as much as" in the UNDUE policy section, it follows that whatever is due must be less than 50%. I propose to add the following to the section: The majority view should be balanced by the significant minority view, by at least the amount of support it has either under the general population, or among specialists.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 15:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

What determines a specialist? How does one measure the general population? Since most of the population doesn't know what the capital of Brunei is, do we say that Brunei doesn't have a known capital? Etc. etc. etc. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

your first two questions are very relevant! Your third one, I do not understand. The people who do not know Brunei do not have the view that it does not exist, they do not have a view. That's not a problem for Wikipedia, is it? We can ignore them.
Back to your first two questions: they cannot be answered rigourously or exactly. We can use indications: the community involved is the sum of all the stakeholders and all the participants in the debate. A specialist is someone who is considered by both parties to be more knowledgeable than average, but that need not imply that his/her expertise is good enough or that his/her conclusions can be relied upon. On the contrary: specialists' opinions will most likely be fiercly debated.
It does not matter that it is hard: we need a minimum DUE guideline, or else we have these discussions at 1.000.000 articles instead of over here.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 22:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

sympathetically?

WP:NEUTRAL

The neutral point of view is a point of view that is neutral, that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject.

WP:NPOVFAQ

[is it] possible to describe disputes in such a way that all the major participants will agree that their views are presented sympathetically and comprehensively[?]

This needs clearing up: the FAQ suggests views should be worded sympathically on both sides of the debate; the article says it should not show sympathy. I can imagine this both be true, but it is not very clear. Any native speakers for suggesting improvements? I think wikipedia should treat all nontiny views with respect (and sympathy as such), but endorse none (no sympathy as such)  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 19:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The result you've described (treat all viewpoints with respect, but endorse none) is what's intended. Each viewpoint should be treated sympathetically; the resulting overall article should be neutral. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 20:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Thx. Are you a native speaker? Perhaps make an edit to WP:NPOV to make it more clear! It is currently confusing, it seems.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 20:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Try meself, then.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 02:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Encyclopedic content?

I was wondering what the second sentence means by "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content ..." SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it's referring to lists (which might not be considered articles). There's also images, spoken versions of certain articles, etc. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 01:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I see. Thank you. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 13:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Morally offensive views

I'm not entirely sure about what we have written for Morally offensive views:

Morally offensive views

What about views that are morally offensive to most Westerners, such as racism, sexism, and Holocaust denial, that some people actually hold? Surely we are not to be neutral about them?

We report views that have been published by reliable sources. We do not report views that are held by tiny minorities, or views that reliable sources do not write about. Beyond that, we make no judgements. No view is omitted because someone might see it as prejudiced; if it is omitted from Wikipedia, it is because reliable sources have omitted it.

What I think:

1. Yes, of course we report views held by tiny minorites - as long as there are reliable sources regarding them.
2. The questions asks about NPOV, and the answer talks about criteria for inclusion - reliable sources.

I don't know if other people could help with that...

Thanks, Drum guy (talk) 14:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Ad 1.: we report on "significant minority views", but not necessarily on tiny ones. If with report you mean "mention that they exist", then mention in a RS would be enough. If by "report" you mean: balance the article with this view to be overall neutral, then tiny views should not be addressed, simply because there are too many tiny views possible to write about: it would clutter the article and selection would be arbitrary.
  Ad 2.: I think you are right, and that needs clearing up. — Sockrates dual 22:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The neutral point of view.

I've undone the alteration of the section caption. I feel that:

The neutral point of view

is more clear. NPOV has two meanings: it is a qualifier for an article, and it is a viewpoint which is not an opinion but a perspective. The word "the" has extra meaning and extra clarity for me, and that should imo overrule naming conventions.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 20:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Question above

I posted a question above late in the discussion but I fear that it may have gotten lost, buried above the many discussions which follow it. If anyone uninvolved in the immediate dispute has both the time and the inclination, I would appreciate reading some of your input. Thanks so much. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 04:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

You posted many questions and the link you gave does not go anywhere. I do not want to read through pages of nonsense and guess what you want answered. I think you are not understanding UNDUE, which can also have consequences across all of Wikipedia. We do not want to have 20,000 minihomeopathy articles here. So that is the concern I suspect that you are not quite getting. Also, there is a question of how notable the use of homeopathy is in a given article.--Filll (talk) 14:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

What you want doesn't matter, does it? Has anyone request 20,000 edits to include minihomeopathy articles? Or is this hyperbole? Anthon01 (talk) 18:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Filll, perhaps you are not clicking it correctly, but my link should take you to the section above entitled: "Does the inclusion of this text in anyway violate WP:NPOV? It is a pretty direct single question which if you would like to answer, I would appreciate it. That said, rather than stating that I don't understand UNDUE, I think it would be safer to say that I don't understand your understanding of UNDUE. Please feel free to elucidate your understanding with citations from the actual policy. Much thanks. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 04:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Applying WP:UNDUE to this specific question: if one can only find this information in reliable sources discussing homeopathy, undue weight may well be a reason to keep it out as a tiny minority view. If it is found in reliable sources discussing deadly nightshade, inclusion should reflect the weight given in those sources. Involved editors may also want to consider Infophile's comment above (diff). The encyclopedia can be skewed by a limited group of editors going through a lot of articles to add or remove the same (type of) content. This editing pattern may not be uncommon as I have observed it on several occasions. Such changes are best discussed one article at a time. Avb 15:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It can be skewed by addition and omission. Scholarly books and articles mention belladonna's use for making homeopathic belladonna in their "uses" section. I think that is enough for adding "belladonna is used for making homeopathic belladonna" Anthon01 (talk) 16:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy, NPOV and Minority Topics

The policy states 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 spelled out in great detail, it must make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. My question is what does this really mean in particular the appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint? What does appropriate reference mean? Is it a link to the majority POV or an exhaustive treatise. Anthon01 (talk) 14:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

This is written vaguely, but we can get a clue from reading the other NPOV policies. I have explained this to you hundreds of times but you keep asking the same question since you do not like the answer. Why do I have to answer this again here? Let me paraphrase what I wrote before on the homeopathy talk page. We need to describe in detail with references the academic viewpoint. We need to describe in detail the scientific viewpoint. We need to describe in detail the allopathic viewpoint. Although the "in proportion" phrase gives us the right to make it 98% or more critical of homeopathy, I think that makes for a less useful article. I have no problem with the 40% critical 60% descriptive/positive ratio that we used to get the article to GA status. And neither did Peter Morrell.--Filll (talk) 15:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't you get it? I don't believe you. I think your interpretation is incorrect. Anthon01 (talk) 17:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

98%? I find your reading of the text comical. I don't think so. Anthon01 (talk) 17:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is helpful Anthon01. Please AGF. I do not agree with Filll that we have the right to make an article 98% critical of homeopathy. —Whig (talk) 18:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I am not assuming bad faith. I think his interpretation is incorrect. Anthon01 (talk) 19:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Whig:I've refactored as per your comment. Anthon01 (talk) 19:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• My opinion: a link may be too little, but an exhaustive treatise is not necessary when that exists elsewhere already: in that case, a summary will do. Arguing a case in detail would be inappropriate because it makes the article on the "minority view" hard to read.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 15:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

  The situation here is that this is the main Homeopathy article, and therefore should include all significant views. If the article consequently becomes too long it can be split into multiple articles and summaries of them kept. The "exhaustive treatise" may not exist elsewhere at present. —Whig (talk) 18:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

"Appropriate reference" is, simply, appropriate reference. If a person reading the article cannot clearly tell what the mainstream view is, and what relationship the fringe view has to the mainstream view, then the article does not make appropriate reference. What exact form that takes is highly article-specific, and best discussed on the article talk page rather than in generalities on policy pages. MastCell ^Talk 18:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

So let be more specific and discuss NPOV in relation to the homeopathy article. I posed this here in order to get POVs that are not from pro or anti-homeopathic editors and not from the pseudoscience group. Anthon01 (talk) 19:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• Ah, so that's the subject. Under NPOV: Undue weight these articles must make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Homeopathy has been subjected to scientific testing, and the spin on the inconclusive results is clearly regarded by many scientists as pseudoscience. NPOV: Pseudoscience requires such articles to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. NPOV: Giving "equal validity" makes it clear that we don't have to "give equal validity" to minority views. What Wikipedia is not policy emphasises that Wikipedia is not the place to promote treatments, and the guidance in Wikipedia:Fringe theories is relevant. As always, enough of each significant verifiable viewpoint should be shown to represent it fairly, and as far as possible without bias. Sometimes a simple assertion can take a great deal of explaining from the majority viewpoint, so we provide what's needed. Is that clearer for you? . . dave souza, talk 18:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Anthon01 has raised an important issue. However, it seems that only the regular pro and con homeopathy editors are responding here. I too would like some others input who do not normally contribute to the homeopathy article. DanaUllman^Talk 19:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The best way to get uninvolved input for a question relating to a specific article is via WP:RfC. This page is most useful for general questions about the wording of the policy, while this appears to be about a specific issue with homeopathy. Asking a generally worded question here with a specific content dispute in mind tends to generate responses that are at best vague and at worst counterproductive. MastCell ^Talk 19:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with what was said above. We need enough material to explain what the majority view is. Our articles do not exist to whitewash some FRINGE view, to promote some FRINGE view, to right some great wrong. And I think there was nothing wrong with 40% mainstream content in a FRINGE topic like homeopathy. And neither did Peter Morrell. I do not understand why people persist in frantically trying to change the rules of Wikipedia to suit their private agendas. Wikipedia has some rules; you might not like them, but they are what they are. There are other alternatives. And all the fighting and screaming and tantrums and page spamming and harassment and ranting and raving in the world are not going to change the Wikipedia rules. Sorry.--Filll (talk) 17:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I view the recent move to this page as a bit of "forum shopping". However, let me repeat other passages of relevant policy: We need to make "appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint" and "All relevant views are described, in proportion to their prominence" and "Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community". So...I know many do not like these policies. And I think they believe if they keep asking in different ways they will get a different answer, and have permission to present homeopathy with little to no criticism, or only criticism that homeopaths feel is appropriate or tolerable. That is not how Wikipedia works. Sorry.--Filll (talk) 17:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think its forum shopping. There is lots of discussion going on here that has to do with specific topics. Again I don't agree with your interpretation or opinion. Because you say it it must be true doesn't fly with me. I was looking for non-involved input. There is no attempt to change the rules or fulfill a private agenda. Rather to come to a better undestanding of them. As an aside, You yourself have discourage me from questioning citations to fulfill your own agenda. Find the rule that says 60%-40% and I will pack it in. IMO, All relevant views are described, in proportion to their prominence is being given too much attention here as appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint thrumps it. Appropriate reference doesn't necessarily equal all relevant views are described, in proportion to their prominence. Anthon01 (talk) 18:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

You might think the policies of Wikipedia are being viewed as too important. And that is the entire point. You are on Wikipedia but you do not want to follow Wikipedia policies. And so...--Filll (talk) 18:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

You assumption that I don't want to follow WP policy is incorrect and an assumption of bad faith. Please assume good faith. I am trying to get a read on WP policies that is different from your interpretation of those policies. I think you are misreading the policy. Now let other editors comment. If other, non involved editors can convince me that your interpretation is correct, then we will be on the same page. Thanks. Anthon01 (talk) 22:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I only came here because you asked me. But ok, fair enough, you do not believe what I have said. I am only going on what I have read and been instructed by senior editors and admins here for the last year and a half and 25000+ edits (29.8 times as many mainspace edits as Anthon01). But ok...--Filll (talk) 23:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Because I wanted you to be aware and participate but not to dominate the conversation, as I clearly said above I posed this here in order to get POVs that are not from pro or anti-homeopathic editors and not from the pseudoscience group, and not to proclaim that your interpretation of the text is the right one, and that any dissent from your rightness must be a sign of trying to usurp wiki policy or forum shop or other such assumptions of bad faith. Re: the 25,000 plus edits - of course, experience doesn't always trump judgment as we are clearly seeing here in the US. Anthon01 (talk) 05:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Well I would respond but unfortunately in the current circumstances it is far far too dangerous since anyone who disagrees with anyone pushing a FRINGE viewpoint is under tremendous threat here at the moment. But let others judge your "response" accordingly, although they probably cannot express their opinions of it. Too bad.--Filll (talk) 06:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Fill is by and large correct here. Homeopathy is an extreme minority position. In that context, WP:UNDUE necessitate that's we give little weight to its claims. This has nothing to do with whether or not homeopathy is correct. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah! JoshuaZ: A ultra-molecular dose of uninvolved input.;-) The key text is 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 spelled out in great detail, it must make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Nowhere does it say that the article must or should be 60%-40% ratio between homeopathy/majority view. Appropriate reference means text that reflects the majority viewpoint and nothing about the percentage of the text (word count) that should be used to make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint, Anthon01 (talk) 05:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

That is incorrect, as a matter of fact. Homeopathy is used by a large percentage of people in India and in some other countries, and is commonplace in California. —Whig (talk) 02:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

But still an extreme minority in both cases. Shot info (talk) 02:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

If you want to claim that homeopathy is not the minority position, then provide reliable sources so that we can verify it. I have given plenty of evidence for months now that it is an extreme minority position. Others have as well. All I hear is unsubstantiated assertions which count for nothing. Put up, or...--Filll (talk) 02:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Numbers needed. Prevalence of homeopathy use: Roughly 20% in India PMID 18254519. But only 30% of 37% = 11% of pediatrics in multiethnic London PMID 18243938 (naturally including an East India population). 36% of 16% = 6% in asthmatics in southern Israel. In the US for kids undergoing surgery, 7.5% to 2% from East to West Coast (yes, more in California), but that includes herbs. If the other studies are indications, the actual homeopathic use is less than half of that. PMID 15910344. So, it various greatly all over the world. It probably is 20% in India. But probably less than 4% in California, and maybe 1% in the Eastern US. At a guess. But after looking at available recent literature, at least! SBHarris 03:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

As I have said repeatedly, if homeopathy is not a minority in the US, why are homeopathic products in the US not clearly labeled as homeopathic and promoted as such? I suggest that it is probably because homeopathy is so little known at best, and at worst homeopathy is a horrendous embarassment in the US, so that it is viewed as very negative for the success of a product to label it clearly as homeopathic or promote it as homeopathic in the US. If it were mainstream, do you think this would happen? If it were mainstream, I would be able to find more than 4 part-time practioners in this metropolitan area of about 10 million people where I live. How many thousands or tens of thousands of allopaths live and work in this area do you think? If we compare by research dollars or income or any other measure you can think of, it is minor...very minor... a teeny tiny FRINGE activity in this area, and I live in the capital of the country.--Filll (talk) 04:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

With respect, you need to get out more. Homeopathic products are not "promoted" in your standard media, because advertising is expensive, and these things have little money behind them (yeah, they're just water, but they have no patent protection and they have a small niche market that doesn't support much advertising). As example of even what can happen when a zillion dollar drug goes off patent, have you seen old whatziface Jarvik with the artificial clot-producing heart, hawking Lipitor? Even though he's never writen a prescription since he's never had a medical license (he's an MD who didn't do an internship, so has never actually treated a patient personally...). And those he did help treat surely didn't near cholesterol treatment-- they had no coronaries to treat. Anyway, there's money in Lipitor. Never mind that simvastatin is better tested-- simvastatin is now also generic. So you won't see much about it. That's not due to shame. And you won't see Jarvik selling his credibility (what there was of it) for the old Zocor. Anyway, just because you don't homeopathics on TV when you watch the superbowl, doesn't mean you won't find a rack of clearly labeled homeopathics in any good large healthfood store (not the GNC, but a store not affiliated with an outlet which caters to many tastes). If you live in a large city, you're near such a place. Go explore. I've been through many a health store: I need to know what the patients are eating. And I've drunk whole bottles of many a homeopathic to see what would happen (I'm a curious sort). This horrifies homeopathic practioners, who think maybe I'll get sick. But nothing happens. I'm not susceptable to placebo effects, either. Or homeopathic effects, apparently. Skeptism must provide a shield from the wrong dose of the wrong stuff. (P.S. Washington doesn't seem too likely a city for this. Inside the beltway the prices are too high for healthfood stores, and outside it, your health may be affected by highspeed lead poisoning (if you know what I mean) long before you need vitamins).SBHarris 06:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I just went to the Walgreen's on the corner and found multiple homeopathic remedies for sale, albeit not of the classical type, more of the combined low potency things. My doctor suggested I try Calms Forté, and it was there on the shelf, clearly labeled as Homeopathic. —Whig (talk) 06:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Yep. Most people walk right by them without noticing them, for their whole lives. That's what lack of advertising does. Interestingly, I know of one medicine, Zycam, which is advertized as homeopathic even when it's makers know it's not, and is not intended to be. It has enough zinc in it for a direct antiviral effect. But by labeling it a "homeopathic" the makers were able to make certain health claims that they couldn't for a simple mineral, even under DHSEA. SBHarris 06:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)