Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 



Defining/relaying the concept of "woman" at the Woman article[edit]

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Woman#Proposed edits to lede. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

A related RfC has commenced: Talk:Woman#RfC: Article lead. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:58, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

RfC Notice: An alternative version of the lead sentence to the lead in SNC-Lavalin affair.[edit]

Input welcome. This is not the RfC and there is no template. I posted information for those interested. Littleolive oil (talk) 15:51, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Discussion about a photograph depicting an intersex person[edit]

There is a discussion at Talk:Main Page#Graphic but educational image of intersex person on main page? about the publication, on the Main Page, of a photograph depicting an intersex person. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 12:52, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

using a reliable source to introduce fact that is not true.....[edit]

I’ve a curious situation. On a page about an alternative medical modality, an excellent source (American Cancer Society) is used to introduce the following sentence "available scientific evidence does not support claims that craniosacral therapy helps in treating cancer or any other disease". There is one problem, the modality does not claim to be effective for cancer. So, this quote gives the false impression that craniosacral is debunked for the claim that it can help fight cancer..... In my opinion, this is exactly the kind of falsehoods we do not need to have here at Wikipedia.... KFvdL (talk) 20:49, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

The quote implies that somebody made a claim regarding cancer. You stated that "the modality does not claim" well of course not, modalities can't make claims because they are just modalities. :-) So, what did you rally mean.....that NOBODY made such a claim? Maybe these thoughts / questions might help sort it out. North8000 (talk) 21:24, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
There are always individual practitioners who make wild claims, medical doctors are not exempt from that either. However, the main institutes like Upledger and others do not make those claims, as they know damn well that that would be a invalid claim. KFvdL (talk) 21:41, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
So what you're saying is that a reliable source is being used to say something that is true, but you consider misleading, because no true craniosacral therapist claims to treat cancer. Regardless, this means that the "not true" part of your headline is itself misleading. Anyway, the neutral point of view is the one that is the one that accurately describes the viewpoints of reliable sources. If reliable sources are calling out craniosacral therapists for bogus cancer claims, then it belongs in the article. What you're described is a good argument for keeping this content out of a hypothetical article on a specific institution. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:20, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for explaining how Wikipedia allows falsehoods to be introduced to articles using incorrect quotes of reliable sources. KFvdL (talk) 22:15, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
It is certainly accurate that Wikipedia does not care what you the editor think is true. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:16, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
That too... KFvdL (talk) 03:12, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Labeling or categorizing BLP subjects as TERFs or trans-exclusionary radical feminists[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Labeling or categorizing BLP subjects as TERFs or trans-exclusionary radical feminists and comment. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 02:52, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Now it's an RfC. Found at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#RfC: Should we provide attribution when using "TERF" or "trans-exclusionary radical feminist" when describing BLP subjects?. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 04:14, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

"Describing aesthetic opinions" e.g. "greatest" in lead sections of Tennis player articles![edit]

Hi everyone. Since this is this page which has most of the guidance for adding aesthetic opinions in Wikipedia articles, I just thought I'd let you all know there is currently a discussion/RFC in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis on whether statements like "one of the greatest" or "the greatest of all time" can be added into the lead sections of Tennis player articles (e.g. Roger Federer) or kept in a separate section e.g. Legacy. Now the guidelines in the "Describing aesthetic opinions" section of this article seems to support mention of such statements in Wikipedia articles as long as they are supported with reliable references but it does not state whether they should be mentioned in the lead section or not which has lead to various problems across the tennis player articles in recent times, especially since last year. Since there has been no major additions to that discussion since 17th August 2019 and it currently seems to be a tie between supporting mention of such statements in the lead and opposing their mention in the lead, which means there is currently no sign of consensus, I do request anyone here to please add their opinions onto that survey/discussion whether if you are a tennis fan or not because a consensus is really needed there. Many thanks. Broman178 (talk) 09:18, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Describing climate change and global warming as "crisis"[edit]

Some media outlets have formally adopted the phrase "climate crisis" to report on climate change aka global warming. The issue has come up for us in a thread at Talk:Greta_Thunberg#Using_'Existential_crisis'_in_Wikivoice. Please consider adding your comments there. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:00, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Does due weight apply to facts?[edit]

I've just opened a discussion over at NPOVN regarding whether or not WP:DUE applies to factual information or is only relevant to opinions. I'd appreciate outside comments from users here. Nblund talk 02:16, 28 August 2019 (UTC)