Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view

Question about WP:WEIGHT
This policy states "in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources".

My question is this: when assessing a statement made in an article, should WEIGHT be assessed based on the sources cited in that article, or based on the sum total of all sources "out there somewhere", whether they are cited in the article or not? If it's the latter, what method can we use for assessing how the sum total of uncited sources would affect weight?

This question arises from a conversation here, but I'm not seeking dispute resolution on that topic - I'm interested in how to interpret the WEIGHT policy in a more general sense, specifically, how to deal with uncited sources when assessing weight. Thanks. Philomathes2357 (talk) 20:30, 25 May 2024 (UTC)


 * There's no requirement to cite every source that supports article content, in fact there's an essay and a template to discourage that behaviour. So I would have thought that implicitly you must weigh sources not in the article. In the weight discussion the sources need to be presented so they can be scrutinised, but I would think it a negative to have every single one in the article. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 21:45, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Let me see if I understand - it is acceptable to invoke uncited sources "out there somewhere" in a debate about WP:WEIGHT, but the burden of proof is on the editor who invokes those sources to 1) demonstrate that they exist & are reliable 2) demonstrate that, if they were in the article, they would constitute sufficient weight to support the content in question.
 * Is that a fair summary of what you've said? Philomathes2357 (talk) 23:58, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) Yes (if asked to). As with a lot of Wikipedia should is probably important. There has to some limit to it, as editors could disruptively demand excessive sources for every minor detail. Also proving reliability is a bit nebulous, there was a discussion on the reliability of RTÉ at RSN awhile ago. An editor was asking why it wasn't on WP:RSP, the answer is because no one has ever doubted it's reliability. So asking someone to prove the reliability of all their sources is a bit back to front, they should have to show the reliability of those sources if another editor has good faith reasons to doubt them. 2) Not quite. Demonstrate in that they would be arguing that these sources show weight, as part of finding some consensus among editors. Your phrasing makes it seem they would have to pass some test. WhatamIdoing's comment below on the quality of sources showed up as my comment was half written, and covered half the points I was thinking of much better than I could have expressed them. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 00:37, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Good point on #2. Thanks.
 * @ActivelyDisinterested and @WhatamIdoing, If you'll humor me, I have another question about how NPOV is commonly interpreted. I'd like to know your personal opinions, and also your general sense of the evolution of common practice over time.
 * Of course, NPOV says "avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements."
 * How is this commonly interpreted in terms of WP:WEIGHT? In other words, how much "weight" is regarded as sufficient to establish that an assertion is "seriously contested"?
 * More specifically, how is "contested" usually understood in terms of labels? Let me give you a hypothetical example to clarify:
 * Imagine we are working on an article about Israel. Let's say there are currently 80 sources cited in the article. 6 of them describe Israel as "terrorists" or a "terrorist state". The other 74 represent a variety of points of view on Israel - some are extremely critical, but do not use the label "terrorist", while others are more or less neutral, and others are, to some degree, sympathetic to Israel.
 * The sympathetic sources may say thinks like "Israel is justified in its actions", "Israel complies with international humanitarian law", or "Israel is a tolerant and democratic society". But none of the 80 sources explicitly say "Israel is NOT a terrorist state".
 * Would it be correct (or generally accepted by consensus as acceptable) to conclude "the statement that Israel is a terrorist state is an uncontested factual assertion, and, since no sources explicitly contest the claim, it can, should, or must be presented in Wikipedia's voice."
 * Or, would it be correct to say "although no source has explicitly negated the phraseology 'terrorist state', we can still assume, without violating WP:SYNTH, that the aforementioned quotes by sympathetic sources represent "conflicting assertions", so we should treat the description "terrorist state" as a seriously contested assertion."
 * Or, do neither of those views accurately represent the common understanding of NPOV? Philomathes2357 (talk) 01:00, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * For your example (or anything like it), we throw up our hands and point to WP:TERRORIST. We semi-sorta-kinda say that you should not directly call anyone or anything a terrorist.  That is, we can have thousands of articles that say that the subject "has been called a terrorist by Alice, Bob, Chris, David, etc.", but you usually can't say that the subject "is a terrorist" (until the weight is so overwhelming that it's silly to attribute the view to a small set of people or groups.  NB that when this happens, you will almost always have some editor says "But Wackos R Us and this one political influencer I like doesn't agree, so we still can't say this in WIKIVOICE!").
 * You may choose to think that this is mealy-mouthed of us, if you wish, but that's our usual practice.
 * Something that may help overall is that the goal is to have the Wikipedia article, both in the overall impression given by the article and in individual pieces, accurately reflect the mainstream (scholarly, if it's a scholarly subject) notion of the subject, even when that means being wrong or unfair to the minority POV. For something involving nation-states, that usually means scholarly sources.  For example, if the mainstream scholarly opinion is that whether to call Israel a terrorist state depends on your definition, then the article should reflect that (e.g., "have been called terrorists by Bob, who uses the definition he got as a cereal box prize in 1962").  If the mainstream scholarly view is that the "deep state" is an implausible conspiracy theory believed primarily by blue-collar white men who feel, with some justification, like life gave them a raw deal, and believe that the only plausible reason for them not being socioeconomic winners is that something sneaky and disreputable is going on in the halls of power, then the article should reflect that.
 * I don't think the policy has changed much over the years. What has changed is the media around us.  Using a lot of in-text attribution seems to be a way to signal that the writer is trying to be impartial.  Consequently, we all (editors and readers alike) may have different ideas now about what a neutral tone sounds like. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:09, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for sharing your thoughts, I really appreciate it.
 * I think WP:TERRORIST is a great policy, and should probably be expanded to include a select few other terms that are often abused for POV-pushing, but that's a topic for another day.
 * I completely agree with you when you say "If the mainstream scholarly view is that the "deep state" is an implausible conspiracy theory...then the article should reflect that." - and to be clear, I posted here at NPOV because I wanted to gain a deeper understanding of how the policies have been interpreted in the past - I am not seeking input on the RFC, and don't want to discuss it here.
 * "Terrorist", on second thought, is not a great example, because I'm more interested in cases where WP:TERRORISM does not apply. For instance, if a small minority of sources calls a person, "corrupt" or "incompetent", and, while there are plenty reliable sources that are sympathetic to the person, no sources specifically say "he/she was NOT incompetent/NOT corrupt", would that be commonly understood as an "uncontested" or "contested" assertion? Let's assume they are not a living person, so BLP does not apply. Philomathes2357 (talk) 02:20, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * As it happens, I've spent this morning on a similar case, in which an editor wants to call something altmed. As it turns out, I can't find any MEDRS-style sources that explicitly says that it is or isn't.  What I can find is that MEDRS-ideal sources do not use that language, and their overall presentation mostly leaves you with the opposite feeling.  This differs importantly from your case in that good quality sources don't say anything either way, rather than a few saying "yes" and the rest being silent.
 * On the one hand, there are problems with relying solely on positive statements. You could end up with "Three sources said it is" and nothing to balance that – even if the implicit statements from all the other sources is the opposite.
 * For example, imagine that I have found 100 sources about chemotherapy. Three say that it's worthless.  The other 97 are dealing with side effects.  The other 97 implicitly suggest that there is value, because why would you deal with these side effects for a completely worthless treatment?  If those 97 thought it was worthless, then side effect management would be short and simple:  "Don't take this worthless stuff."
 * You don't want to say "Every source that explicitly comments on this subject says ____", when all the other sources imply that the opposite is their actual view. But you can't actually say "Three sources say it's worthless, and 97% of them imply that there's value", because although it's true, it's a NOR violation (because we require a source that Directly supports the claim, not just 97 that imply it).  Also, it's not appropriate to say that if three sources say it's worthless, seven imply that it's valuable, and 90 are, upon closer inspection, irrelevant to that particular point, that this proves that the point isn't worth mentioning at all.
 * Which takes me back to the main point: However we get there, the goal is to have an article that accurately and fairly represents the views of high-quality sources, including on facts so basic or obvious that they didn't explicitly and directly state them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:46, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your thought-provoking reply. Your chemotherapy example is very interesting. Based on what appears to be current consensus regarding NPOV's interpretation, the approach there would be to begin the chemotherapy article by saying, in Wikipedia's voice, "chemotherapy is a worthless treatment", since there is no source that explicitly/directly says "chemotherapy is NOT worthless".
 * But that would be completely absurd and untenable, would it not?
 * Maybe one could avoid the NOR issue by simply saying "the other 97 sources, irrespective of their value judgement about chemotherapy, simply do not lend weight to the claim that it is "worthless", so, therefore, there is very little weight behind the claim that it is "worthless", even though that claim has not been directly rebutted. That means that we can characterize the notion 'chemotherapy is worthless' as a minority-held view."
 * In your view, would an approach like that be, on its face, a violation of NOR, SYNTH, or some other policy or guideline?
 * The more I think about this, the more potential cases come to mind, and the more important it seems to get cases like this right and establish some sort of common understanding for how to deal with them. I appreciate you helping me dive deeper into this and providing very thoughtful replies. Philomathes2357 (talk) 22:11, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Philomathes2357, it has to be about sources that exist in the real world, because otherwise, I could remove all the sources I disagree with, and then re-write the article to say whatever I believe.
 * The ideal process is something like this:
 * Do some research to find out what kinds of sources are out there. This could mean spending time with your favorite web search engine, with The Wikipedia Library (which I am absolutely loving; De Gruyter's books might be useful for that article), or even in a library.  Figure out what the overall lay of the land is, especially among the best sources.
 * Write the article so that it provides a reasonable summary of what you learned during the hours/days/weeks/months of research you did.
 * Cite whatever you need to, to verify the individual statements as you make them. If it's a pro/anti type of subject, this process can sometimes include citing "pro" sources to support "anti" content (and vice versa), which is another way that the balance of cited sources might not match the desired balance of the article itself.
 * If you are interested in an example, I think I have had as many NPOV arguments over Breast cancer awareness as for all the other articles combined. The problem is that the low-quality sources (e.g., puffy local news stories), were all rather glurge-y and irrelevant: "Look at the pretty woman who is soooo nice and strong and sweet that she's raising money to help other cancer victims!"
 * When I got into the scholarly literature, though, the story was quite different: "Look at the patriarchal assumptions that say sick women must be superheroes who never inconvenience anyone.  Look at the unfair expectations that say sick women have to wear makeup and wigs so that the rest of us aren't reminded about their vulnerability or our own mortality.  Look at how breast cancer was considered an obscene disease for so many decades.  Look at the way society polices the things sick women say about their fears and experiences.  Look at the way screening programs get promoted but prevention efforts gets downplayed.  Look at those deceptive fundraisers, which imply unlimited donations but actually make paltry donations.  Look at the billions of dollars we have spent without reducing the number of deaths materially.  Look at the alcohol manufacturers putting pink ribbons on their products, instead of putting on labels that say '15% of breast cancer is caused by drinking alcohol.  If you don't want breast cancer, then don't buy our product'."
 * The human problem we have is that when article content isn't what we expect, then we think it's wrong. So whatever your/my/anyone's own filter bubble says, that's what you automatically (whether you want to or not) think that's what the article should say.  The only way I've found to get out of that "confirming my own pre-existing biases" mode is to do a deep dive into high-quality sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * WhatamIdoing, as usual, you think deeply and show great wisdom. We may not always agree, at least initially, but I respect you.
 * You write: "when article content isn't what we expect, then we think it's wrong." Yes, too often one sees that is the initial reaction, especially by newbies and driveby POV pushers and vandals, and we often delete those comments on sight, with no explanation. "When article content isn't what we expect", the proper reaction is to:
 * AGF in fellow editors, IOW that they have tried to follow PAG;
 * assume the article is based on RS;
 * assume the article narrative is therefore correct;
 * assume that other editors and the sources they have found "know more" than I currently do;
 * assume that I am likely less informed and likely wrong;
 * assume this is a learning opportunity;
 * adopt a scientific attitude and follow the evidence, IOW, follow the sources;
 * bring my own POV into line with the sources, IOW, change my mind(!!!), no matter how painful;
 * before objecting to what I think is wrong, read the whole article, or at least the relevant parts, and also read the sources;
 * then, and only then, if I am still convinced the article, or part of it, is wrong, formulate a good case using RS, and open a thread to discuss a very specific issue, using exact quotes.
 * That's my method, and I have been forced to change my mind many times over the years. That's also what I love about editing here. I learn so much from other editors and sources. I may be stubborn at first, but good evidence will usually change my mind. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 17:25, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * We need a Barnstar of Publicly Changing Your Mind. It's one of the rarest behaviors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:34, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * We need a Barnstar of Publicly Changing Your Mind. It's one of the rarest behaviors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:34, 28 May 2024 (UTC)


 * This is a hard one. I don't think there's a general rule that always works. I go back to "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". So start there. Are all the significant and reliable views included in that article? After that, there's a debate to be had about how to present in-significant or un-reliable views (usually somewhere between leaving them out, or reporting them through the lens of more reliable sources). And then there's still a discussion to be had about each of the significant views. Are they all equal? Is one more significant or reliable than the other? The debate may be moot: our article may end up representing all of them, and letting the reader form their own opinion. Unfortunately, I think policy only gets us so far, and you need a lot of good faith editors doing a lot of quality research to settle each discussion, case-by-case. The only thing I'd add is if an editor digs their heels in and insists that some viewpoint is equally significant or more significant than what's currently in the article, there is eventually an onus on them to prove it, with actual WP:Verifiable reliable sources. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:06, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Shooterwalker, that's a great analysis. Start with all the reliable sources you can find, and let them speak. Sources, not editorial beliefs and opinions, have the primacy. Then describe what unreliable sources say, but only using the lens thru which RS look at what those unreliable sources say (as contrarian, false, and inaccurate views). Unreliable sources alone have zero due weight and should not be cited directly, only indirectly by citing RS that mention them, with the POV of the RS. Use attribution. Avoid bothsidism and false balance. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 17:02, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I find that a lot of novice editors come in because they have something to say, and then they find a source that supports it. It does risk pushing their POV (especially if they stray into primary research or other unreliable sources). More experienced editors approach it like a literature review. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:19, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

The 2003 statement of Jimmy Wales
We should avoid tempering with the statement made by Jimmy Wales in 2003. The key point here is simple: WP:Reliable sources is a guideline, not a policy. If WP:NPOV would be misleading, not useful or any thing of the sort without it, then it would be part of the policy, but it is not. The original statement of NPOV without any mention of reliable sources reminds us of the essential of NPOV, as it was when declared not negotiable in 2003 and many times later by Jimmy Wales. Not only it is possible to understand NPOV without any reference to reliable sources, it is also easier to misunderstand it in the context of reliable sources. This policy is the place to explain what is the neutral point of view. It is not the place to emphasize the complex notion of reliable sources, which can too easily be misunderstood in a way that conflicts with the essential of NPOV. As a strict minimum, please do not temper with the original statement of Jimmy Wales.

I am not against the reliable sources guideline. Nobody can be against it. Common sense is telling us that we must use reliable sources. We would not use a source that claims that Einstein wrote "E = mc³". There's no issue with the guideline per se. The issue is that it can be very badly misinterpreted and, therefore, it is best to keep things modular: there is a place to emphasize the neutral point of view and there is a place to emphasize reliable sources and the NPOV policy is not that place. Dominic Mayers (talk) 20:48, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * , when you write "tempering", do you really mean "tampering"? If so, please fix that. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 19:57, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the plain intent of Wales's statement is that we temper with it. EEng 05:38, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Why? Wales is not a God and his word is not consensus, it actually carries no more weight than any one else's (nobody would take seriously the suggestion that we should do someone because Sanger did it... I don't see why Wale's name carries any more weight, he's just another washed up old time editor albeit one who still maintains at least a modicum of the communities respect... Not that he isn't rapidly squandering what he has left). For me its natural, NPOV builds on RS... Not the other way around, without RS NPOV doesn't exist but without NPOV RS would be fine. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 14:14, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, I very much feel the same way and I suspect very much that Jimmy Wales himself does not think differently. That's not the point. It just happens that he wrote the policy that has been a kind of contract between Wikipedia and the community. This contract cannot be changed lightly, not even by Jimmy Wales, especially something that was presented as not negotiable and thus to remain permanent. He is bound to that contract as much as we are. He would change his mind that I would not care. Dominic Mayers (talk) 14:31, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There is no contract (neither is there anything truly nonnegotiable or permanent on wikipedia, such a contract could not exist). Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 14:32, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is even a kind of legal contract, because you cannot change the mission of a non for profit organization without risking losing your status. But, I was not thinking in legal terms. Of course, there is a kind of implicit contract when you make millions of people contribute to a project under some policies. You cannot change them just like that. Dominic Mayers (talk) 14:41, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Policies and guidelines are not the charter... And there is no risk of losing your status as long as the change doesn't take you outside the regulatory requirements even if we did want to change the charter. I would also note that if the community wanted to make wiki for-profit it could... That is within our power, we just wouldn't. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 14:56, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Actually, NPOV might have been initially a part of the charter, but, as I said, I am not thinking in legal terms. The most important thing here is that a discussion here between us does  not represent the "community". If you really want that the community changes the policy in a significant manner, you need to do much more than that. Dominic Mayers (talk) 15:14, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * In non-legal wikipedia terms there is still no contract. In general it is held that consensus represents the community, we aren't discussing a significant change to the policy (or any actual change at all, just the wording) Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:37, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * In re if the community wanted to make wiki for-profit it could...: This is not true, and now we know beyond any doubt that HEB isn't a lawyer.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:19, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The Wikimedia Foundation is set up as a 501(C)(3), not as some sort of fancy irrevocable trust. Wikipedia is an asset which can be sold to whoever the foundation wants, as long as they get fair market value for it Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 06:41, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "The community" has no legal right to do that. The Wikipedia trademark and domain name are assets which the Wikimedia Foundation can sell to whomever it wants.  If they do so as part of a conversion to for-profit status, then it has to be done at fair-market value.  However, "the community" cannot do this.  "The community" has exactly the same rights as any random person on the street.  "The community" has the right to vanish and the right to fork.  "The community" does not have the right to convert the WMF to a for-profit, nor to transfer Wikipedia to a for-profit organization. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The Foundation is a subset of the community, everyone involved with the Foundation is a community member. In this hypothetical (because none of this shit is ever going to happen) anything the community wants the Foundation wants too. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 13:40, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * An awful lot of word have been written, but I still don't see the point of it all. That NPOV must be based only on reliable sourcing is in the first sentence of the policy. Reliable sourcing is a requirement of WP:V, a policy and also non-negotiable, WP:Reliable sources is a guideline on how to determine a reliable source. NPOV/V/NOR must all be interpreted together, as no one policy over rules any other. Anyone wanting NPOV to over rule the others would need to get consensus for that from the community. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 15:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree that in the correct way to understand the policies, they do not contradict each other. I even agree that the basic notion of reliable sources is so basic and natural that there is no need to make it explicit to explain the essential of NPOV, just like we don't  need to explain what a road is to explain the way to Paris. This is exactly why the emphasis on reliable sources is problematic. It says that there are extra restrictions associated with reliable sources that are emphasized, but we don't know what they are. When it comes to decide what is a reliable source,  because it is determined in guidelines, not in a policy, NPOV (and V and NOR) should have a clear priority and they should not be made less clear by strangely emphasizing what depends on guidelines.  Dominic Mayers (talk) 16:07, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd agree on most of that, and workshopping clearer language would help. But you point that reliable sources is a guideline is just semantics, the word reliable sources in the lead is linked to WP:V. That a guideline is also called 'reliable sources' is neither here nor there. Reliable sources must be determined by policy for NPOV, the lead of the policy makes that clear. If you wish to discuss how reliable sources are determined this isn't the correct page, but it must be done. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 16:29, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, this policy is not the place to discuss what is a reliable source. The problem is that you are saying that, nevertheless, it is perfectly fine to constantly bring out reliable sources in that policy. People aren't naive. They see there are hidden complexities, because if it was only the obvious, it would not be emphasized so much. Bringing out complexities too early, when they are not needed and it is not the time to discuss them cannot be justified. The motivation  is most likely that some people believe that some sources must be used and other sources must not be used—some of these people being possibly biased—but they want to publicize the importance of this as early and as often as possible in the NPOV policy, even though it is not at all the essential of NPOV and it is not the time to explain it. This is not good. It brings the focus away from the policy, because of a different agenda. Dominic Mayers (talk) 17:39, 1 June 2024 (UTC)


 * This heading has gotten too much activity for me to follow (which is usually a red flag). I'd just strongly say no, we shouldn't rewrite Wikipedia policy based on the state of Wikipedia twenty years ago. Nor should policies be rewritten by the whims of quotes attributed to one Wikipedia founder, or one editor's interpretation of a cherry picked quote. It's been standard practice as long as I've been reading Wikipedia -- WP:NPOV should never negate WP:V and WP:RS. All our policies and guidelines should be read together. And in many cases, we should state the relationship between policies explicitly, so that editors can't WP:WIKILAWYER away the policies that are inconvenient to their point of view. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:01, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you. RS is often mentioned because we need a policy to remove fringe theories, etc. We also need a clear policy for not taking sides, not engaging in debates, but describing them, etc., because these are the foundation for a rational construction of the encyclopedia. All of that converge toward a same goal. I am not pursuing further any discussions here, but I wanted to agree on this, especially on the importance of reliable sources. Dominic Mayers (talk) 02:51, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Emphasis on Reliable Sources and suppression of Jimmy Wales own words about not taking sides
Despite the above warning about not adding emphasis on "reliable sources" and emphasizing instead what is the basic of the neutral point of view, the following edit was made. The phrase and the article should certainly address the controversy without taking sides, which are the exact own words of Jimmy Wales about the basic of NPOV in the exact context where they were used by him in 2003, was removed. Also, an emphasis was made on "Reliable sources" by adding the color green.

In one way, using reliable sources is just common sense. Nobody can argue against using reliable sources. The problem is that there must be something beyond the obvious, because there is no point in emphasizing the obvious, but we do not know what this non obvious thing is. Because of this ambiguity, an emphasis on reliable sources out of context creates more confusion than anything else. It weakens the policy without adding anything to it beyond the obvious. For this reason, I advocate a more modular approach in which reliable sources is mentioned less often and when mentioned it should be emphasized that it cannot means anything against the basic of NPOV explained in this policy. Dominic Mayers (talk) 12:06, 1 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I applaud Dominic Mayers for removing the words "[in reliable sources]" here, indeed those words should not exist in what purports to be a paraphrase of Mr Wales when the original text has no such words. I do not applaud Dominic Mayers for removing the word "(scientific)" here. And the paraphrase should have included scientific since that is what Mr Wales explicitly included. I also acknowledge that Mr Wales later said ... as a general rule, I think that almost any argument, on any topic, which has premises beginning with "Jimbo said..." is a pretty weak argument. but like to refer to his opinion anyway -- in fact I just did. I do not understand why Dustfreeworld changed to green. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:10, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Update: Dustfreeworld changed the sentence to remove green but made a different word brown. I think MOS:TEXT's words -- "Prose text should never be colored." -- apply. I intend to remove brown if nobody but Dustfreeworld objects. I also intend to restore (scientific) if nobody but Dominic Mayers objects. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:15, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I would be for removing the whole "Paraphrased from Jimmy Wales" sentence. There no need to cling to one person's words in a policy document. Policy is meant to reflect practice, not be set in stone decades ago. However for the moment I think it should all go back to how it was (no colouring, no scientific), as it has all been obviously contentious. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 19:50, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I removed brown since nobody came to support it, since MOS:TEXT appears applicable, since ActivelyDisinterested also said "no colouring". I mentioned "scientific", and that it was opposed, in section "Adding reliable sources in Jimmy Wales statement". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:28, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping in ES, sorry I didn’t follow the discussion and only notice this today. Per MOS:COLOR, it seems to me accessibility is the main reason that colored text is not preferred. If I understand it correctly, if “its status is also indicated using another method” (e.g., italics?”, it is ok to use colored text.
 * MOS:COLOR, "Articles (and other pages) that use color should keep accessibility in mind, as follows: Ensure that color is not the only method used to communicate important information. Especially, do not use colored text or background unless its status is also indicated using another method, such as an accessible symbol matched to a legend, or footnote labels. Otherwise, blind users or readers accessing Wikipedia through a printout or device without a color screen will not receive that information." FYI, brown was added because in another discussion a user has misinterpreted the policy by citing what Jimbo said, even with the italics in place (I think someone might have explained the situation further above ...) I don’t feel very strong about this, but if brown is to be removed, perhaps bold emphasis should be added, so that people won’t miss the point. -- Dustfreeworld (talk) 17:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * ActivelyDisinterested has restored emphasis with italics markup; MOS:EMPHASIS says that's not preferred; I say the whole sentence is bad; but anyway there's no brown and it's wonderful to restore to pre-May-30 stable version; so let's defer argument about that. WP:COLOR says Colors are most commonly found in Wikipedia articles within templates and tables. which wasn't the case with the brown change, so I believe the only applicable PAG is MOS:TEXT which, again, is Prose text should never be colored. Admittedly this post might contain green text but Template:Talk quote inline is specifically for talk pages. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:23, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * MOS:TEXT applies to how text is formatted in articles, it's part of the first sentence of the page. MOS:COLOUR applies to 'articles (and other pages)', as accessibility is crucial for all pages not just articles. I don't think any of it forbids coloured text, not that I think it's necessary in this case. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 14:45, 20 June 2024 (UTC)


 * If its a paraphrase and not a copy it can have words that the original comment doesn't. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 14:18, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Sure, but the paraphrase must still respect the fundamentals and "reliable sources" does not help explaining the essential of NPOV. It is something added, because we want to put some restrictions to the neutral point of view, but it is not even clear what these restrictions are. It cannot just be that we want to avoid sources that would claim "Einstein wrote E = mc³," because this is obvious. It is instead an open door for much more restrictions than that, but it is not clear what they are. It just weaken the policy without adding anything to its clarity. Dominic Mayers (talk) 14:59, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The fundamentals are that NPOV is meaningless if you haven't already established what is and isn't a reliable source. This also seems to be the point Wales was making in a larger sense. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:01, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, again, of course, I repeat myself, nobody argues that we can use unreliable sources. We can also say that it was implicit in the original statement of Jimmy Wales. However, that does not make reliable sources a fundamental aspect of NPOV that must be constantly emphasized. Obviously, you are simply ignoring and not responding to my arguments. Dominic Mayers (talk) 15:34, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I apologize, perhaps rather than ignoring them I simply do not understand them? I don't understand how reliable sources aren't a fundamental aspect of NPOV when NPOV is determined entirely by what is in reliable sources. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:34, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I am surprised that I need to explain this. Of course, the content of the article must come from reliable sources. Isn't it obvious that this point is so general and basic that it says nothing essential about NPOV. Emphasizing such an obvious point makes people rightfully aware that some extra complex restrictions are being advertised, but these are not about the essential of NPOV. NPOV is about not taking sides, providing extra context, the arguments, etc. It is not about reliable sources, just like explaining the way to Paris is not about explaining what is a road and complexities about the concept of road. If you suggest complexities related to the concept of road while you explain the way to Paris, then it creates confusion. It is a diversion. Dominic Mayers (talk) 18:46, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * We do take sides though... We side with reliable sources... NPOV is not inherently neutral as in reality agnostic. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 19:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No, we do not take sides. That is exactly what NPOV is about: not taking sides. That is why we provide the context, give the arguments and even attribute whenever it is pertinent. If I write "John said X", I am not taking side with John regarding X. As far as the reader is concerned, I might even disagree with John. Similarly, if I give John's arguments, it does not mean I accept them. It only means that I let people know what are John's arguments. The fact that you do not understand this and say "we take side with reliable sources" reinforce a lot my conviction that insisting on reliable sources only create confusion. Dominic Mayers (talk) 19:37, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * NPOV is our side and NPOV is determined solely by the publishing of reliable sources. Neutrality in this context is a position, not a lack of a position. To put it another way we don't take no point of view we take the neutral point of view. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 19:45, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course, the neutral point of view is still a point of view, but it is not any of the points of view in sources, reliable or not. The only exception, but it is not really an exception, is when the content taken from the source is not really a point of view, but a simple not controversial fact. For example, "Le SS Normandie appeared twice in the Adventures of Tintin" is a simple fact and there is less insistence in that case that we take the neutral point of view. We could, for example by writing "The famous commentator Horeau mentions that ...", but it is delicate, because it could create the opposite effect, if it gives the impression that we doubt an otherwise reliable source: we do not take sides in favour, but also not against, the sources. That is why excessive attribution is not what NPOV is about and it should  not be used to present facts as (doubtful) opinions. The general idea is that an encyclopedic style is neutral in the sense that it is more informative than it is affirmative or doubtful. Of course, while you do that, it may very well happen that a point of view appears as valid, especially if a point of view is presented as the point of view of mainstream science, but this still can be done while adopting the neutral point of view, i.e., without taking sides. Dominic Mayers (talk) 20:22, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It is not any of the point of views in reliable sources... But it is determined entirely by them. A change to what we consider RS automatically changes what is NPOV, they opposite does not happen. NPOV in this context isn't fixed, its constantly shifting. There is no exception, you're confusing POV with opinion (facts, opinions, and anything in between are covered by NPOV). Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 20:27, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Bingo! From Wikipedia talk:NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content:
 * "Editors are "neutral" when they are centered right under the point where most RS congregate, regardless of whether that is to the left or right of center. We do not "move" or "balance" content to the center to keep an article "neutral". That would be editorial, non-neutral, interference in what RS say. Maybe you should read my essay about this: NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content. At Wikipedia, "neutral" does not mean what you think it means. It really doesn't. It is not a middle position. It is not a position without bias. At Wikipedia, "neutral" means alignment with RS, including their biases."
 * That's how I see it. We center ourselves under RS and move with them. We follow the scientific method and "follow the evidence". -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 20:41, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * TL;DR: If you believe that the essential of NPOV is simply a respect of the proportion in reliable sources, you are simply mistaken.
 * Now, the longer version: I understand your explanation of NPOV. I think you might agree that it is not a very deep and complicated understanding of NPOV. I hope you do not doubt one second that I can easily understand what you think NPOV is. Basically, you are simply focusing on the simple notion of proper weight. This being said, let us  compare this with the actual policy. Consider the first practical concrete advice in the policy:
 * The emphasis through this first practical advice is on the attribution of opinions. Also, the policy clearly states that we should not take sides: it is still there in the nutshell: Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides. A key sentence that is provided in the policy's explanations is Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. In other words, when discussing a subject, we should report what people have said about it rather than what is so. These are all key points that existed and were well emphasized already in 2003. In 2003, there was a greater emphasis on providing the arguments as a way to achieve neutrality. It is less emphasized today, but it is certainly still a very useful approach.
 * I admit that nowadays these points are mixed with many other sentences that are about weight and proportion as when it is said at the start representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. This can explain why you miss the points I just brought out and focus more on the simple notion of weight and proportion instead. However, weight and proportion have never been the main central points of NPOV. In fact, even the section that we call  Due and undue weight actually refers to a 2003 statement of Jimmy Wales that was used to introduce No Original Research, not the notion of weight. Moreover, the original statement of Jimmy Wales included
 * The notion of not taking sides was clearly central at the time, not only in that sentence. It is still central today, mentioned at the start in the nutshell, but I agree that it get lost among other sentences. So, I understand that you do not seem to take it into account. Dominic Mayers (talk) 22:07, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * How can "weight and proportion have never been the main central points of NPOV." be true if today those are the central points of NPOV? As you yourself noted, that is what the current first sentence is all about. I don't like this close reading of Wales, it strikes me as messianic... At the end of the day it does not matter what Wales said or what Wales meant. Their opinion carries the exact same weight as yours or mine. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 04:47, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I explained many times why weight and proportion are not the central concepts. Moreover, it is not a close reading of Wales. It mainly refers to the current policy as it is now and make some reference to what it was in 2003. I don't see how I can continue this kind of discussions which does not respond to the essential of my arguments, but instead deforms them and superficially say that I am messianic, confused, etc. Dominic Mayers (talk) 05:57, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * So they're not central... But the introduction of this page which presumably covers all of the central concepts talks about no other concepts... How do you square that contradiction? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 06:20, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The nutshell says Articles must not take sides,... The section Explanations emphasises describe disputes, but not engage in them. and its first main practical advice is about attribution. I already pointed out what you say about the lede lead. You are not adding anything to what I already explained. You focus on some sentences, whereas I bring out the big picture by considering the current and historical context. Dominic Mayers (talk) 07:26, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Do you appreciate the irony of lecturing your fellow editors about their supposed lack of understanding of big picture and the historical context while referring to a "lede"? There are no ledes on Wikipedia... We have leads. See WP:NOTALEDE for more. You didn't answer the question, how do you square that contradiction? If that results in you repeating yourself indulge me. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 07:38, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I just explained the situation: You focus on some sentences, whereas I bring out the big picture by considering the current and historical context. It says it all. Dominic Mayers (talk) 12:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You actually seem to be rejecting both the current and historical context, for example by insisting that weight and proportion have never been central concepts when they clearly and unambiguously have been and currently are. I think its that denial of objective reality that is rubbing people the wrong way... I don't disagree with you philosophically its just that almost every fact that you write is false and most obviously so. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You are discrediting my arguments without any specific. Please stop. It's not even an invitation to discuss the specific of my arguments, because we have passed this stage.  I lost confidence that there is a genuine interest in a good discussion.   Dominic Mayers (talk) 16:00, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * People disagreeing with you is not the same thing as them not having a genuine interest in a good discussion... A good discussion means that people are going to vigorously disagree with you and point out when you say things that are objectively untrue. Also where did you pick up using a stop sign like that? It doesn't strike me as civil and I haven't encounter someone spamming stop signs before. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:02, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I am not interested. Dominic Mayers (talk) 16:06, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Then say that you have lost interest next time, don't cast vague aspersions at other editors. Other editors have a genuine interest in a good discussion, if you don't thats ok but spamming stop signs and casting aspersions isn't. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:08, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I am not doing any thing wrong in using a stop sign. This accusation is part of what you need to stop.  Dominic Mayers (talk) 16:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Again you're saying things that are not true and then attempting to shut down any rebuttal. I didn't make an accusation, I asked you where you picked it up, said that it struck me as uncivil, and that I had not seen it before. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:14, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok, you win "accusation" was not the best word to use. The point is that I am not interested in your judgments about me. And as long as you will keep making judgments about me, I will ask you to stop. If it helps to achieve the goal, I will not use the stop sign.Dominic Mayers (talk) 16:22, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * , if you have the impression that I confuse things, then the communication has failed, and you should consider the possibility that the explanation is simply that you have difficulties in getting rid of your misunderstandings. I do that for myself all the times. I expect the same from you. Dominic Mayers (talk) 20:48, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes... "The only exception, but it is not really an exception, is when the content taken from the source is not really a point of view, but a simple not controversial fact." gives me the impression that you think that there is an exception and that the exception you think exists is for simple non-controversial facts. I don't think I'm confused here. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 04:45, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't know what to say. I do not intend to start a discussion about whether you are confused or not. I just want to say that I am not. Dominic Mayers (talk) 04:52, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You are clearly confused about NPOV, half a dozen editors have told you so. The problem is you not all of us... And your proposed solution that other editors just stop pointing out that the things you're saying aren't true isn't going to work. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:54, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I explained why I removed scientific, but it can be put back with a footnote that explains that the context was an attempt by someone to include his own scientific original research and that the policy itself was never limited to scientific knowledge. Dominic Mayers (talk) 14:37, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I also responded above to the argument that Jimmy Wales has no special authority regarding the policies. I believe that he would himself agree that the policies stand by themselves and adding his name in front of them does not make them better. As explained above, that is not the point. Dominic Mayers (talk) 14:47, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that my bold edit kicked off all of this. For context, I thought that edit might help because I saw an editor (~700 edits, ~9 months old) quoting that as if "extremely small minority" referred to the number of editors in a discussion.
 * It is possible to quote the present version (If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia) as meaning "If you are the only editor who wants to include that material, then it does not belong on Wikipedia". It is not possible to quote my longer version (If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority of reliable sources, it does not belong on Wikipedia) as meaning anything about the number of editors holding the viewpoint.
 * I don't feel strongly about it, and the very next sentence addresses this point (Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.), so I don't think that it's very important either way. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:06, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I understand that this edit in itself was very innocent. It is just that the emphasis all over the place on "reliable sources" is not, however, innocent at all. The idea that the foundation of NPOV is nothing more than having a weight that corresponds to the proportion in sources is so wrong. Adding the requirement that the sources must be "reliable" as if this was the key missing concept to make it right is just contributing to the confusion. Dominic Mayers (talk) 05:26, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The foundation of NPOV is described in the first sentence of the policy, that NPOV means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. No one is adding that reliable sources are required, that is what the policy says. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 10:25, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I already replied to that argument above. Yes, it requires a more in depth discussion, but it's does not seem that it is going to happen now. I don't see a true interest for such a discussion.  Dominic Mayers (talk) 12:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Recurring arguments about the structure of the policy
I just want to point out a recurring argument regarding the structure of the policy. The argument is simply that the first sentence in the lead does not mention explicitly concepts principles such as "do not take sides", "do not engage in debates, but describe them", "attribute opinions" and therefore these are not central concepts principles of NPOV. Dominic Mayers (talk) 16:47, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Are those concepts or are they ways in which concepts are operationalized? If we want to interrogate just one of them "do not engage in debates, but describe them" is not a concept, its guidance on how to follow the concepts. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I believe I understand your point. If I understand correctly, you are saying that they are not mentioned, because they are principles that are needed to achieve the goal, not the goal itself. I am curious to know what others have to say. Dominic Mayers (talk) 17:01, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * More or less, but when I think about it the policy itself is a principle and the goal is the creation of an encyclopedia. If you wanted to call NPOV, V, and NOR our core principles I would agree with that. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Should "of reliable sources" be restored?
WITHDRAWN BY OP. SEE AT BOTTOM.

THIS IS NOT A FORMAL RFC, BUT MAY LAY THE GROUNDWORK FOR A FUTURE RFC. A consensus here can be used to change content. An RfC is not necessary when there is a strong consensus.

WAS: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true, or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article."

THEN: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority of reliable sources, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true, or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article."

NOW: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true, or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article."

IMPLIED COROLLARY: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely large majority, it does belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is false, or you cannot prove it."

PROBLEM: "of reliable sources" was added and then removed.

THE ISSUE: "extremely small minority" refers to number of RS, not the number of people. That addition addresses a very real need here.

Let's use homeopathy as an example. "An extremely small minority of reliable sources" take it seriously. In fact, no really RS take it seriously. They universally criticize and debunk it. Yet, billions of people believe in homeopathy, primarily in India. That's not "an extremely small minority" (of people), so, per the implied corollary, it belongs on Wikipedia. But we don't include it because of the number of people who believe it. We do that because of the number of RS that document it as fringe, pseudoscientific, nonsense. RS are the reason we do things here.

Some fringe nonsense viewpoints "held by an extremely small minority of reliable sources" happen to be documented by myriad RS and are thus notable enough for documentation here, even with whole articles about fringe nonsense. It is the coverage in RS that give it enough weight for mention, not the number of people who believe the fringe nonsense. Fortunately, for the purposes of serving our readers, including the deluded masses, there is a tendency for widely held nonsense to be described in enough RS so we can document it. That keeps us inline with our mission here, to "document the sum of all human knowledge" as it is mentioned in RS.

At Wikipedia, we don't give a flying f##k how many people believe something. The masses can be deluded and deceived. They are not RS. Our only concern is what RS say (and unreliable sources have zero due weight). "extremely small minority" refers to number of RS, not the number of people, therefore that wording is important.

PROPOSAL: That "of reliable sources" be restored as it is an important modifier that keeps the wording in harmony with our PAG.

Yes or No? Let's discuss this. Provide your reasoning. (I have already done so above.) -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 17:49, 2 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Yes, as explained above. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 17:49, 2 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I think it's a good idea. There's obvious misunderstanding of this point, and what someone said twenty years ago doesn't dictate policy (especially as the point was always implicit). -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 20:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Please read, which bring out the very specific need answered by the notion of reliable sources and the fact that it is after 2003 that this need was felt. In fact, I am curious to know when the term "reliable sources" and its use for articles in medicine, etc. first appeared. Dominic Mayers (talk) 21:47, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The dependence on RS has always existed, even if I can't remember the exact formulations. For discussion's sake, let's play with the idea that "reliable sources" was not an "original" concept. Let us also compare our PAG to the Constitution. The Constitution was quickly found to be lacking, hence the creation of Constitutional Amendments. At Wikipedia, our PAG grow all the time, and one could view those changes as amendments and improvements to the imperfect "original" ideas at the creation of Wikipedia. When we see a need, we fix it.
 * It sounds like you don't think it's a good idea to base all content on RS and are seeking to create an argument for "going back to the foundations" when there was no (as you imply) such requirement. Even if you are right that there was no such requirement, it's an improvement to have it, so casting doubt on it is an unwise idea. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 22:03, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No, you misunderstand my goal. I have nothing against the new principles. However, repeating "use reliable sources" all over the place does not explain anything. It is just advertising criteria that will be explained elsewhere. If, to do this advertising, we emphasize due weight, which was only introduced after 2003, because it fits well with "reliable sources", then it creates a serious problem. For example, the notion of attribution in the principle "attribute opinions" has almost nothing to do with reliable sources. Yes, the opinion itself must be found in reliable sources, but once the opinion is sourced, the extra requirement for attribution has nothing to do with reliable sources. Similarly, the principle "do not take sides" per se, once all sides are properly sourced, has nothing to do with reliable sources.  Therefore, the emphasis is on due weight, because it is directly connected with reliable sources. Yet, due weight is not the essence of NPOV. I do not want to cast doubt on the purpose of reliable sources,  but just repeating "use reliable sources" all over the place is not explaining much and if in doing so we focalize on due weight and fails to also emphasize the original principles, then I think it is very bad. Dominic Mayers (talk) 23:06, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Isn't attribution almost entirely about source reliability? What is it about otherwise? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 13:36, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * In the context of this policy, it is mostly a way to achieve the neutral point of view and, no, it is not mainly about reliability, in the same way that the way to Paris is not mainly about reliable roads. The latter is more basic, something that is better kept in the background when we explain the way to Paris. Really, it is strange that I need to explain this again and again. It is clear that we are far from having an attribution after we have only checked that the viewpoint is sourced. It should also be very clear that the purpose of attribution, which is to achieve the neutral point of view, goes way beyond the reliability of the sources.  It makes no sense to suggest that the former can be reduced to the latter. Dominic Mayers (talk) 13:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * But isn't the decision about whether to attribute and if so what form that attribution should take almost entirely based on the reliability of the source/sources? I don't think your roads+Paris analogy works, I would drop it. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:42, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You keep saying that reliable sources are the foundation, etc. and I don't disagree, but only in the same sense that roads are the foundation for the way to Paris. You do not accept my argument and my analogy with the roads to Paris. Having my arguments plainly rejected with a "please drop it", no further details provided and be left with nothing to build upon to further argue is not interesting. But fine, you win, I have no further arguments. Dominic Mayers (talk) 16:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Policy isn't based on the exact phrasing that Wales used in 2003. I understand you point, I just don't agree with you. We're not going back in time to before October 2006, which is when the policy gained it's current form. If you want to use the form before that you need to get consensus for the change. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 22:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The issue at the moment is that a small set of editors misinterpret the current wording, and how best to stop that from happening. The top wording of this section details that well. If you have a different way to avoid this misunderstanding I would be interested to hear it. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 23:25, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what is the misinterpretation. It may be that they have the correct interpretation of what it meant at the time and the problem is that some people do not like that reliable sources is not emphasized again. For example, it is clear from the context that the statement was not making a clear distinction between sources that hold a viewpoint and people that hold a viewpoint. Even today, this distinction is not always clear. That should not be an issue. I have a hard time to  believe that the misinterpretation would be a confusion between people or media that are sources and wikipedia editors. It is almost impossible given the context to make this confusion. In any case, there is certainly no need to make an anachronism by mentioning reliable sources to remove that confusion. Dominic Mayers (talk) 00:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * They do not, it did in the preceding sentence of his statement, it is clear as per the next sentence in the current policy as mentioned below, whether you believe the issue or not it does happen, not an anachronism that would only be the case in NPOV policy was the 2003 statement unchanged which it isn't. But Valjean makes a good point that this is already covered, so the solution would be to simply point out that next sentence. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 02:25, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I am all for moving forward, but the notion of reliable sources does not need to be repeated all over the place, especially not when it creates an anachronism. It did not exist in 2003 and, here, we paraphrase a 2003 statement. The argument that it was implicit is wrong. If it was introduced in 2006, then it was something really new. Saying it was implicit is just playing with words. In a way, every thing potentially existed (or was implicit) at the time of the big bang ! It is also that modularity is important. There are principles that can be explained without reference to reliable sources. It is as if we were saying all the times take this reliable road and then this reliable road, etc to go to Paris. It creates confusion, because the fact that the roads are reliable is better kept implicit. It does not help to explain the way to Paris. And when I see that there is little interest here in better explaining the basic principles of NPOV and that we have that long discussion to emphasize "reliable sources" instead, some even say that I lack of focus because I complain, then I am sad. Dominic Mayers (talk) 23:41, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I am withdrawing this proposal because of these words that immediately follow the text in question: "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public. If you can prove a theory that few or none believe, Wikipedia is not the place to present such proof. Once it has been presented and discussed in sources that are reliable, it may be appropriately included. See 'No original research' and 'Verifiability'."

That really covers my objective quite well. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 02:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The "Keep in mind...." wording seems to come from a request. See Revision as of 01:37, 19 May 2008. I'm not sure it was a request I made, but it sounds exactly like something I might have added. I have added a number of things to this policy since 2003. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 02:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree that this subsequent sentence covers the necessary territory. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

This informal or pre Rfc is biased
It fails to mention the important point that it is about a paraphrase of Jimmy Wales 2003 statement. It also cherry picks what it considers relevant in that paraphrase. In particular, the following point in the 2003 statement is not mentioned: It is important, because its reference to "prominent adherents" makes it clear that Jimmy Wales was thinking in very general terms. There is also a bias in making a pre RfC on reliable sources, which is already emphasized all over the place in the policy, while "without taking sides", which is a key point made in the nutshell at the top of the policy, is not even mentioned once after in the policy.

"Reliable sources" was not mentioned at the time of the 2003 statement, whereas the 2003 statement mentions "without taking sides". Since it is in the original 2003 statement, I think it is this that should appear in the paraphrase, not "reliable sources". It is also biased to refer to a "restoration". It is not that the policy was modified by removing "reliable sources" and now we want to restore it. No, it is the opposite. It has been proposed today to add it and this is contested. Dominic Mayers (talk) 18:47, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It is not an RfC. It is for discussion to avoid any problems in the event an RfC is necessary. It is important to examine the issue from many angles so an RfC can be focused on a limited and specific issue. It is not possible to consider every single possibility in every discussion. This just leads to endless discussions like the ones you get involved in. Other editors finally just give up as the discussions are hopeless and goalposts keep getting moved. Try to stay focused. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 19:23, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Please do not make judgements about my manner to proceed, but focus on the essential of my arguments instead. In this way, I will not have to reply about superficial issues like I am forced to do now and we will have the required focus. Dominic Mayers (talk) 19:28, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

The key question to ask and a proposed answer
Before we discuss the mention of "reliable sources" in Jimmy Wales's paraphrase, it is important to ask ourselves why, concretely, this emphasis on "reliable sources" is so important ? Why the criteria already there in 2003 ("commonly accepted reference texts" and "easy to name prominent adherents" as inclusion criteria and "extremely small minority" as an exclusion criterion) are not sufficient anymore ? By "concretely", I mean that we need to go beyond the obvious explanation. The obvious explanation fails, because there is nothing to be concerned about when it is something obvious that every one, even a wacko or a fanatic, accepts and understands. In other words, if there is a need for an emphasis, it is because it is something that must be explained to other people. I suspect that we will all agree that these people are anti-vax people or climate denial people, etc. In that context, principles such as "do not take sides", "do not engage in debates, but describe them" and "attribute opinions" do not seem sufficient. These principles were the key principles of NOPV, they are still very important and "use reliable sources" was not one of them.

Because these principles were not sufficient, in 2003, the NOR principle was added with something close to the reliable sources requirement, but it was not the reliable sources requirement. It was felt sufficient to require that the viewpoint was published in "commonly accepted reference texts". It was even considered sufficient that it is "easy to name prominent adherents". And for the rejection, it was sufficient that it was held by only an "extremely small minority". There was no mention of reliable sources. Now, again, the question is why nowadays we insist so much on the terminology "reliable sources". I propose that the explanation is that "easy to name prominent adherents" does not allow for a restrictive inclusion criteria. In contrast, with "reliable sources", we can insist that, in areas such as medicine, we must use only some special kind of meta-analyses. In other words, the reason is that "reliable sources" is more flexible when it comes to give the specific of the criterion in medicine, etc. There is nothing wrong with that.

Yet, please, please, let us not throw away the fundamental principles of NPOV, which is what this policy was about before 2003, before reliable sources, and should still be first about. I am concerned that this emphasis all over the place on "reliable sources" distract the readers from the essence of NPOV. Dominic Mayers (talk) 21:24, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "use reliable sources" is fundamental to all content and PAG here. There is no content without RS, and all PAG exist with that background, whether it is said or not. All PAG exist in the service of using RS to create content. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 21:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This is not in contradiction with what I wrote. The way to Paris cannot exist if there is no roads, but it does not mean that when we explain the way to Paris, we must emphasize the concept of road. On the contrary, it can be a distraction to discuss roads when we explain the way to Paris. So, because of what you said, this emphasis on reliable sources can be a distraction away from the main principles of NPOV. Dominic Mayers (talk) 22:03, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * NPOV is a huge and complicated topic with many aspects. We won't get anywhere if we must always mention every aspect in every discussion. Focus on one aspect and improve it. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 22:06, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think you are simply not understanding my point and, because of that, you simply considered it out of focus. But it is entirely on focus. In fact, it goes to the essence of the matter. You keep wanting mentioning "reliable sources" and the context is "We take side with reliable sources", etc. It is important to clarify for yourself why it is important for you. Just saying it is fundamental, etc. is not a concrete answer. It is so sad that you cannot step back and concretely answer the question why it is so important to emphasise it and then see the connection between this and the original principles of NPOV, which existed before the specific notion of reliable sources, which you want to emphasize. Dominic Mayers (talk) 22:21, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I give up [on discussing with Dominic] . I'm not going to get caught up in another time sink with you. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 22:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I was going to oppose, but if the OP has given up I guess I don't need to. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * , I meant a discussion with Dominic (so have added that now). Such discussions drag on forever and yield little of worth. You can "oppose" above in the right section. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 02:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Valjean The WP:TALK guideline re changing your own comment after there's been a reply includes Any inserted text should be marked with, which renders in most browsers as underlined text, e.g., inserted. E.g. [on discussing with Dominic] .Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that clue. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 17:17, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Curious what your objection is? The same paragraph says "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject.", so adding "reliable sources" again seems unnecessary. This phrasing is also a bit more sophisticated, in that reliable sources might be telling us a view is held by a large majority, which we would believe in contrast to unreliable sources telling us a large number of people think the world is flat. Though I wouldn't necessarily object to adding "of reliable sources" either, since it doesn't seem like it would change anything. -- Beland (talk) 01:20, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I have withdrawn the proposal because of words that immediately follow the text in question. See the section above about this matter. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 02:17, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Beland, FYI I'd have objected again that when paraphrasing Mr Wales one should not insert words that bear no resemblance to his actual words, but I don't need to. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah, gotcha. The page says the bulleted list is paraphrasing Wales, but the paragraph above makes no such representation; I would expect that to represent the modern consensus of the current community of editors. -- Beland (talk) 18:43, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Dominic, I'm not sure that I understand what "without taking sides" means to you.
 * Imagine a world in which there was an online encyclopedia. We are all big fans and want to write an article about it.  Imagine that every single independent source ever published about it consistently pans it:  "All the content is bad, but fortunately, there's hardly any of it."  "A survey of history articles indicates that the article creation priority is 'Every possible detail about the three historically unimportant minor battles that J. Henry Smith IV believes his great-great-great-grandfather was present during'."  "When I find two grammatically correct sentences in a row, the surprise throws me off for the whole day."  "We fact-checked 100 sentences and found 250 errors."  "My aunt knows more than those goofs, and she can't even figure out how to turn off the flashlight on her smartphone."
 * What would "not taking sides" look like in such a case? Does that mean writing something like:
 * "It has limited content, but covers some areas, such as certain minor battles during the War, in detail"? or
 * "It has been harshly criticized for error-riddled content, low-quality writing and haphazard content"? or
 * "It has been criticized some but is appreciated by others" [with Wikipedia editors being the unnamed 'others']?
 * WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:16, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

How to not take sides (reply to a question)
, I feel a bit embarrassed by your question, because this talk page is not the place to discuss the personal understanding of NPOV of anyone in particular. On the other hand, it is the place to ask if the principle "do not take sides", which is the very starting point in the nutshell and always have been central in the NPOV policy is misused. I think it is misused, by being not used enough. There are basic notions in life that we, human beings, share and that we should not try to define and the notion of not taking sides, being neutral, is one of them. We give examples to make sure we refer to the same notion, but examples are not definitions. If I take your fictive example, the way to not take sides is to write something like every single independent source ever published about it consistently pans it. This was an easy case, because you have given what is to be considered factual about existing viewpoints. When you are factual, you are not taking sides, but simply present the facts. Another example is to say "John said X" instead of directly "X". You are not taking sides with John when you say "John said X". As far as the readers are concerned, you might even disagree with John, but you simply give the fact that "John said X". In real practical cases, it is not so easy to find the facts, but in your fictive example, you made it very easy, because you wrote at the start what is to be considered factual. I am not saying that the definition of "do not take sides" is "be factual", of course not. These are only examples how to achieve it. We all share the notions of "not taking sides", "being neutral", but it is a basic notions that cannot be defined. It is impossible to define every thing, because every definition depends on other notions that also need to be defined and we will never reach the bottom of it. The most important notions, the one that we must use the most, are not definable. Dominic Mayers (talk) 12:08, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * And how do you determine what is a fact without determining what is a reliable source? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 13:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This point has been covered again and again. I consider it a distraction from the essential when we try to explain the neutral point of view, just like mentioning all the times the importance of reliable roads can only bring confusion, if the goal is to explain the way to Paris. However, since you insist, I will expand on this. We learned here that reliability must be about the factual content of sources. If a source presents the point of view of a notorious wacko, the source is reliable as long as it is a fact that the wacko have this viewpoint. The source is not unreliable simply because it presents the viewpoint of a wacko. It is different, if the source presents the wacko as being a notorious scientific, because it is false that the wacko is a notorious scientific. This is why we need reliable sources that represent well every scientific domain. This is something that needs to be explained in the reliable sources guidelines. It is a distraction from the essential to emphasize this while we explain the neutral point of view.    Dominic Mayers (talk) 14:08, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Your reply reminds me of the FAQ at the top of WT:V, which says:
 * Are there sources that are "always reliable" or sources that are "always unreliable"?
 * No. The reliability of a source is entirely dependent on the context of the situation, and the statement it is being used to support.  Some sources are generally better than others, but reliability is always contextual.
 * Another way of putting it is that all sources are reliable for something ("William Wacko said X", cited to him saying that) and that no source is reliable for everything (The best scholarly work of the previous decade is an impossibly bad source for last week's movie).
 * (I have more to say about this, but I'll add it below.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:28, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't believe - and I don't think most editors believe - that the principle do not take sides applies in all instances. To use time-honored examples, Wikipedia articles do, in fact, "take sides" between geocentric and heliocentric models of planetary motion, and between young earth creationist and evolutionary accounts of life on this planet. We also take sides over the question, did Donald Trump win the 2020 presidential election? So the scope of topics to which "do not take sides" applies needs to be defined in practice, and I think WP:FRINGE represents a pretty good step to articulate many of the relevant considerations.
 * Put simply, the way I would articulate this is that sometimes WP:NPOV requires article text to take sides. Newimpartial (talk) 14:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * , I agree with you, but think it is better to say that Wikipedia "appears to take the side" of mainstream RS over unreliable sources or no sources by allowing RS to get the due weight they deserve. Wikipedia stays neutral by not interfering with what RS and by enabling RS to voice their views without the interference of editorial bias.
 * The very existence of WP:RS nails "Reliable Sources" ("Theses #96") fast to the PAG door as foundational to how we operate. Article content should reflect what RS say, and the bias found in RS should shine through, as we are not allowed to censor or neuter the bias and opinions of a RS. Editors must not get in the way. OTOH, Wikipedia does not take a side when there is a difference of opinion between RS. Then we "explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias." -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 17:13, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I am not sure it is productive to discuss among us what "most editors believe". Instead, why not directly find among us about a good understanding of NPOV. I think you are saying that it is not always obvious how to apply "not taking sides". The problem is that, even if we try not to take sides, we might be taking sides. One example of this would be to attribute the viewpoint that "Donald Trump did not win the 2020 presidential election" to Biden. It seems that we are only being factual, because it is a fact that Biden has this viewpoint. Yet, it suggests that it is Biden vs Trump and this is not really factual. So, the problem is not with the basic concept of "not taking sides", but how to apply it correctly, Dominic Mayers (talk) 15:19, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, the way I would put it is that our shared social reality sometimes regards one epistemic assertion as "correct", "factual" or "true" and alternatives to it as "incorrect", "non-factual" or "false". Under these circumstances, WP:NPOV requires us to state "facts" as facts, not as opinions, even though this would be seen by those taking the small minority view as "taking sides" against their worldview and with the dominant episteme. Newimpartial (talk) 15:26, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The expression "dominant episteme" sounds philosophical. Philosophy is more practical that some might think. Despite of this practical value, there is a big danger that people think that, if it is philosophical, it is not practical and must not be part of the policy. We would get rid of concepts such as "not taking sides", "not engage in debates, but describe them", because discussing these practical principles do involve some philosophical points. We would only focus on "Reliable sources" as the key ingredient: we follow the reliable sources and all problems are gone. That would be a terrible mistake. I even stop here and remove every thing else I wrote before. I will summarize them in a single sentence: please, let us not reject the universal principles of neutrality, "not taking sides", "attribute opinions", "do not engage in debates, but describe them", only because they are not always easy to apply and might even raise philosophical questions.  Dominic Mayers (talk) 16:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I can assure you that no one here is proposing we "reject" any of that. I suspect that we are often "talking past each other" and therefore misunderstanding each other. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 18:23, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Dominic, I think you and I have very similar ideas of what should end up in an article, and different ways of explaining it. IMO yours requires editors to have a much higher level of competence.  I'm moving towards a least-common-denominator model.
 * For example:
 * A: Donald Trump lost the election.
 * B: No, he didn't!
 * Both of those are assertions of fact, using a definition along the lines of "a statement that can be proven to have a truth value". One of the statements is correct (a "true fact") and one of the statements is wrong (a "false fact").
 * These, however, are statements of opinion:
 * C: Trump was a bad president.
 * D: Trump deserved to win the election.
 * For matters of undisputed fact, we should WP:ASSERT the fact: "Biden won the election."  For matters of opinion, we should assert facts about important/common opinions:  "Many Republican politicians said that Trump was a good president and deserved to win".  Sometimes we should even assert factual statements about the false facts:  "Some people falsely claimed that Trump won the election".
 * One of the main reasons that I've been moving towards the least-common-denominator model is because we have editors who believe that "Trump won the election" is a true fact. (Another is because editors have so much trouble differentiating between opinion and fact.)  So when if we say "When you are factual, you are not taking sides.  Simply present the facts, and the article will be neutral", the response is "The simple fact is that Trump actually won the election.  If you want a factual article, then say that Trump won.  If you don't say that Trump won the election, then you are taking sides against me!"
 * Whereas when we say "Neutral means whatever the reliable sources say, and if it's not in a source that the community will accept as Reliable™ for that statement, then it can't be added", then that same person will yell about how we're taking sides but accept that our rules require us to present the mainstream media POV as factual.
 * In other words, we solve more disputes, faster, by emphasizing reliable sources than we do by emphasizing a subject that POV pushers do not understand. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:38, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * My feeling is that most examples that we consider create false dilemmas, by restricting the problem to a choice between two statements such as "Won the election" or "Lost the election". There is always an almost infinite number of possibilities, most of them adding extra information. The neutral point of view must take advantage of this. Take, for example, the earth is spherical vs the earth is flat. The article Earth says "Earth is rounded into an ellipsoid with a circumference of about 40,000 km." It is not only "The earth is round" (in opposition to "the earth is flat"). It does not affirm the earth is spherical, but provides encyclopedic information that turns out to say that it is rounded (but they could and perhaps should have used "shaped" instead).  Also, one could conclude way before that statement that the earth is not flat, by the picture, the mention of its core, etc. It does not engage in a debate. In this case, it does not even need to describe a debate.  A similar attitude should apply to the last USA election. In my view, there is not even a debate here also. But, the exact claim made by Trump could be pertinent in some context. In that case, we should simply be informative about it. If it is done well, the readers will not be mislead (just as it would also be the case if we mentioned beliefs that the earth is flat). Again, the way to achieve that is by being informative. Of course, if we simply reduce it to "Trump won" vs "Trump lost", then we have a serious problem that even attribution would not solve. This is why the neutral point of view should not be reduced to "attribution of opinions". This limited view of the neutral point of view associated with false dilemmas is so wrong. Dominic Mayers (talk) 20:26, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think that it's a bad example. Depending on the needs of the article, "Trump lost" might be all that is warranted.  Elections are binary; you either win or you don't.
 * There are some subjects that purely factual but aren't strictly binary (e.g., the proper dose of a drug, the interactions between tree roots and fungi), but the US presidential election is strictly binary: one person wins, and everyone else loses. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia "take sides"?
Added later: "The short answer is NO! It only appears to do so, and I explain why it appears to do so." -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 16:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Proposed new section:

"Does Wikipedia 'take sides'?

The nutshell of NPOV says: 'Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias.'

But what about when it appears that Wikipedia 'takes a side' and is 'biased' toward that side? How can that even happen? It all depends on whether or not there is any significant disagreement between reliable sources. In either case, Wikipedia remains neutral and lets reliable sources speak.

When there is no significant disagreement between reliable sources, Wikipedia appears to take the side of mainstream reliable sources (over the views in unreliable sources) because it allows reliable sources to get the full due weight they deserve (unreliable sources have zero due weight). Wikipedia stays neutral by not interfering with what reliable sources say and by enabling them to voice their views without the interference and distortion of editorial bias.

By contrast, when there is a significant disagreement between reliable sources, Wikipedia does 'not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias'.

The NPOV policy requires articles to fairly and proportionately represent the views published in reliable sources. It does not permit editors to 'correct' or remove biases they see in sources, or to allow their own beliefs and opinions to 'get between' the sources and the article content. Editors should put their own opinions aside and 'stay out of the way' by neutrally documenting what a source says, including its opinions and biases. That means that when editors edit neutrally, Wikipedia content will reflect the biases found in reliable sources, and that form of bias is okay. It is 'editorial bias' that is wrong."

Let's brainstorm this. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 18:27, 3 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I think the nutshell could profitably be re-written from the ground up, but I think it should be done after the policy itself is restructured, and I propose that the best method for doing this involves time travel. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:41, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh crap! Now you've got me crying when I think of Sarah "SV" (SlimVirgin). She is missed. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 18:49, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This proposed addition seems redundant to the "Explanation" and "Due and undue weight" sections. The claim that reflecting the biases found in reliable sources is OK sounds bad, and is bound to be extremely controversial and generate a lot of outrage and possibly bad press coverage. I'm happy with the NPOV policy as it is. -- Beland (talk) 18:49, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It may or may not be redundant, but some parts are not mentioned at all here. It's usually only controversial with the fringe who are unhappy with what RS say. They already "generate a lot of outrage" when we allow RS to speak and refuse to create a false balance to soothe their fringe feelings. It's also consistent with current practice and interpretation of multiple policies. It's largely a "no false balance" entry that also makes it clear that bias from sources, unlike editorial bias, is allowed. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 20:02, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I have no problem at people pushing fringe POVs being outraged at the "due weight" rule. That's a sensible rule that I can stand behind. Saying things like "Wikipedia takes sides when reliable sources don't disagree" and "Wikipedia reflects the bias of its sources" will produce reasonable rebuttals like "Wikipedia shouldn't take sides, it should be neutral" and "Wikipedia should correct for the bias of its sources". Those rebuttals sound completely reasonable to me, and will to many people who will not understand the philosophical nuance of your argument. I do not see any circumstance where adding those sentiments to the NPOV policy would change the existing rules in any way or affect the outcome of any discussion, do you? If not, they are really best left unsaid. -- Beland (talk) 21:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The idea of "taking sides" in the "no significant disagreement" case arguably doesn't make sense. Wikipedia doesn't appear to or actually take a side when there are no sides to take. It merely reports consensus reality. That is, in fact, nearly all of what the encyclopedia does. -- Beland (talk) 21:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Something that WAID brought up as example would be something to consider in talking about the "no significant disagreement" section. While today the media sentiment around Trump is "Trump is the worst president in US history", it would seem far too early to treat that as a fact, dispute all other factors of "no significant disagreement" given above being met. It's not a stance that WP should take until some years have gone by, and we have more academic/less news media evaluation of Trump's presidency. It's not that we can't talk of this sentiment in attributed form, just not in factual. Basically we should not be trying to decide when there is "no significant disagreement" in the short term.
 * Note that this still means that UNDUE applies as well as no false balances in the short term. There are not a lot of views from RS that present Trump's president as highly rated, so we'd still mostly have commentary from RSes that would easily summarize the presidency as one of the worst, just that we'd use appropriate language and attribution to keep the sentiment out of wiki voice. M asem (t) 19:01, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree, as long as we interpret "should take" in your "It's not a stance that WP should take" as "documenting a stance that RS take". Wikipedia just reflects the RS, not some permanent "stance". That means that something like this example, can change over time. That's why our articles are "never finished". -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 20:02, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, I mean, in my context, not a stance WP should take in wiki voice, but absolutely something we should document with necessary language and attribution in the short term, as long as we are otherwise following UNDUE. M asem (t) 20:42, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. We are not talking about wikivoice. That would be a case-by-case matter determined by local consensus. When in doubt, use attribution, by all means.
 * Wikipedia doesn't really "take a stance", it just sides with RS by giving them due weight over unreliable sources. To the fringe crowd, that will always seem like Wikipedia is "taking sides", when in fact that is only a "perceived" bias from Wikipedia's editors. In reality, it's the bias found in RS, and editors are neutrally letting RS speak. That's our job, and we must keep our opinions and biases out of the editing process. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 20:58, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, agree with all that; but as I've discussed elsewhere many times before, our reporting of the dominate POV on a recent topic or event in the short term should not be written as if the dominate POV was fact. (that is we should report, factually and in wiki voice, that a dominant viewpoint on a topic is X, but not to a point where we are saying X is factual in wiki voice) With time and more sources that are independent, secondary, and looking back in time, we may end up treating the dominant view as a fact in wiki voice, but that's on the order of decades. I see a lot of cases were editors want to rush to convert a dominant viewpoint into a fact too close to events or even while the event is ongoing, on the basis that if there is only one dominant viewpoint and no contestable positions, that viewpoint must be fact and the NPOV rules on "don't report facts as opinions" apply and state the domininant viewpoint as wiki voice fact.
 * A lot of this is the fact that we as a whole obsess on current event articles, wanting to include opinions from every posdible RS that reports on these. This is not encyclopedic writing where we are to summary of nature of opinions about a topic. That's a larger problem beyond NPOV but NPOV is affected by it. M asem (t) 21:12, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think due weight and point of view are orthogonal. Just because one side gets more weight doesn't mean Wikipedia has taken that side, or even appears to be doing so. Consider an article like Horoscope, where the majority of the text explains ideas which evidence shows are completely wrong. Just because that part of text is longer doesn't mean Wikipedia "appears" to be taking a pro-horoscope stance, given how thoroughly it dismisses the idea that horoscopes could possibly be or ever actually are more accurate than chance. Sometimes it's interesting to learn about wrong ideas in great detail so one can see how incorrect conclusions can be arrived at, or why people are motivated by them to do certain things.
 * I also think this debate is mostly philosophical and has no bearing on how NPOV is actually implemented. If the goal is to communicate a subtly of NPOV to people who you think just aren't getting it, perhaps this explanation would be better as a supplementary personal or small-group essay, rather than (almost certainly unsuccessfully) trying to become a policy modification. -- Beland (talk) 06:16, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think this is a valuable conversation. But maybe there's a better venue, like here or here? Philomathes2357 (talk) 06:36, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Define 'significant disagreement'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Let's use a couple examples. I would guess it means quite a bit more than the less than 3% of climate scientists who doubt global warming. There are real disagreements in science, and there are manufactured/fake disagreements that are exploited. The climate skeptics and anti-vaxxers claim there are serious disagreements in science and medicine, when there really aren't. There is a lot of fame and money to be made from pushing conspiracy theories and denying common knowledge and reality. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 20:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

The most common form of bias in Wikipedia isn't about presenting the two sides of the issue, (or Wikipedia explicitly "taking a side") it's about which information is covered/ overcovered and which information is isn't covered / is undercovered. And in certain areas (e.g. US politics) it certainly does have a systemic bias. At the core of that is the "unbiased means echoing what the wiki-selected US media sources say/cover" thought process. I've stopped worrying about the higher bar of being unbiased, and just get concerned when it gets so bad that it affects the informativeness of articles, which does happen. North8000 (talk) 20:17, 3 June 2024 (UTC)


 * In a way, "not taking sides" includes not being attach to the specific content that originally define each side. I explain what I mean here in my comment above. An example of extra information is the arguments used by each side or anything that makes Wikipedia more informative/descriptive than engaged. From this angle, I agree that the information not covered can often be the issue, but I am not sure what exactly is the point in your case. Dominic Mayers (talk) 21:04, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

From my perspective we pick the side of NPOV... That means inherently we pick a number of sides... It means that we're anti-authoritarian, anti-aristocratic, anti-mystic, and anti-fringe. One of the earliest complaints about encyclopedias is that they didn't respect the "natural order" of the world because they listed all the worlds things together... Meaning commoner could come before noble and sacred could be sandwiched by profane... So the simple act of arranging an encyclopedia has never been a neutral act in the larger sense, it can't be... But it can be done from a neutral point of view. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 20:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Because some people here are not getting my point above, I feel compelled to provide an answer to the original question: "No, Wikipedia does not take a side on content. It only takes a side on sourcing. As proven by the WP:RS policy, it sides with RS." Any bias found in articles should not come from editors taking sides. It should only come from the sources. Therefore, any evidence of bias should not be perceived as Wikipedia taking sides. That's a misunderstanding of how Wikipedia functions. Wikipedia does not take sides. That is still unchanged. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 22:20, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Because this is not addressd in the NPOV policy, I feel it should be addressed. That's what this thread is about. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 22:25, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It all depends on how you formulate it... If NPOV is a side we take a side... If NPOV is the lack of a side we do not. Perhaps I am biased because of my political science background, in political science neutrality is a position not the lack of a position (for example Swiss neutrality) in the same way that being non-aligned is actually being aligned... There are I guess two questions here, a practical one in which I find myself in almost complete agreement and a philosophical side where there becomes a chicken and an egg problem if not taking a side is taking a side. Some see neutrality as being against everyone, some see it as being against no one, and some see it as both... That seems to me more than anything in the actual wording of NPOV to alter how different editors perceive the policy. How to address that problem? I really don't know, I wish I did. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 23:14, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You do not understand that the neutral point of view is not obtained by following what reliable sources say. It involves a lot of editorial work. In the french version, they even refer to this editorial work as "personal". The trivial case of this editorial work is attribution. Attribution is not at all a trivial work. So, only with this case, we can see that the neutral point of view is NOT following what reliable sources say. Another example is this part of the policy that says try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial, formal tone. It's way more than that. The very concept of a synthesis is a lot of editorial work that must be done in the neutral point of view. Because of all these points, the neutral point of view goes way beyond simply following what the reliable sources say. Dominic Mayers (talk) 23:29, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "neutral point of view is not obtained by following what reliable sources say"?? Of course not. It is not "obtained". NPOV is an editing attitude. The expression "neutral point of view" is misleading because the "N" in NPOV refers to an editorial attitude and mindset; it is not a true "point of view". Editors have their inclinations and biases, but when they are editing they must put on their "editor's hat". That "hat" is a neutral attitude and mindset, since NPOV is not a true "point of view" which can be included in an article. Like a referee, they are responsible for presiding over the article with a neutral and objective attitude. As long as their biases do not cause them to violate policy, there should be no problem. While editing, editors must remain apathetic, disinterested, and even-handed towards the subject, regardless of their personal POV. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 23:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * For a long time we were clearly referring to the neutral point of view as the actual point of view adopted by Wikipedia and I believe we still do now, but less often. In any case, it's a perfectly fine way of using the expression "the neutral point of view". In fact, this way of using the expression helps a lot to explain that the neutral point of view is NOT the point of view in reliable sources. Dominic Mayers (talk) 00:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I find Wikipedia's articles on contentious topics are better when there are editors with multiple biases, who check each others' work and in the end all come to agreement that the resulting content treats their own point of view fairly, either by not unnecessarily saying something they object to, attributing opinions they disagree with, or doing a good job explaining their POV without endorsing it. Editors do need to refrain from changing content to reflect their own point of view by treating other POVs unfairly, but that's not the same as adopting a judge-like neutrality mindset.
 * I also don't think this is worth arguing over; what problem is it trying to solve? -- Beland (talk) 00:04, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It's fine when multiple editors with different biases all come together, all wearing their editor hats, to set aside biases and write a comprehensive picture of the viewpoints about a topic. But that is the exception. Most of the time we have editors demanding POVs that align with their biases be included but typically failing to provide any RSes or showing how that view is more that fringe. But we also have editors with biases supporting the dominint view that also tend to gatekeep articles even when valid sources of alterive viewpoints are presented. That's all behavioral issues somewhat beyond the scope of NPOV but NPOV should be clear why both sets of behavior are unacceptable. M asem (t) 13:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * A box from my talk page. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 17:41, 4 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Note added: The previous comment does not respect the chronological order. Besides, I find that such opinion about good behaviour is much better expressed by simply doing it concretely when we interact with others, not by showing off at the wrong time. I decided to not participate further in discussions, but I do check that we do not disrupt the flow of existing threads. Dominic Mayers (talk) 17:27, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You worry that editors' biases can result in undue weight. Undue and due weight is indeed an aspect of NPOV. It was added to it in 2005 by making use of the 2003 NOR statement of Jimmy Wales. Later, I believe in 2006, it was expressed in terms of "reliable sources". Nowadays, some people even feel that the essence of NPOV is to follow reliable sources while respecting due weight. I know that you have difficulties following my logic when I explain that it is NOT the essence of NPOV. The essence of NPOV deals with aspects of the editorial process, such as not taking sides, that go way beyond following reliable sources and respecting due weight. My concern with an emphasis on due weight is actually a concern that the notions of not taking sides, attribution of opinions, to not engage, but describe, etc. are not enough emphasized and even misunderstood. There is no issue per se in mentioning reliable sources, but if you understood the importance of these other aspects, you would understand my analogy with an emphasis on reliable roads when trying to explain the way to Paris. Dominic Mayers (talk) 14:04, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Those concerns don't seem to be solved by the proposed text, and I'm not sure any text changes would address them. There will always be people trying to push a POV into the project, and new contributors hardly ever read WP:NPOV before doing that. WP:NPOV and WP:V and WP:OWN already explain why those behaviors are unacceptable. We simply need other editors to engage in civil conversation, point people at those policies, point out exactly how they're not being followed, make edits to enforce them, promote a culture of following those policies, and report persistent and willful violations to admins. -- Beland (talk) 17:06, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This is pointing to the wrong place. First: it is wrong to say "WP:RS policy", it is a guideline and it does not "prove" anything. Second, the first sentence of WP:NPOV points not to WP:RS but to WP:V -- at one point in 2010 it was specifically pointing to WP:SOURCES within that (see "as defined by the WP:SOURCES sourcing policy", I haven't traced to where somebody made it vaguer but that's the relevant part of WP:V). Near the top of WP:RS are the words "for Wikipedia policy on reliable sources" and a pointer to Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources -- because the WP:RS guideline tail does not wag the WP:V policy dog. Sprinkling the vague linkless words "reliable sources" elsewhere in WP:NPOV is a mistake which causes confusion like this idea that WP:NPOV needs WP:RS, but not enough confusion to overthrow 14 years of pointing to WP:V. It is addressed in the WP:NPOV policy by pointing to WP:SOURCES. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "this idea that WP:NPOV needs WP:RS,"?? No, it doesn't "need" RS. RS are just the basis for content, the dough and ingredients. NPOV is how we prepare and handle that dough. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 23:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "In either case, Wikipedia remains neutral and lets reliable sources speak." That a source is reliable (by Wikipedia standards) does not mean much when a) it covers topics outside its area of expertise, b) it is significantly outdated, and c.) it expressed views held by a minority of professionals in a relevant field. Wikipedia is supposed to summarise the majority views in topics such as archaeology, and to be reasonably up to date. In relevant discussions, we have had to distinguish between sources covering the mainstream views of (for example) the 1920s, the 1950s, and the 1990s. Dimadick (talk) 00:01, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

This is an immensely important topic but has so many very different wide ranging scenarios and wiki-universes bundled into it that it really need to be split up if there is any hope of progress. North8000 (talk) 00:12, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * , I agree. There has been such a huge volume of content and discussion of tangential, or even unrelated issues, that it's impossible for me to figure out anymore. I may have included stuff that wasn't essential, and that may have contributed to what's happened. I am not always good at explaining things. Maybe you can help to cut to the chase. Maybe in a new thread? -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 16:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Cool. Maybe: Are changes needed in wp:weight? North8000 (talk) 17:44, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

It's the wrong question
The question is Does Wikipedia take sides? We will have a lot of answers depending on the interpretation of "taking sides". Some, will say that Wikipedia must in many cases take sides, but this is because of what they associate with "taking sides". It's the wrong approach. The correct approach is to respect the idea that has been there and has defined Wikipedia for more than 20 years and try to agree on how to practically achieve it. The point is that, not taking sides, in the sense of being neutral, is generally accepted as positive for an encyclopedia and we should start with this as a premise and build around it. The way I understand it, "not taking sides" can be achieved by being more descriptive/informative, more factual, less engaged in superficial ill informed debates. Even those who originally say that Wikipedia must often take sides, without fundamentally changing their mind, might agree this is a good thing. Dominic Mayers (talk) 21:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "more factual" You can't be factual while not taking sides. One of the reasons several Wikipedia articles tend to read like public relations campaigns is that the encyclopedia's house style tends to downplay the controversial aspects of several topics. That is obscurantism, not factual reporting. Dimadick (talk) 00:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * , see my explanation in the next section.   Dominic Mayers (talk) 02:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

The important editorial process and the confusion between due weight and taking sides
Not taking sides is the most fundamental principle of NPOV. It is mentioned right at the start. Nevertheless, many people say that we must take sides. It is not that bad, because they actually mean that we must give due weight to the dominant point of view. Fine, but why that confusion between due weight and not taking sides ? I propose that the explanation is that not taking sides is only about the editorial process per se and does not refer to the content in the sources that finds its way in the article. So, "due weight" refers to the content in sources that finds its way in the articles, but not taking sides only refers to the editorial process per se. Therefore, if you naively think that the content in the article is essentially a transcription of the content in sources, that is, if you consider that the editorial process can essentially be ignored when we define "not taking sides", then you will necessarily confuse " not taking sides" with "due weight". You will consider that not taking sides means that the article reflects the bias in sources: it will not be about the editorial process, including attribution, etc. Therefore, I propose that the real confusion, the real problem, is a misunderstanding of the important rôle of the editorial process. Dominic Mayers (talk) 04:01, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I've been trying to follow your logic for the last several threads, and at this point, you've lost any chance of anyone following this.First, do not create a new section title for a continuation of a discussion. That makes it difficult to have others follow what you mean. The volume of what you're posting is also approaching WP:TE / WP:DEADHORSE levels of involvement, particularly given the struggles to get a rational debate out of this.Second, you need more concrete examples, and more than this Paris and roads analogy. I have no idea where your initial concern rose from, but a good example that we can all judge in the present tense is something like how Trump is handled in sources. You don't have to use that, but its far easier to put things in concrete terms than these abstracts you're dancing around.Third, if I think the point you are trying to make is what it is, I have long ago believed that our neutral POV should try to reflect the nature of a matter that we know exists in the real world but which might not be represented by reliable sources (particularly given the left-lean we have collalesed around due to the quality of these sources and the general trend of lack of quality on more right-leaning ones). That is, I once though we should strive to capture the state of views based on what the overall population thought, and not that told to us by reliable sources. But I've been through enough editing on my contributions and in debates in other places  (eg Gamergate) that I recognize why we reflect what the state of views are on a topic as told by what RSes give us, and not what we cannot source properly. WP:V is more fundamental than NPOV in terms of content policies, so if it cannot be verified in a reliable source, it goes nowhere for us. We certainly should try to make sure that minority viewpoints that are captured in RSes are not outright ignored (that is, despite our RSes not including many right-leaning sources, we often get the right wing views from left-leaning sources that cover that), but we should not force a false balance or any type of artificial weighting to force minority viewpoints otherwise not covered by RSes.  I will still argue that there is a need to apply careful application of attribution and language to make sure we aren't rushing to state majority views in Wikivoice, but that's a wholly different matter than acknowledging that NPOV depends on what's provided through the sources that meet WP:V.If that is not what you are arguing, then I think you've completely lost what point you are trying to make here, and it may be better to take a short break, collect your thoughts, and come back with a more reasoned argument. — M asem  (t) 04:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * , I couldn't have said it better. I share your concerns about the bludgeoning and huge amount of material. I also agree with your comments about WP:V and editing. We obviously don't just take what RS say and plop it down and think that's all that needs to be done. We do exercise common sense and editorial judgment in how we frame our content. My concern is that RS, not editors, should be the only source of bias, hence my belief that we should let RS speak without editorial interference. By "interference", I am not referring to normal editorial processes, but to what happens when editors censor or manipulate content to fit their own beliefs and opinions. We want to hear the opinions of the sources, not the opinions of editors. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 16:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Note added: I find it annoying that people insert comments without respecting the chronological order. Now, I need to indicate clearly that I am replying to the 04:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC) comment, not to mention that the extra indent needed for the inserted comment is violating manual of style for accessibility by jumping more than one level. Dominic Mayers (talk) 20:24, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Your reply suggests that you believe that I am endorsing original research. I am speaking about a legitimate and required editorial process, not about some illegitimate original research. You have given the most trivial case of a valid editorial process: attribution. So, you do understand the distinction between a valid editorial process and illegitimate original research. That simple case, should be enough to understand the general idea. The idea, when seen in the light of that simple case, is that when you attribute and write "Wacko Smith said the earth is flat" instead of "The earth is flat" you are doing the editorial work that is needed for not taking sides. This is the key point: not taking sides happens through the important editorial process. As pointed out by Beland, just because one side gets more weight doesn't mean Wikipedia has taken that side, or even appears to be doing so. If people, despite this example, still do not fully realize the very important role of the editorial process, say because they confuse it with original research, then they will confuse "due weight" with "taking sides". They will not understand that the most important in the editorial process is to "avoid taking sides" while giving "due weight". Really, it is clear, that many people seem to do that mistake when they insist that we must take sides. With a proper understanding that "not taking sides" is the essential ingredient of a good editorial process, they will never say that. Dominic Mayers (talk) 12:16, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, tone, and word choice, and structure do have something to do with the neutrality we are seeking, but that's just it, it is a part and you still have to have communal standards shared measurements (so probably something objective to look outside ourselves) on how to get to that and the rest. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:36, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It is not just tone, phrasing or organization (the structure), it is also about the actual content. This is said in the second part of the nutshell: This applies to both what you say and how you say it. (emphasis is mine). Dominic Mayers (talk) 12:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, I just said that, and the point remains. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I did not understand your point, but if you say that it says what I said and is in the nutshell, I will not dig further. OK, I just digged further and perhaps you simply meant that we still need to avoid doing original research. Of course, we all agree with that. Dominic Mayers (talk) 12:53, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I thought the point clear, this and every policy is functional and its function is to get a bunch of people to pull together, so there are a bunch of agreements outside ourselves we have to make for measurement, standards, etc., and it is decidedly not an ontological exercise. - Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:59, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I believe you are simply warning that getting an agreement on policy is not obvious. Sure, I agree. In fact, I am thinking that all the times. Dominic Mayers (talk) 15:27, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

The process to agree on policy depends a lot on the kind of communication used in the community. In all cases, it depends much more on feelings, social capital, etc. than on intellectual discourse. Perhaps this is what Alanscottwalker is trying to warn me about. Dominic Mayers (talk) 20:06, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Application of NPOV to the last USA election (and a bit to earth is flat)
I wanted to dig a bit more into an example given by Dominic, because I am not convinced that we are all on the same page. We say "Wacko Smith said the earth is flat" instead of "The earth is flat", and in doing so we follow NPOV. But we do not say "Mainstream Scientist says the earth is round" - instead, we refer to the earth as round in wikivoice (usually by referring to characteristics, such as the Earth's diameter or circumference, that follow from it being an oblate spheroid). In my view, it would be an NPOV violation were we to restrain our text to attributed statements about the actual, consensus reality, majority view/common episteme understanding of the shape of the earth.

Also, on a different but related topic (and since Masem is in this recent thread): I have seen him offer the following caution more than once:

What I want to know is, from this perspective, when would be the right time to say in wikivoice that Biden won the 2020 presidential election, rather than rattling off a long list of authorities saying that he did? Division on this question is more substantial, and more consequential, than the flat-earth POV; for people on the "attribute more" side of the spectrum, and especially Masem's "history requires a baseline of decades" presupposition, when would we be allowed to state the election result as fact? Newimpartial (talk) 16:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I just want to say that a policy is always made of abstract principles which we do not illustrate by polemical examples (or examples that can be seen as polemical), even though they are the practical cases for which we need the policy. It is more pedagogical to take extreme examples such as the earth is flat, which hopefully avoid polemical discussions, to illustrate the principles. The goal is only to convey the basic ideas, which can then be further discussed in practice when we meet polemical cases. In this section  the previous section, the goal was only to convey the basic idea that the editorial process is important, way more than a simple transcription process, and that it is at this level that the notion of not taking sides applies as something always needed and completely compatible with giving due weight.  This is the only idea that this section  the previous section wanted to convey. The purpose was not to explain all the possible approaches to achieve the neutral point of view and not taking sides and how these approaches can be used in practical polemical cases. Dominic Mayers (talk) 17:17, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * When reliable sources say "won" rather than "appears to have won" or "claims to have won" or "is projected to win". Generally this is when official preliminary vote counts are released and when the number of votes yet to be counted is smaller than the margin of victory, in enough states to win the Electoral College. They would refrain from doing so if there were credible allegations of widespread vote fraud or rigging, which for this election there were not. We would follow those sources in noting any irregularities such as voter suppression, jailing of opponents or people attending rallies, exclusion of one party from the media, etc. -- Beland (talk) 17:17, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It makes sense. I imagine myself describing the result of the last USA election and I think I would keep it simple and gives the results that are recorded. I don't see where is the problem. I feel this is going too much into details. There are people here that say "Wikipedia must take sides". I believe this is a much more serious issue, because it could eventually result in a modification of the nutshell. That is why it is very important to remove the confusion between "giving due weight" and "taking sides" and that is the purpose of that section. It may seem a very abstract purpose in relation with practical concerns regarding the last USA election, but it is actually very concrete, because we are talking about the nutshell of the policy. Dominic Mayers (talk) 17:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * , you write: "There are people here that say "Wikipedia must take sides"." Where is that being said and by whom? Please provide exact quotes. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 17:58, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I have to search them just like you could. I just made a small search and obtained The idea that Wikipedia must take sides, must even be biased, etc. has been mentioned  in other discussions in the past, like weeks ago.  It must be a recurrent phenomena. And this is often done in clear opposition to not taking sides as stated by Jimmy Wales and still today in the nutshell. Otherwise, I would not be concerned.  I don't feel the need to show all the diffs. Anyone that doubts it can do it for himself. Dominic Mayers (talk) 18:10, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It is a question of definition. Taking the referee simile from the last section, there is a time when the referee has to decide "yes, that was a foul" or "no, that was no foul". After that, lots of fans from the side that had a disadvantage from the decision will say the referee is biased and is taking sides. Using their definition of "taking sides", yes, we are taking sides. Using their definition of "bias", yes, we are biased. (That is the attitude of the tongue-in-cheek WP:YWAB essay.) By the usual definition, we are not. (That is the attitude of the opposite essay WP:NOTBIASED). It is pointless to argue which is right. They are both right but the second one does not understand that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I said I will not reply, but will be brief. The problem is also that we assume that "not taking sides" is a simple process such as doing a transcription of a POV without interfering. Reducing "not taking sides" to  "attribution" is also not the solution: it results in excessive attributions or to the wrong question "should we take sides". It is a complex active process that may include giving the arguments, adopting a more neutral tone, etc. It must be done as much as  reasonably possible–this should never be put in question. It naturally results in giving due weight (some might say without interfering here), so it is not at all opposed to due weight, but it is far from being only that.   Dominic Mayers (talk) 13:58, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * In terms of American politics, Wikipedia is like a referee who's wearing one of the team jerseys while he works.
 * Of course Wikipedia is biased, by the "usual" definition. That's a widely acknowledged fact. Through Olympian-level mental gymnastics, words like "truth", "bias", and "neutrality" have been manipulated, to disguise this fact. All of those words have common definitions, and separate Wikipedia definitions. If the "public" knew this, I don't think they'd be very happy about it. Philomathes2357 (talk) 23:30, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Whether Biden won the election or not is not dependent on any subjective measure. It's an objective yes or no answer once the vote tally and electoral college processes are completed. There is no viewpoint aspects here. The few that argue about stolen election have been shown to be operating on conspiry theories, which falls into Fringe.When the collusion is based on subjective assessments, like Trump being the worst president, that's when we should wait to determine how perspective settles down on the topic to treat it as fact, even if the short term set of viewpoints would suggest this was the only view of the topic.<span id="Masem:1717522114574:Wikipedia_talkFTTCLNNeutral_point_of_view" class="FTTCmt"> — M asem (t) 17:28, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * And to add, usually when we are writing about the results of the election between voting day and inauguration, we typically use the same language in sources like "president elect" or "presumptive winner" that states the results are still yet to be 100% validated, but that's still and objective stance, not subjective<span id="Masem:1717522444833:Wikipedia_talkFTTCLNNeutral_point_of_view" class="FTTCmt"> — M asem (t) 17:34, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that answer, but to take the next step, what about the claims of widespread voter fraud that fuelled Trump's "stolen election" narrative? The article Efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election currently describes these among efforts by Trump and his allies ... to promote numerous false claims and conspiracy theories. Is it still TOOSOON for this to be pronounced in wikivoice? At what point was it - or will it be - appropriate to make this kind of statement, in terms of NPOV? From the latest polling I have seen, at least 30% of Americans currently believe at least some of this "stolen election" narrative, so it is not a settled issue in terms of public opinion. But for RS, it is. Newimpartial (talk) 17:49, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * My comment here is the same as my previous 17:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC) comment. The answer to the specific question is not as simple, but the basic point of my comment still applies. Dominic Mayers (talk) 17:53, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Again, the starting point is that who won the election is an objective measure. It has also been an objective measure by courts and independent parties that no significant fraud has occurred in comparison to other elections.
 * That a significant fraction of people want to ignore these facts does not play into how we report the election and lack of fraud as fact, and treat those claims otherwise as conspiracy theories. Thus, there's no time issue here in that. NPOV does not cave to cases where there is this denial of objective reality. M asem (t) 18:18, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think you missed the question. The question was not referring to the result of the election, but to "Efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election". It is a bit more complicated. I don't know what Trump said, but his lawyers could argue that it was not the purpose. Well, maybe now, after the recent jury decision, there is something to say, but it will go into appeal. It seems more complicated. Dominic Mayers (talk) 18:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There is no issue from NPOV to document the efforts by these groups to overturn the election, as long as we express their reasons in attributed voice and state that the bulk of these have been shown by expert sources (courts and independent studies) that these beliefs are wrong and treated as conspiracy theories. The objective facts are settled by RSes.<span id="Masem:1717528004287:Wikipedia_talkFTTCLNNeutral_point_of_view" class="FTTCmt"> — M asem (t) 19:06, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It is not too soon to consider the matter settled; reliable news sources consider it settled and simply say that the claims of fraud are false. The claims have been adjudicated by many different courts and certified by officials in both major parties. There's a difference between factual claims where there is plausibility on both sides, like "gun control will reduce the murder rate" and factual claims which have been proven false beyond reasonable doubt. -- Beland (talk) 19:16, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I must be missing the point, but asking whether the claim that the election is invalid is itself valid or not seems the same as asking directly whether the election was valid. In other words, it is the same question as before. In fact, the arguments for deciding if it must be attributed or not are also the same as before. I thought it was a different question, this time about the intention of people when they make that claim. In any case, I maintain that it is not what this section  the previous section is about and I don't think this diversion from the original purpose of that section could result in any improvement of the policy, because it goes way too much into details. Dominic Mayers (talk) 19:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I am going to follow what was perhaps a hidden advice from Alanscottwalker and not participate in discussions in this talk page anymore, but eventually we will need to make sure the wording of the policy removes any confusion between taking sides and giving due weight. It is just not a good time now. I will appreciate that we do not notify me, refer to me or to the content of my previous comments in an explicit manner unless it is necessary, because, of course, I would then feel oblige to respond. Dominic Mayers (talk) 20:39, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between saying who won the election and statements that it was stolen (by whatever their criteria is for "stolen" or even mindlessly saying/thinking "stolen"......for some it might mean allowing too much proxy voting vial mail-in ballot) Many people who say it was stolen would also agree that Biden won. So wording should be accordingly.    Now, if you want to see a more common example of a wikipedia NPOV problem it is lumping the 30% making a vague claim of "stolen" in with the tin hat few % who explicitly say that Trump won the election.      <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 14:38, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * So I am unsure what you are referring to as lumping ... in or what kind of NPOV problem you intend to point to. It seems to me that, from an objective standpoint, (i) Biden won the 2020 election, (ii) no significant irregularities took place that could cast doubt on the result, and therefore (iii) the 2020 election was not "stolen". I also believe - and this is a related but not an identical point - that the consensus of WP:RS, especially WP:HQRS, supports all of these as being objectively valid statements. I therefore conclude that all three of these should be stated in wikivoice (with the typical language for the third point being a reference to something like "false claims that the 2020 election was stolen"). And in fact we do currently state all three things in wikivoice in various articles.
 * What I am less certain about, is whether all three of these things are clearly "facts" rather than "opinions". Or rather, I'm fairly certain that the enwiki community doesn't entirely agree on whether they are all facts rather than opinions - I suspect there is less agreement about the inherent nature of the statements than there is agreement that they should all be stated in wikivoice. And I think this is where the "follow the RS" line of argument comes in - statements that involve some degree of judgement are assessed as valid or invalid all the time, the RS and HQRS we use do so, and when there is near-universal consensus among sources that a statment is valid, we should treat it as a "fact" for purposes of "don't give attribution for agreed-upon facts". I believe we already usually apply this principle (correctly) even when the "facts" involve such a degree of judgement that, if RS were to disagree about them to a significant extent, we would consider them to be opinions.
 * The way I see it is that whether a specific statement represents a "fact" or an "opinion" depends as much on the episteme as does whether or not the statement is valid. Most of the time editors can agree whether a statement is fact or opinion for the same reason they can usually agree whether it is valid - because they are able to decide based on a shared episteme. But in liminal cases editors can disagree both about whether a statement is valid and about whether it is fact or opinion. And my view of this situation is that the key question for article text should not be whether the statement is fact or opinion, but whether it is universally (or near-univerally) regarded by the relevant RS as valid.
 * To return to the shape of the earth for a second, it pretty clearly represents a fact, not an opinion, in most possible episteme. But if we were writing in an episteme where it was an unsettled factual question, as the existence of Dark matter is for us now, we should make statements about it using attribution even if we regard the question itself as factual. And likewise, while the question whether the 2020 US election was "stolen" involves a degree of judgement and therefore - in an important sense - opinion, it is a claim sources of any reasonable quality are unanimous in indicating as unfounded and should therefore be stated as such in wikivoice. To bring this back to the topic of this page, in my view WP:NPOV requires us to adhere to what HQRS univerally regard as valid, without attribution. Meanwhile, statements that HQRS regard as values, rather than valid or invalid statements, we will attribute even when our HQRS share the same values. I'm not saying "take the POV of the best sources in wikivoice all the time"; I'm saying, "take the POV of the best sources in wikivoice for statements those sources regard as valid (or invalid) and where they all agree as to the statement's validity". Which is strongly correlated with, but not quite the same as, "present facts as facts" - as I hope this long digression has illustrated. Newimpartial (talk) 16:11, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * A fact is something, at the ultimate time scale, can objectively measured as true, likely in a rproducable way via the scientific method or similar. An opinion relies on some subjective assessment by one or more experts at that ultimate scale, and thus may not produce the same result if you asked some other expert the same question.<br style="margin-bottom:0.5em"/>This, the winner of the election is a fact, just that for a short period between election day and certification we denote it as pending results, but there is no subjective aspects here.<br style="margin-bottom:0.5em"/>As a different example, the origin of the COVID is effectively a fact if we had perfect investigative capabilities, but one that hasn't yet been completely affirmed due to the fact we are piecing together evidence. We say now that the leading theory of its origins is the zootropiv route, but we have to acknowledge that some non trivial voices still consider the lab leak. In time scientific methods will affirm which ever is true or otherwise consider it accepted knowledge (much like the dark matter example)<br style="margin-bottom:0.5em"/>On the other hand, a statement like "Trump was the worst present" absolutely relies on a subjective call. One could point to objective evidence like the deficit or inflation, but whether and what degree those contribute to determining if Trump was the worst is subjective. Over time, just as with the COVID origin, this stance may be accepted by pol Sci and historians as a true statement at which point we can treat it as fact, but that's likely decades out from now<br style="margin-bottom:0.5em"/>The reason to avoid presuming that some subjective measure, held by a majority of RSes (mostly mainstream news rather than academics) in the short term is that they are writing about the topic "now" without the impact of time and how that could reshape opinions. There is a reason we consider news reports on current events as primary sources as they are documenting as media eyewitnesses with a focus on the near term even if they engage in commentary and analysis. But broad stances and public opinion can change over time. Racism was "accepted" in the early 20th century, but now it's seen as a negative. Or for example the attitude around the Iraq War has significant changed over time from being necessary to being one of those wars America "lost". Public opinion may not change at all with time, but to try to predict that on current sourcing near an event falls into CRYSTAL. Thus before transforming a majority viewpoint, even one without any record able opposing voices, we should wait until we are reasonable certain that viewpoint has stabilized as the only viewpoint held by experts well distant from the original events (eg those independent of those events). Hence the need to consider time factors in NPOV considerations.<br style="margin-bottom:0.5em"/>None of this means we cannot report the current public opinion, just that it should be taken out of wiki voice.<span id="Masem:1717609144101:Wikipedia_talkFTTCLNNeutral_point_of_view" class="FTTCmt"> — M asem (t) 17:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * One other thing which is required to be absolute fact is widespread agreement on the exact meaning of the question and of any answer. For "did Trump win the election?" one exact meaning of that question is "Was Trump deemed the winner by the USA's official process for determining the winner?" <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 18:41, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to say something that is hopelessly vague but still very useful. If it's an area where the knowledge is mature and 90%+ agree, we state it as fact in the voice of Wikipedia. So we don't need to say "according to many sources, Hitler was a bad person". But there are lots of people who want to word things as if their 50% view is the 90% view. And wikilawyer to accomplish that. "According to "reliable sources"... " capitalizing on the fact that "wp:reliable source" doesn't necessarily mean actual reliability. Actual reliability would be expertise and objectivity with respect to the text which cited it. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 12:40, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

This subsection has not much to do with "not taking sides" as used in the policy and it does not fit in that section. Clearly, in the policy and it has been like that for more than 20 years, "not taking sides" do not mean to attribute all statements. It means to attribute opinions, not simple facts. I understand that the questions what to attribute and what is a fact are very difficult questions, but they have nothing to do with the requirement not taking sides. I did not want to participate in that discussion, especially not about "what is a fact" or "what to attribute", because this has been discussed again and again and it will not change anything to the general policy. They are just difficulties in applying the policy, nothing more. However, when we reorganize the sections and subsections in a way that makes a very confusing point, especially this one, then I feel oblige to express my concern. Dominic Mayers (talk) 20:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Dominic, please stop adding new subsection headings, whether to move the comments of others (as you did here) or to highlight new comments of your own as you just did a moment ago. - MrOllie (talk) 20:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Dominic, I disagree that This subsection has not much to do with "not taking sides" as used in the policy. I get that editors mean different things when they refer to "taking sides", but one of the main things they are likely to mean (in my experience) is taking "one side" of a debate and entrenching that perspective in wikivoice. I therefore believe that various aspects of what counts as fact and what as opinion - what counts as valid within our rules governing valid statements and what counts as a value statement that can't be called "valid" except when a value commitment is presupposed - are all relevant to this discussion.
 * To take an example from Masem's reply above, if evaluating the claim that the 2020 election was stolen relies on some subjective assessment by one or more experts at that ultimate scale - and by any realistic assessment it probably does - then his position is that we shouldn't describe the claim as "false" until that viewpoint has stabilized as the only viewpoint held by experts well distant from the original events. Now I would say that stabilization has actually I already happened, but Masem prefers a time scale of decades or longer before accepting the consensus of HQRS. I personally don't think that is how an encyclopaedia should work - I think a good encyclpaedia published since 1967 should present plate tectonics as objectively true, not as one perspective about continents - but I do think these are all brass tacks examples of what "taking sides" (or not) actually means in practice to most editors. Newimpartial (talk) 20:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * In the case of the stolen election, or let's call it a question of if sufficient fraud existed that the election results fell within the margin of error created by that fraud, that was a question that did take time to be answered but after a year or so, we had judicial and measured evidence to clearly affirm that the results were outside the margin if error and the amount of discover fraud was comparible to other elections, giving the objective result fraud did not happen At which point, we do not have to give credibility to claims it was (just as we don't give credibility that the earth is flat). Now, there is the factor that in that year long period before that fact was established, that most RSes gave little weight to considering fraud (if anything their focus was on voter suppression) because in many many decades of voting, there never was a significant level of fraud. So the default position in RSes was no fraud, and in our case, we'd likely handle it the same way, and the position there was fraud the equivalent of a conspiracy theory, with that position (claiming fraud being a conspiracy theory) strengthened as reports and court de visions affirmed nothing out if the ordinary happened. So no, here's a case that involves an objective stance that ultimately can be measured but there was no significant doubt it would be proven that way by RSes, so we treat it as fact.<br style="margin-bottom:0.5em"/>As a different example, let's take trickle down economics, which at the time in the 80s was claimed to bring up everyone in the economy. There is no way to objectively prove this, since the results are heavily dependent on specific society behaviors and lack of outside influence. You can only observe and make educated conclusions if there is a connection. At its time in the 80s, it seemed right but today the theory of it working has been heavily criticized. So despite the amount of time involved, the benefits or criticisms of trickle diwn theory should still be presented outside of wiki voice. Maybe far in the future there will be enough agreement among economists that trickle down would never work to then state that factually, but we are not at that point yet.<span id="Masem:1717622400512:Wikipedia_talkFTTCLNNeutral_point_of_view" class="FTTCmt"> — M asem (t) 21:20, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * To show how complex these things are, "trickle down" is a pejorative term applied to supply side economics, which starts with a (straw man) assertion that supply-side's claim on how it helps/works is to give money to rich people and then be dependent on them giving it to poorer people. So, regarding the types of study that you just described, there needs to be agreement on what exactly is the question? <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 21:38, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The claim - made up and down the Reagan era - would be that by giving things like tax breaks to the wealthy, that that would boost the wealth of lower classes, as to justify why tax breaks for the wealthy and corporates were passed. In the US, the expected results of this breaks did not result in improvements for lower classes, but that neither invalidates or validates the idea of this because its one example with a huge number of variable aspects that must be considered. Even arguing in the specific that the Reagen-era push for this principle was flawed still is uncertain despite the growing number of reports asserting it likely was. So from an NPOV stance, we'll never have a objective answer to this question, but that's because its impossible to measure something that has this much uncertainity. Contrast that to the more narrowly focused law of supply and demand, which while still is based on uncertain behavior, has been shown repeatedly in economic science to work over and over again, and thus generally accepted as true, hence why we present that at supply and demand as generally factual.<span id="Masem:1717649094672:Wikipedia_talkFTTCLNNeutral_point_of_view" class="FTTCmt"> — M asem (t) 04:44, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * In the big picture and for the conversation here, I agree with you. My post was a bit of a tangent.   It was pointing out that some putative subjects are mis-descriptions of them through the lens of a pejorative term. And so even using the pejorative name or pejorative description of the subject as the "subject" it is itself POV.<b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 18:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * , yes, it is often the case that an expression has different meanings in different contexts. Not surprisingly, it is like that for "not taking sides" as well. It is not a big deal if someone uses "not taking sides" with a different meaning than the one it has in Jimmy Wales 2003 statement, as long as this is made clear in the context.  I insist, you are perfectly right that "taking  sides" can have the meaning "take the statement as a fact and do not attribute it", just affirm it, "take this side". In that case, "never taking sides" means "never take statements as facts and always attribute them." But clearly, given the title of the section, "The 2003 statement of Jimmy Wales", I am not referring to that other meaning. Yes, some times, we must accept a statement as a fact and not attribute it (i.e., take side in the other meaning of it), but the request to not taking sides, as in the policy, is not put in question because of that, not at all. In fact, it is part of the policy and thus of not taking sides that doubting facts as if they were opinions is not the neutral point of view.
 * By the way, it is not the attribution per se that is the problem. The problem is the part where we are not neutral and take position by doubting. This last point is very important, because it might be possible to attribute a fact in a way that expresses no doubt, but instead is informative, pertinent, interesting, encyclopedic, etc. Certainly, there is nothing wrong with that kind of attribution of facts. There might exists other ways than an attribution to present a fact in a neutral manner without taking sides, by adding a context. So, attributing or not is a false dilemma. Not taking sides might require that we think out of the box so that we are more informative, more neutral than simply affirming the fact without any context.  It is very wrong to reduce it to attributing or not. This discussion tries to deal with concrete cases, but it cannot do well outside the real articles.
 * Anyway, I did not intend to participate in that discussion. After I saw that this section is now a subsection, I just wanted to explain that it is off topic with respect to the original subject of the section. It is not that what is a fact is not related to NPOV. It is a part of it, but NPOV is way more than that. It often requires that we think out of the box, outside false dilemmas such as attributing or not, fact or not. Sometimes, we must provide the arguments, etc. Now, I am out of here. Dominic Mayers (talk) 22:29, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Why does Wikipedia appear to take sides?
Let's try this angle.

The NPOV 'nutshell' says: "Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias."

So why do articles sometimes appear to "take sides"? Here are a few possibilities:


 * 1) Choice of reliable vs unreliable sources
 * 2) Bias in sources
 * 3) Due weight
 * 4) Mainstream (fact) bias
 * 5) Anti-fringe bias
 * 6) Systemic bias
 * 7) Language bias
 * 8) Editors who violate PAG

Let's develop this. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 17:49, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Great and important topic. I wish I wasn't going to be gone until the 17th. Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 18:44, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The overall problem is systemic bias on US political issues, and being systemically too easily game-able in one direction on such.
 * Most of the time it is due to what is included and excluded.  Wp:weight is supposed to help on that but instead the way that it is written it is one of the causes of the problem.  Even on day 1 it was not objectively implementable (leaving it to be just gaming based) and now it has also become obsolete on two fronts in the post-journalism era and the current media-are-now-partisan-advocates era.
 * I think that's right, @North8000. You make a good observation about WP:WEIGHT, and you're spot-on in regards to the "post-journalism" era/media-are-now-partisan-advocates era. That phenomenon is well documented, and Wikipedia editors absolutely need to be more aware of that. What, specifically, is it about the way WEIGHT is written that helps "cause" this problem? Philomathes2357 (talk) 19:45, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Obvious question: Is it about how that section is written, or about how it is applied?  Most editors never read the written section.  We teach people the rules by citing WP:UPPERCASE shortcuts, and new editors believe us even when we're wrong. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:48, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * IMO the cause of the problem is how it is written.<b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 13:24, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If you could re-write WEIGHT, how would you re-write it to address the problem you've identified? Philomathes2357 (talk) 22:31, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Not whom you are posing the question to, but given the question, I would absolutely add the need to value sources far separated in both time and relationship to the topic at hand than those that are very near the topic in both ways, which is tied to factors like WP:NOT#NEWS. Far too much of our articles on US politics are running to jump in to use material from journalists making comments on the same day the news breaks. A good amount of these, the balance of POVs at the time of the event doesn't change in the long term, but we should still be careful to make presumptions based on individual media reactions and instead seek sources that give a rounded view of the event so that we can see, from either a long-term or a higher-up position of what the range of viewpoints are on a topic, and thus where DUE, WEIGHT, and FRINGE apply. M asem (t) 22:48, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This discussion is interesting, but it does not seem to suggest in the immediate a change in the text of the policy. Perhaps it should occur somewhere else, such as the village pump. I really mean it when I say that it is interesting. I will try to continue this thread in the village pump. Dominic Mayers (talk) 08:57, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * To avoid scattering the discussion amongst many different places, here is a link to the right place to continue the discussion. Dominic Mayers (talk) 13:19, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Reader bias, e.g., Confirmation bias. (In this sense, editors are also readers.) How you determine whether you can trust a website depends heavily on it telling you the things you expect to hear. If you genuinely hold extreme beliefs (e.g., Biden lost the election), then any website that is neutral/mainstream will appear biased to you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:46, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Note also that WP:WEIGHT says: —Bagumba (talk) 07:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I assume the purpose of this section is to improve the policy so that the original question about "taking sides" is answered or disappear. A unified understanding of include-info principles and reject-info principles is the needed improvement, because the include-info principles (describing instead of engaging, etc.) explain "not taking sides", the neutral point of view. Dominic Mayers (talk) 12:58, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I would support changing the nutshell so it avoid language about "taking sides". Obviously, we do and should take sides. When those pushing fringe views complain about articles obviously omitting or contextualizing those views, we shouldn't be in the position of having to say "exceptions apply", or "you're interpreting that plain language wrong", or "your side isn't really a side". I'd favor nutshell language along the lines of "Wikipedia should present views and details in proportion to their coverage in reliable sources." Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:39, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * At the end, if it is only a question of language, there is no big deal. My concern is that "not taking sides", when properly understood, is way better than "present details" to bring out include-info principles such as "describing instead of engaging debates", "providing the arguments", which say way more than "present views and details (emphasis is mine)". The main point is let us stop seeing oppositions between these inclusions principles and rejection principles. Instead, let us see that they all converge toward a same goal. BTW, I am not saying that "not taking sides" is an include-info principle. It also requires reject-info principles and more (neutral tone, etc.), but it is a way better unifying concept than mere due weight regarding the include-info side.  Dominic Mayers (talk) 14:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Do we think it's fair to consider neutrality as having these three components?
 * What to do if there is disagreement/diversity of viewpoint ("weight"): For example, economists say X, and politicians say Y – but not scientists say X, and my neighbor's uncle says Y.
 * What to include in general ("balancing aspects"): Articles should provide a basic encyclopedic summary of ordinary facts, without going into extraordinary detail about some aspect that is generally considered minor.  For example, we should say that Ronald Reagan was born in 1911 (because encyclopedic context requires placing people in both time and place), but we should not have even one paragraph about the astrological significance of his birthday.
 * How to say stuff ("impartial tone"): Neutral language, which is both direct and formal is appropriate for an encyclopedia.  For example, "Lotteries disproportionately harm low-income people", rather than "Lotteries are a tax on people who are bad at math, especially if they are credulous or impulsive".
 * Have I missed any general categories that are important for this policy? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:53, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think those are fairly comprehensive broad categories. If you focus the third more on the "How to say stuff" and less on the "impartial tone", I think it covers the important parts of attribution vs. wikivoice present in multiple parts of the policy. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:26, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "Describing debates, e.g., providing arguments, instead of engaging them" is not covered in these categories. The third category should be also be about "What to say", not only about "How to say stuff", so that it covers this include-info principle. This is a part of the nutshell: [Not taking sides] applies to both what you say and how you say it. Not taking sides is certainly not about impartial tone and due weight only, unless we can expand on due weight so that it includes "describing debates, e.g., providing arguments, instead of engaging them". The key point is that the include-info principles should be better explained with examples.    Dominic Mayers (talk) 17:19, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think that both of the first two are "what to say", and that "describing debates instead of engaging them" is "how to say stuff".
 * Would you like to share an example that you think would be helpful? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:29, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That's my analysis as well. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:12, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * For you how is due weight distinct from not taking sides? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 21:01, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The problem related to the meaning of "not taking sides" will disappear once we will have better explained the include-info principles and the reject-info principles. The reason is that the motivation to say that "Wikipedia must often take sides" is closely related to the need to reject fringe theories. The motivation is not at all a respect of the ordinary meaning of "taking sides". On the contrary, the use of "not taking sides" in the policy, as something mandatory, is perfectly in line with its most common meaning. Dominic Mayers (talk) 01:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that, but it doesn't answer the question I thought I was asking. Let me rephrase... What is the difference between the meaning of "don't take sides" and the meaning of "include all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight"? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 02:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Let me be more explicit then. Because of what you appreciate, I will not take the time to answer the question. It would make us enter into superficial terminological issues that lead nowhere, whereas explaining the principles is more useful. Dominic Mayers (talk) 02:45, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Beyond the hyper specific does it suffice to say that the differences are so small as to be negligible? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 02:52, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If you believe that, let's keep "Not taking sides", because it resonates well with people in general and says the essential. I am not answering your question, just making a comment on the affirmation included in your rhetorical question. Dominic Mayers (talk) 03:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Its not a rhetorical question, you don't have to answer it but I think it would be helpful if you did (your argument doesn't really make sense otherwise, you just have to look around to see that your argument appears to be confusing, illogical, and internally inconistent to your fellow editors) Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:27, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * In your case, it is not even needed to look around to see the fallacy in your argument. Dominic Mayers (talk) 16:49, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes... Please look at my massive fallacy... Anything of substance to add or are you done contributing in a constructive manner? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:20, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I just reacted to you just have to look around to see that your argument appears to be confusing, illogical, and internally inconistent to your fellow editors. I consider this a fallacy, because it refers to opinions of others instead of addressing my actual arguments. You see, in my case, I actually point to the exact part that is the fallacy. I do not say to you that others don't understand you, find you illogical, etc. I expect the same from you. Dominic Mayers (talk) 20:15, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If it were true you could say it... I'm not going to lie to you, and saying that people seem to understand what you're saying would be lying to you. Since I noted this additional editors have as well, thats been the predominant reaction to the section you opened below. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 20:40, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It is still a fallacy when seen as an argument. The number of persons who agree or understand is not a valid argument. If you do not intend to argue about the policy, please do that elsewhere. Dominic Mayers (talk) 21:26, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * But it's not an argument it's a comment. Failure to express an argument clearly doesn't make it wrong, but maybe it does need to be stated in a way that is easier for others to understand. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 13:24, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That's playing with words. A comment on arguments that does the same as a fallacy is a fallacy. Dominic Mayers (talk) 15:08, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Not playing with words, just pointing out that your argument needs clarification. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 15:39, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * We are trying to help you understand that no one has a good idea of explicit changes or discussion you want to have about policy as you are introducing terminology without definition no provide clear examples (real or hypothetical) to encourage discussion. Instead you are doubling down on saying you've made your argument andeveryone else is missing it. That's not helping to get to policy talk faster.<span id="Masem:1718552843422:Wikipedia_talkFTTCLNNeutral_point_of_view" class="FTTCmt"> — M asem (t) 15:47, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If you want to change the policy, the two sides, including info and rejecting info, should be considered. It will be a good thing that people have this discussion regarding the two sides anyway, but I will not start it. On the contrary, I wish not to discuss further here. Dominic Mayers (talk) 16:06, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ You seem to be the only editor here that has this idea to change policy, but you are not articulating exactly the change to be considered (even if it is a high level change that you cannot immediately express in terms of a diff revision to existing text) and then as soon as we ask you to explain more, you say you will no longer participate. Either you are trolling us (which I doubt) or you likely know you change would happen when you are questioned about it, so you remove yourself from the discussion. Either way, that's no way to proactively and efficiently engage in discussions on policu changes. You may want to take a break, think exactly what you think needs change and then present a case using establish terminology and clear examples to back up your suggestion. But right now, this overall approach is not a path forward.<span id="Masem:1718556067576:Wikipedia_talkFTTCLNNeutral_point_of_view" class="FTTCmt"> — M asem (t) 16:41, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * A global discussion to change the policy is a good idea, but more people should be involved and we should consider both sides : the addition of info and the rejection of info. Please do not take it personally, but I am not interested in pursuing that specific discussion. It seems that this last point is what you blame me for.   Dominic Mayers (talk) 17:11, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Can you explain why those are seperate sides/proscesses? From my perspective its a single side with a single critieria, you can't choose what to include without also choosing what not to include and vice versa. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:41, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That's not true. The rules to reject info, that is NOR. V and RS, are not sufficient. For example, attributing opinions is not a rule to reject info, but to add info, in this case, the source in an explicit manner in the text. The challenge is that, except maybe for attributions of opinions, it is not obvious what info should be added to achieve the neutral point of view. Even how to best attribute in a neutral manner, without taking sides, is not obvious. People ask me to illustrate by examples how including info is useful to achieve the neutral point of view, which is a valid request, but a difficult one and I am passing the hot potato to others. Dominic Mayers (talk) 19:32, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You can't choose when to attribute without choosing when not to attribute. Choosing not to attribute is rejecting info. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 21:12, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You won, definitively not because this trivial logical fact proves me wrong—it does not, but because you exhausted me.  I insist you won. I will not argue. Dominic Mayers (talk) 23:23, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Dude come on there is no winning and loosing, I'm trying to understand what you mean not prove you wrong. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 00:37, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * We are trying to find a way to get more involved via an RFC but you are not helping by not giving a clear statement to work from to form an RFC, and claim that you don't want to participate in a discussion you stated. That's creating frustration here, and we are asking for more specifity based on establish terminology. M asem (t) 18:46, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There is no proposal for a RfC. Do you want to do a RfC about removing "not taking sides" from the policy ? Dominic Mayers (talk) 20:01, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I recommend that we drop this series of discussions. Over the past few weeks, this talk page has seen multiple threads vaguely about "taking sides", but I am not seeing evidence that there is a problem. After a certain point, it becomes unfair to expect editors to keep explaining why the policy is the way it is. I want to remind editors of WP:IDHT.
 * It's time for the main participants in this discussion to get back to working on articles, and accept the last stable version of the NPOV policy. If there are any POV issues on Wikipedia, they can be addressed at the article level. And if one of those articles reveals an intractable POV dispute, maybe it will need a clarification of NPOV, or maybe it won't. But editing articles would be a better use of everyone's time. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:23, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with @Shooterwalker. @Dominic Mayers, I have a gut feeling that, if I could figure out what you are talking about, I would agree with you, but I honestly cannot decipher what you are saying. I see the words, and the sentences, but I cannot figure out what they mean, even though I am a native speaker of English. My gut tells me that you have some pretty big and deep ideas that you are trying to get across, but perhaps they are so big and so deep that you're struggling to present them in an easily-digestible way.
 * I think it would be a good idea for you to do some off-Wiki writing, to figure out specifically what you mean, and how to say it in a way that is easier to comprehend. If you want help honing your thoughts into something more precise, you can ping me at my talk page or email me, and I'd be more than happy to talk some more. Philomathes2357 (talk) 21:40, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think I am saying anything very deep. There are issues about the neutral point of view that are intrinsically complex. I am struggling to understand them, so I never tried to explain them. Perhaps, you meant that these complex issues surface a bit in my simple points, but it just means that I do not try to hide them. Dominic Mayers (talk) 22:04, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * you need to listen to . They have a point. They write "if I could figure out what you are talking about". wrote "I'm trying to understand what you mean". I have the same issue with what you write, and many others have said the same thing. It's so bad a problem, that when you started to comment in this thread, I was considering shutting it down immediately as I knew you would drown everyone out with walls of text that few would understand. That's exactly what has happened. You kill threads everywhere you comment. Please be more concise and speak the language of commoners. Not everyone has a Ph.D. here. We're trying to understand you, but it's really difficult. At this point, the resolution is not for you to try to explain, but to be silent. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 17:57, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I knew that even though I said that I do not wish to pursue this discussion, people will continue to present me as someone who kills threads, who nobody understand, etc. It is even predictable. It is because I do not want to endure this, that I do not wish to continue this discussion, but of course I have some dignity and I respond when we present me in this manner. My response is that I do not kill threads. My points are simple. In fact, I can summarize them in two sentences:
 * Let us not see opposition between rules for including information (describing debates instead of engaging them, providing the arguments, etc.) and the rules for rejecting information (NOR, V, RS), but see them instead as working together toward a same goal.
 * This unified understanding of all the rules should happen before we discuss "not taking sides", because the true concern here is that people worry that "not taking sides" means we cannot reject fringe theories.
 * Weirdly, people ask what do you mean by including information ? HEB even suggests that we only need rules to reject information, because including information is only the opposite. I will not go into this. As I said to HEB, you won. I have no further argument. Dominic Mayers (talk) 19:00, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thats not what I suggest... I'm actually suggesting that we already have a "unified understanding of all the rules" rather than seperate rules for rejecting and including information... There is no opposition because its the same thing... Rejecting is including and including is rejecting. One can't be done without the other, its a philosophical impossibility. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:26, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying: "Rejecting is including and including is rejecting". I have to think about the deep meaning of this in the overall picture of what is going on in Wikipedia. Dominic Mayers (talk) 17:48, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Think about it this way... A group that includes only you and I excludes everyone else on the planet... It is not possible to include without excluding unless you are including literally everyone. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:51, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * +1 to an RFC to remove "does not take sides" from the nutshell and body of NPOV, because Wikipedia does take sides: it takes the sides of RS. Levivich (talk) 16:24, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Probably the most common problem with this is not when talking about including the "sides" of an issue, it is about deleting material when not talking about sides. I'd guess that 60% of all of the content of Wikipedia violates a strict reading of this wp:weight, and so a POV warrior can selectively use it to knock out any of that 60% that they choose. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 13:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Proposal of a RFC about a better unification of include-info and reject-info principles
This RFC should happen before we consider any decision about the expression "not taking sides", because if we address this first issue, the superficial terminological debate about "taking sides" will also be taking care of. Dominic Mayers (talk) 15:02, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Before actually starting one, perhaps it would be better to discuss first. I'd start with what you mean by "taking sides" (or perhaps better said, what you object to or what you believe others mean by "taking sides" that you disagree with), and what you mean by include-info and reject-info principles, and why that should happen first and why it would resolve the other issue, however you define it. The connection between the two may seem obvious to you as you know what you mean, but there is too much vagueness here for me to easily see it. Maybe once clarified, everybody will agree with you, and an Rfc won't be needed. Mathglot (talk) 16:19, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "Not taking sides" is an expression similar to "the neutral point of view". Both were never "defined" in any formal sense. Instead, they were explained through examples: describe debates instead of engage them, provide the arguments, attribute opinions, etc. These are important include-info principles and these examples answer your question what you mean by include-info. It will resolve the current question about "not taking sides", because the actual concern is that it is seen as opposed to reject-info principles. It's clear that the sentence When those pushing fringe views complain about articles obviously omitting or contextualizing those views ... is a concern that "not taking sides" can prevent us from rejecting fringe theories.  So, clearly, the deep issue is a reject-info vs include-info debate. I don't think we should superficially debate if we remove or not the expression "not taking sides", before the policies clearly explain the different inclusion and exclusion principles themselves, through examples irrespective of terminology, and how they work together toward a same goal. Dominic Mayers (talk) 17:02, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that for the principles mentioned here, such as "describe debates", "provide arguments" and "attribute opinions", the key aspect to articulate is the range of application of each. We do not "describe debate" about the round earth or the heliocentric solar system, except when contextualizing FRINGE theory or relating history of science. We do not "attribute" the "opinion" that conspiracy theories about George Soros are false: we note false claims in wikivoice. What would help clarify our policy the most (and reduce debate) is if we had some kind of consensus about when NPOV and encyclopaedic writing benefits from following these principles, and in which contexts each of them does not in fact apply. Newimpartial (talk) 18:38, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the first step is to describe the include-info principles and their usefulness through examples. Once they have been explained in a positive manner, it makes sense to illustrate through examples how they are well complemented by reject-info principles, including the fact that the info must be relevant. BTW, the requirement for reliable sources is often the same as a requirement that the info is relevant. For example, we require sources that represent well a scientific domain, but this is the same as saying that religious views or even views in an unrelated scientific domain are not relevant. It's not always as easy, but this challenge is not a reason for not explaining well the include-info principles.  This is what I fear. I fear that because we had difficulties to reject info in the past, we started to remove otherwise useful include-info principles. Dominic Mayers (talk) 20:15, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think this policy has ever had substantial examples (WP:NOR does), but as part of this WP:RFCBEFORE discussion, perhaps you could suggest something that you think would be helpful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:33, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Maybe you could name some of these principles? I can't find any reference to "include-info and reject-info principles" in previous discussions or the text (or used by any other editor anywhere else on wikipedia), did you just make them up or are they real things? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:30, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I will not answer the question, because that would be repeating myself. Dominic Mayers (talk) 16:54, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You have talked around the ideas of include-info and reject-info ideas but you have never defined them. It makes it flvery hard to understand what you are asking for. M asem (t) 17:14, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm intrigued by what Dominic has to say, and it feels like there might be something of value here, but it needs to be more concrete and specific before I can wrap my mind around it. @Dominic Mayers, maybe you could give some specific examples of what these" include-info and reject-info principles" would look like, and why they are necessary? Perhaps you could share some specific examples of content that you feel was inappropriately included/excluded on an article, and explain how putting clearer principles in place would address those specific examples? Pecopteris (talk) 19:11, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Then at least link the diff where you say it, I've been through this entire conversation and you never define those concepts and nobody else in the wold seems to use them so there isn't anyone else in the world to ask besides you. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:17, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Please air your Rfc question first
Before starting an RfC, could you please see WP:RFCBEFORE? I am happy to take part in an Rfc, and though I have participated in many and started several, I must admit I had trouble understanding your proposal both in this section and the previous one. Since an Rfc is very costly in terms of editor resources, it's important to write an Rfc question that is brief, neutral, easily understood, and which contains a small number of options to choose from. I fear that if the Rfc question is worded similarly to the way your proposals have been, I will not understand it, and consequently won't be able to vote on it. Perhaps others will find themselves in the same boat. That could cause the Rfc to become bogged down and fizzle out in endless discussion of what it means, rather than come to a community decision based on something everyone understands and can discuss and vote on.

To avoid such a costly waste of Wikipedia's most priceless resource, may I ask you to air your proposed Rfc question here first, not in order to discuss the merits in favor or opposed, but solely to get feedback from other editors about whether they understand what it is you are asking. I think this would help promote a successful Rfc in the end, should you decide to start one. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 17:34, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * When people ask to define "adding information" and "rejecting information", it is a sign that the discussion has stalled and we need external input. In that situation, I don't think I should have to try discuss further without first inviting more people to join the discussion. As it happened before with other explanatory statements in the policy, some people here are concerned that "not taking sides" could be used to say that we cannot reject contents such as "Wacko Smith said Trump won the last USA election". In that particular case, the argument is that Trump partisans could argue that rejecting this statement is taking sides. Therefore, they say that Wikipedia do and must take side, but the real fundamental issue is the same old one: should the policy  be mostly a tool to reject fringe theories, etc. or a tool that requests that we add all relevant information to achieve the neutral point of view (and explains through examples what this means).  I am only concerned that the policy is superficially modified without the true agenda being discussed. Dominic Mayers (talk) 18:51, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Not asking you to define anything. If I understand correctly, you wish to start an Rfc. It is a basic feature of an Rfc, that it begin with a brief, neutrally worded question. Without defining anything, would you please quote in this subsection the question you intend to use at the top your Rfc? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 19:12, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You might have missed the part This RFC should happen before we consider any decision about the expression "not taking sides". As long as there is no serious intention to remove "not taking sides", I certainly have no intention of doing a RfC. Meanwhile, I might even change my mind regarding the best strategy to involve more people. Dominic Mayers (talk) 19:17, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That's fine. If there is no intention of starting an Rfc, it seems this section, "Proposal of a RFC"... is now moot. Do you have any objection if I mark it closed? It would save further investment of time to no end. Mathglot (talk) 19:44, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Did something special was implicitly open simply because there is a the word "RfC" in the title ?  If that is the case, perhaps a renaming of the title that brings out its uncertainty is enough. Or close it, if you want, but this is like saying that there is a retraction, when there is nothing to retract. Only the uncertain aspect needs to be clarified.   Dominic Mayers (talk) 19:55, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I really can't quite follow. I certainly don't mean to imply that a closure involves a retraction, far from it. The only point of closure here, would be to save editor time and nothing more. This section appears to be a discussion about whether or not to start an Rfc, and I thought I understood you to say you were no longer planning to do so, in which case closure simply saves other editors the time of reading through a now-long discussion, only to discover in the end that there is nothing further to add as an Rfc is not in the offing.
 * However, it appears that I may be wrong about your intent; I really cannot tell. Given that whether or not you intend to start an Rfc is basically a yes or no question and I haven't managed to work out the answer, I think I'm not the best person to contribute here further, and other editors who better understand your points will have better responses than I. So at this point, I will bow out, and leave it to others to carry on. Given some level of communication problems thus far, at least in my level of understanding if nothing else, I would just reiterate my plea for you to please quote your intended Rfc question in this section before actually starting an Rfc, should you decide to start one, so that you can get feedback on the wording of the question itself first. Thanks, and good luck. Mathglot (talk) 20:44, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * if it does not mean a retraction, just a clarification that there is no actual proposal for the time being, please close it. It is also that I do not know what is a closing of a section. The closing statement, if one can be added, could be "No actual proposal of a RfC for the time being", the "for the time being" being important.  Dominic Mayers (talk) 20:55, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, done. Mathglot (talk) 21:08, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * this sounds like you want us to reconsider FALSEBALANCE. And speaking from my own experience in trying to create viewpoint neutral articles and running into problems with sourcing, I am not seeing a major issue with how we use FALSEBALANCE. I know that this part of policy means that on some topics we will appear biased because a contentious topic shows more weight to one side in contrastt to the apparent balance In the real world due to how it is covered In RSes, but it is far more an uphill road to actually try to write to reflect the real world POV rather than the POV given by RSes.<span id="Masem:1718482771484:Wikipedia_talkFTTCLNNeutral_point_of_view" class="FTTCmt"> — M asem (t) 20:19, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree, @Masem. I'm not even sure how we would determine what the "real world POV" is, other than consulting published sources, so any attempt to make Wikipedia reflect "the real world POV" by changing the FALSEBALANCE policy is likely doomed to failure.
 * One thing we can do to avoid FALSEBALANCE and create viewpoint-neutral articles without the overt appearance of bias is to avoid sneaking loaded language into Wikivoice, especially when the loaded language is not supported by an overwhelming weight of RS. While our sources are not required to be neutral, we are.
 * Another way that I think our FALSEBALANCE policy can be misused is by using it as a cudgel to completely exclude significant minority views, especially in contentious areas like modern politics. I'm not sure how to solve that problem yet. Philomathes2357 (talk) 20:37, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Those who want to remove "not taking sides", because of a concern that it could be used to a create false balance toward inclusion of fringe theories, are the ones who worry the most with the explanation of false balance in the policy, not me.  I only react to that and say, if the goal is to reject fringe theories, let us discuss the issue, while considering its two sides, inclusion and rejection, especially inclusion which was clearly neglected and could be misunderstood. Dominic Mayers (talk) 20:42, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * For that specific problem I think the ongoing internationalization of enwiki will largely provide the solution without us having to do anything... Its really only US politics which are contentious and as the percentage of US editors declines that contention will pose less of a stumbling block. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 20:43, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Adding reliable sources in Jimmy Wales statement
I want to comment the addition of "reliable sources" after it was suggested to keep the stable version. I see the "reliable" in "reliable sources" as a replacement for the word "scientific", which was there in the 2003 statement. Having nothing to replace "scientific" would not be representative of the original 2003 statement. The diff comment should have explained that, but I figured that out anyway. It is still problematic because "reliable sources" refers to much more ways to reject sources than what was considered at the time, but I am not going to argue about that. I believe now that it is not an important issue. Dominic Mayers (talk) 06:17, 17 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I would agree that “of reliable sources” is not needed in that particular bullet point. The key to that point is that we can (and should) omit viewpoints held by “a small minority” - because mentioning such fringe views gives them UNDUE weight.  It doesn’t actually matter how reliable a particular source expressing the view is, what matters is how widely it is held. Blueboar (talk) 11:13, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The problem comes with the ambiguity... For example wave–particle duality is a viewpoint held by an extremely small minority... Hardely anyone outside of the field of physics knows it exists and thus hold no opinion on it, the same problem occurs for most scientific viewpoints which are just too obscure to be of notice to most of humanity. We aren't actually asking a question about the general poulation, we're asking a question about subject matter experts... We aren't asking who out the general population subscribes to wave–particle duality we're asking who out of the relevent expert population subscribes to wave–particle duality. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:12, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * +1 to removing the entire thing, or, at a minimum, rewriting it to more accurately match modern practice. Levivich (talk) 16:26, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with removing it. Procedurally, we should return to the last stable version and drop the discussion. Content wise, Blueboar said it. If a viewpoint is held by a small minority, we wouldn't give them undue weight. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:46, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * By "last stable version" I assume you mean as of 30 May 2024 i.e. before this bold edit by WhatamIdoing. I suggested above (see post as of 16:15, 16 June 2024) that I intended to put back "scientific" but there was opposition. I suggested above that I intended to remove brown, and so far there has been no opposition. Deleting the whole paraphrase surely should be a separate thread, eh? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:48, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Just to note I've added back the italic that was there before recent changes. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 17:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I removed brown. I strongly believe the addition of "in reliable sources" in the paraphrase should be reverted too. I think Blueboar at least believes that it's not needed. I think Shooterwalker believes it should be reverted since that goes back to a stable version. I think Dominic Mayers believes, and then doesn't believe, I'd like to read a clear final yes-or-no. I ping Mathglot since the re-addition that Dominic Mayers is pointing to was made by Mathglot. So am I interpreting right that it's okay to revert so "in reliable sources" is gone again from this spot? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, it should be reverted to the stable version. Dominic Mayers (talk) 14:50, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't oppose reverting it, the discussion has become a complete mess and the issue is clarified by the sentence that follows it anyway. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 17:22, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I am neutral-to-supportive. The point is to revert to the last non-controversial version. It seems that's consistent with removal. If anyone objects, we can get stuck in the weeds again. But my hope is this can allow everyone to take a short break. The NPOV policy is fine and we can revisit this discussion later. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:38, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Seeing multiple approvals for going back to before the kerfuffle started, I have restored to as of before 30 May 2024. I see that, as well as reverting WhatamIdoing's bold edit about reliable sources, as a side effect it restores shortcuts WP:NOV and WP:NEUTRAL. I think Levivich had removed them. If this was an approved change, then I apologize and will re-remove the shortcuts if nobody else does. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:51, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I personally felt that removing the shortcuts, unless there has been a serious discussion about it, could be disruptive. Dominic Mayers (talk) 16:21, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Reverting a bold edit doesn't require serious discussion and isn't disruptive, it's WP:BRD. Levivich (talk) 12:48, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No worries, I took them out again. Levivich (talk) 12:48, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I will not try to defend my comment about the disruptiveness of having less shortcuts. I am not an expert in these things and the comment was perhaps not necessary. But, I was not referring to the bold aspect of the edit. I was referring to the final outcome of the edit. There was no judgment on any editor.  Dominic Mayers (talk) 13:16, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

"Reliable sources" has two different meanings....the real world meaning (which is vague but good) and the wiki-meaning which can have many problems and is a gold mine for wiki-lawyering. Given those two different meanings, I'd rather not see any expansion of the term here. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 18:35, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Rearranging
The current Table of Contents looks approximately like this: <section begin=BEFORE /> <section end=BEFORE /> Inspired by the discussion above, I'm thinking about rearranging this to become something like this: <section begin=AFTER /> <section end=AFTER /> Does this idea sound like it's worth pursuing? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:36, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 1 Explanation
 * 2 Achieving neutrality
 * 2.1 Naming
 * 2.2 Article structure
 * 2.3 Due and undue weight
 * 2.4 Balance (includes BALASP and GEVAL)
 * 2.5 Selecting sources
 * 3 Impartial tone
 * 3.1 Describing aesthetic opinions and reputations
 * 3.2 Words to watch
 * 4 Handling neutrality disputes
 * 4.1 Attributing and specifying biased statements
 * 4.2 Point-of-view forks
 * 4.3 Making necessary assumptions
 * 5 Controversial subjects
 * 5.1 Fringe theories and pseudoscience
 * 5.2 Religion
 * 6 Common objections and clarifications
 * 6.1 Being neutral
 * 6.2 Balancing different views
 * 6.3 Editor disputes
 * 6.4 Other objections
 * 1 Explanation
 * 2 What to include and exclude (previously "Achieving neutrality")
 * 2.1 Naming
 * 2.2 Article structure
 * 2.3 Due and undue weight
 * 2.4 Balance (includes BALASP and GEVAL)
 * 2.5 Selecting sources
 * 5 Controversial subjects
 * 5.1 Fringe theories and pseudoscience
 * 5.2 Religion
 * How to write neutrally
 * 3 Impartial tone
 * 3.1 Describing aesthetic opinions and reputations
 * 3.2 Words to watch
 * 4 Handling neutrality disputes
 * 4.1 Attributing and specifying biased statements
 * 4.2 Point-of-view forks
 * 4.3 Making necessary assumptions
 * 6 Common objections and clarifications
 * 6.1 Being neutral
 * 6.2 Balancing different views
 * 6.3 Editor disputes
 * 6.4 Other objections
 * Yes. A side-by-side version makes it easier to see what you are proposing:


 * HTH, Mathglot (talk) 01:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I left the original numbers in place, so it's sort of 1 – 2 – 5 – 3 – 4 – 6, with a couple of changes to section headings (wording and levels). WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:21, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * +1. Levivich (talk) 13:15, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd support that re-organzation., want to do the honors? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:28, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅. Now I have a new set of questions:
 * Is ===Naming=== about "What to include or exclude" or about "How to write neutrally"?
 * Is ===Article structure=== about "What to include or exclude" or about "How to write neutrally"?
 * Is ===Making necessary assumptions=== about "What to include or exclude" or about "How to write neutrally" or about "Handling neutrality disputes"?
 * Is ===Attributing and specifying biased statements=== about "How to write neutrally" or about "Handling neutrality disputes"?
 * Is ===Point-of-view forks=== about "What to include or exclude" or about "How to write neutrally" or about "Handling neutrality disputes"?
 * I'm currently thinking 1) HTWN, 2) HTWN, 3) WTIE, 4) HTWN, and 4) WTIE, but I'm not wedded to my first impression. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:12, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Consolidated discussion on wp:weight
Many agree that this needs discussion but lament that it has been scatterred in piecemeal discussions. May I propose a methodical consolidated discussion as follows:

Topic: WP:Weight Specifically the main sections regarding this which are: "Due and undue weight" and "Balance"

Table of contents/sections:


 * Listing of issues/problems
 * Discussion of issues and ideas
 * Workshop potential changes
 * Finalize proposed changes

The end goal would be creating the 1 or 2 most widely supported proposals and deciding on the next step (RFC or ?) Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 19:07, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Listing of issues/problems
Succinct listing only, no discussions here. Note that problems in wp:npov policy wording can a problem/issue which in turn causes problems - somewhat 2 different things, both may be listed here.
 * Wp:weight is often (mis)used to exlude useful enclyclopedic material in general, even it isn't about 2 opposing "sides" on an issue. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 19:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) Due weight is a central concept in this policy, and it needs to be mentioned in the nutshell at the top. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 2) A main cause of problem #1 is that while the wording and intent of wikipedia weight is to cover viewpoints, it is usable and often used to exclude undisputed enclyclopedic material where it is not a viewpoint.<b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 21:04, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 3) Sourcing is at the core of of wp:verifiability and wp:nor. This policy moves that into a totally different area. Which is to have editor assessment of the amount of coverage in sources completely dominate over editorial decisions regarding inclusion/exclusion of material. This leads to numerous specific types of problems. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 12:21, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Discussion of issues
Here's an example of #1 and #3. A US government website says that it has a "Help Starving Children" program with $182 million dollars available in 2024 in grants to starving children, with backing specifics. Someone puts that in, where it is germane to the article, sourced to the US Government website. Now wikilawyer POV warrior John (who dislikes the US government) comes along. He has no doubt about the veracity of the statement or the sourcing for it on wp:ver grounds. But he doesn't want something good sounding about the US government in the article. So he deletes it citing wp:weight, saying that it is wp:undue because it is not covered in published secondary sources. Secondary sources do not cover this type of mundane, useful enclyclopedic information. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 21:16, 20 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I think we need to focus DUE on viewpoints, and strengthen BALASP to cover the non-viewpoint content. I think that a sentence (or paragraph) amounting to "Write an encyclopedia article" would be helpful.  Editors need to be given a policy-based permission to include ordinary facts (e.g., when and were a person was born) even when sources don't dwell on them at great length.  We include some kinds of ordinary facts because that's what encyclopedias do, and not because most sources mention it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:32, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Alternatively, maybe the mistake of using DUE to govern details and not just viewpoints has become so entrenched here that we just fold BALANCE into DUE. The terminology is odd anyway, since in common conversation we'd be more likely to reference "balancing viewpoints" and "undue detail". I agree about ordinary encyclopedic facts, though maybe it's a common enough caveat that it doesn't need to be mentioned here (the parallel I can think of is WP:CATDEF, which no one really cites to remove non-defining but obviously encyclopedic categories). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:39, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I mainly want to have one section for viewpoints about a subject (whose presence and prominence in the article depends on what sources say) and another for ordinary facts describing that subject (whose presence in an article depends on what's appropriate for an encyclopedia article). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:41, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think it's helpful to have those two sections, regardless of what they call them. I guess I'd maybe label the whole thing "Due weight", to keep some consistency with historical references and links, and have subsections for viewpoints and facts. I also think the presence of facts is also commonly dependent on what sources say, though there are exceptions, like obviously appropriate biographical bits. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 23:18, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree. Whether one should spend more time talking about, say, a company's product line or that one day when the factory exploded is going to depend on the sources.  But some stuff is just basic:  Every decent encyclopedia article about a company should have some basic information about when it was in existence, how it was started, where it operated, etc. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * We also have to ask: “what is the actual topic of the article?” Is it an article about a company, or an article about an explosion? We are going to cover different things in different ways (with different DUE/UNDUE determinations) depending on what the article is about. Blueboar (talk) 13:10, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Whatamidoing, you just drafted the most massively missing policy which is "Write an encyclopedia article". :-) Since it's not in any policy, it can't be brought into consideration when making editing decisions. But putting it into this policy would be good. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 12:45, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This is not the right place for this discussion. I personally will not contribute here. This entire section should be moved in the village pump where it belongs. There is no single section that prevails over all the other sections at this stage. This section is not special. One can always open a new section that will present its own big view on the whole thing. Dominic Mayers (talk) 13:36, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This is a lot of detailed work to develop ideas and proposals. IMHO probably too detailed and voluminous for the village pump.  Also it is about this specific policy. Also, it is just a framework for a discussion, not to present it's own view.   Of course it does not "prevail", but maybe it will be seen by some as a catalyst / method to move forward vs. a zillion overlapping discussions which fade out.  But I wish you the best wherever you choose to contribute.  Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 15:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I am nobody. I cannot tell what others should do, but I think personally that it is not fine to have this discussion here. So, I wrote a summary of this thread in the village pump and commented it over there. That is certainly not against the thread itself. I might not help what is called a "consolidation", but I use a page that says at the top "The policy section of the village pump is used to discuss already proposed policies and guidelines and to discuss changes to existing policies and guidelines". So, I do my best at that level too.    Dominic Mayers (talk) 17:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The only problem I see with the scenario you just laid out is the blatant personal attacks... John is likely right and you're likely wrong about their motives (at the very least you have failed to assume good faith). Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:16, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It's a hypothetical defined by what I wrote, including John's actual motivations. But it does mirror a common reality. And when there is a preponderance of evidence, there is no more "assuming" or "guessing" it becomes understanding the situation, even if one keeps that understanding to themself.<b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 20:06, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If John was an editor we would be discussing a block or a ban... Even as a hypothetical its uncivil and creates a strawman as you will never be able to discern an editor's intent like that IRL so it just comes off as slandering a whole class of existing editors (for example the evidence free claim that this mirrors a common reality, please provide diffs to support your asserion). What if John isn't a wikilawyer and POV warrior? What if you're wrong and should have AGF? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:46, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The point of WP:WEIGHT is that the way we organize content is a viewpoint. If we have an article about crime, and 80% of the article is about one country, it begins to imply a viewpoint. If we split that country into its own article, the implication is even stronger. There is no hard and fast rule for what is or isn't appropriate, and editors will always need to discuss how to best apply this principle. (I also think that MOS stuff helps, so articles are forced to follow a general template that enforces a certain organization and scope.) Shooterwalker (talk) 19:54, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Asking for a reliable, independent secondary source is one of the best tools we have to shut down a POV warrior. Yes, wikilawyering can be a problem, but I would be against opening the floodgates where anyone can add any kind of primary research, with no benchmark for what is reasonable. This would be a major change in WP:NPOV, and would likely violate WP:OR as well. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:01, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * For the example, (which illustrates a common reality) it's also a tool of a POV warrior.<b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 20:09, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I still (personally) consider that a discussion of the policy with no concrete proposal should happen in the village pump, because, first, it is a sure way to consolidate discussions in one place, second, it may annoy people that are only interested in proposals for concrete changes and want a more peaceful talk page around this important policy, third, I don't see that the discussion will have less impact in the village pump and, most importantly, fourth, I think this particular discussion has a valid point and I already agreed with it, though I criticized strongly that it is restricted to basic informations. I wish it would happen in the village pump. Dominic Mayers (talk) 00:36, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Village pump is meant for concrete proposals, otherwise it us filling it with a lot of noise. It is far better to develop a concrete idea from currently vague motions here by editors with direct interest in this policy, then propose it to a larger audience at VPP. It is reasonable to advertise this discussion at VPP as to draw more editors, but the bulk of editors that read VPP want to Wade past the noise and know exactly what is being proposed as to !vote on it. M asem (t) 01:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This is weird, because it is totally the opposite of what it says at the top of the page. There is a need to clarify this with the community, Dominic Mayers (talk) 01:36, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It says at VPP "to discuss changes to existing policies and guidelines." implying that the change to the policy or guideline in question should already be known. M asem (t) 02:03, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I am not convinced that you have the correct interpretation. Dominic Mayers (talk) 02:10, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Policies and guidelines seems to think that proposed changes to policies and guidelines happen on their talk page. The village pumps are only mentioned as an optional source of advice for developing ideas and for announcing RFCs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:15, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I concur with Masem and WhatamIdoing.  As with most of Wikipedia, you'll find fuzzy guidance rather than specific rules.  This has the likelihood of becoming a larger sort-of  "workshop" (with a any proposal phase coming separately and later)  IMHO that leans even more towards not putting it at the pump. Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 12:30, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * IMHO, it's the contrary. The pump is the right place, because there is nothing in its description that says otherwise and, usually, the talk page of a policy is not for that kind of discussions. Perhaps a compromise would be to create a subpage at the pump specifically for NPOV or even due weight. It is such an important policy and the domination of DUE (and BALANCE, etc.), not DUE per se, is so problematic  that this would be justified. Dominic Mayers (talk) 14:06, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Once more, we arrive at the core contradiction of this project: nobody knows what an encyclopedia is, or what one is for. There is literally no definition of encyclopedic that is not a clear tautology (i.e. "akin to the Britannica"). This drives people insane, but I think it's possible to be at peace with it.
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia anyone can edit, which is why the core content policies (WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR) are what they are. We explicitly reject the possibility that our own knowledge can be used to decide questions about content. Instead, we necessarily insist that a relatively well defined group of reliable sources exists, and so we delegate that work to them. We literally have no real notion of what encyclopedic material is other than WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR—as well as WP:NOT, though it only provides pragmatic examples and does not attempt to define its terms or justify its examples on a deeper level.
 * It bears explicating that a valid response one could have to your Help Starving Children example illustrating point #1 is, "That's just what it feels like to be on the wrong side of WP:NPOV." It's deeply unsatisfying, but I don't see what can be done about that. Remsense  诉  15:44, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It bears explicating that a valid response one could have to your Help Starving Children example illustrating point #1 is, "That's just what it feels like to be on the wrong side of WP:NPOV." It's deeply unsatisfying, but I don't see what can be done about that. Remsense  诉  15:44, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

It seems like the list of issues is relatively stable. Maybe we can move on to workshopping? did you have a suggestion for 1, 3, or 4? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:37, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Response: Will do (below). Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 18:36, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Workshop potential changes
For #2, I'd propose re-writing the nutshell to emphasize WEIGHT, as well as BALANCE. My proposal is If others think we also need to capture the important concept of neutral tone, it could be  We might consider using "aspects" instead of or in addition to "details", to point readers more firmly toward BALANCE. In general, I would appreciate suggestions that use language that is present in the policy, so readers of the nutshell know what keywords to expect in the policy. The current "sides" language is used in the nutshell and nowhere else. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:37, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Number 1 and #3 are related in a "problem causing a problem" type way. And this proposal also partially helps on #4. A proposed solution is that add wording that the current wp:weight provisions are applicable to "view" & viewpoint type material, including where where the wording inherently expresses a viewpoint. And develop a different standard (which can be brief) for material where that is not the case. One that emphasizes: the reason for inclusion is to include relevant encyclopedic information that is useful for the reader which meets the wp:ver requirements. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 18:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Related to #3, we could provide some information about the difference between viewpoints, opinions, and facts. For example: This might help people figure out whether they need to be giving due weight to various viewpoints vs balancing factual aspects in the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:57, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * viewpoint: a conclusion that depends upon the position or circumstances from which the matter is considered.  For example:  This policy will help these people but hurt those people.  Political conservatives praise it because it promotes economic growth, but socialists oppose it as being unfair to most workers.  Alice sees the treaty as primarily being about pollution, but Bob sees the treaty primarily in terms of business expenses.  Economists view the war from the lens of economics, armies view it through the lens of military science, and engineers view it through the lens of technological innovations.
 * opinion: a conclusion or judgment that reasonable people could differ over, particularly one involving human values, aesthetics, or other matters of personal taste.  For example:  That was an exciting movie.  Low taxes are better than high taxes.  This candidate for elected office is more appealing than that one.  Coffee tastes good.
 * fact: a piece of information that cannot be reasonably disagreed with because it aligns with objective, consensual reality.  For example:  The company was founded in 1912.  It was the most popular song in 1964, in the US market.  Smoking tobacco causes lung cancer.  The politician said that he was not a crook.
 * Yes. Maybe the simplest test in practice (between view/opinion and fact) is whether or not anyone is contesting veracity of the statement itself  (vs. the contesting the inclusion of the statement).<b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 16:26, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Meaning that if the veracity could genuinely be contested, then it's a fact, and if it can't, then it's not?
 * We could perhaps add: Viewpoints depend on who is speaking/their different ways of viewing things; opinions can vary between people but can't technically be wrong (except for people who think coffee tastes good   ) ; facts can be wrong but can't vary between people.
 * For example: The current mess in Gaza started on October 7th (fact, which could be wrong, e.g., because it could have started a different day).  The current state is a good/bad/mixed/necessary/pointless/harmful situation (opinion, which will vary but can't really be wrong).  From the POV of the ordinary Israelis, the attack was unprovoked and unfair, but from the POV of Hamas, the attack was revenge for the Israeli government's past discriminatory treatment, and from the POV of Russia, it was an effective way to distract NATO governments from the Russo-Ukrainian War (viewpoint). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:36, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I think that you are working on broader questions than me, which is cool. I was thinking of a more basic differentiation. Which is that if nobody is questioning the veracity of the statement, the new "lower" bar for inclusion would apply. For example: <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 15:39, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) "Mary Smith is a good president"  An editor disputes that statement. So the higher current bar for inclusion prevails
 * 2) "Mary Smith is the CEO of a "save the puppies" pet shelter. Or "Mary has a PHD in Economics from Harvard" An editor who doesn't like Mary would like to exclude these from the article.  But unless they contest the statement itself (e.g. say that she didn't get that degree from Harvard) the new lower standard for inclusion would apply. Would not require a preponderance of coverage in secondary wp:RS's.
 * I think that causes problems with trivia. Nobody will dispute the veracity of a statement like "Paul Politician wore a solid blue on Tuesday, June 25th", but a lot of editors will dispute the encyclopedic relevance of such a statement. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:03, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The question here is NPOV regarding those. Do they inform with enclyclopedic information or do they distort the article? I think that some reliance on editorial decision making, but having to be to implement that goal would help solve the problems in that area. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 15:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * "Mary was a good president" probably distorts the article, because people might have different views, even if we're talking about a highly effective, universally well-liked corporate CEO instead of a politician. Also, it's vague and generic.  OTOH, it the subject is genuinely "widely considered one of the greatest ____ of all time", then saying that does not distort the article.
 * Adding trivia like what color clothes the politician wore, which can be a major discussion point in media for women, will distort the article, despite being indisputably true, verifiable, and uncontested.
 * I think veracity per se isn't quite the word we're looking for. Distortion feels better, but it also feel tautological. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Here's what I had in mind regarding distortion by inclusion/exclusion. Regarding by exclusion, I'd offer my example that I gave at the start of the "discussion of issues" section. By excluding basic coverage of what the program is and what it offers, it will probably lead to distorted coverage.....just other people ("sources") opinions of the program or coverage of when the director was caught cheating on her husband. By distortion by inclusion, it might be a large section in the Charles Manson article (I'm making this up) on details of how he had a rough childhood, and every award he received  as a child, and covering some small donations he made to charities. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 21:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * "Articles should provide an adequate description of the subject, such as information that would ordinarily be provided for similar subjects. For an event, this might include the Five Ws; for a person, it might include when and where the person lived and some information about their family and education, as well as what the person is notable for"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * A line in the When sources are wrong essay stuck out at me, simple as it is: We do not engage in original primary or secondary research, but we are creators of original tertiary analysis. I concede that pragmatically, we have to make some of our own editorial decisions (e.g. what is and isn't encyclopedic) otherwise we'd be locked in to borderline plagiarism at worst and we'd be borderline useless at best. But the fact remains that encyclopedic remains a bit of a semantic black hole here. Maybe it'd be helpful to explain what we mean in different terms? Remsense  诉  02:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Remsense, you said something similar above, but I'm not sure that we really have such difficulties with the concept of an encyclopedia. We have an article at Encyclopedia, which says that encyclopedias are supposed to have articles that are longer than a dictionary definition and contain summaries of knowledge about the subject of each article.  That knowledge is supposed to be primarily factual (as opposed to linguistic, moral, etc.) in nature.
 * Despite the couple of editors who drop ==Etymology== sections near the top of some articles, we don't really seem to have much trouble with this. The disputes we tend to run into are more about style (e.g., should I copy the casual/outdated/jargon-filled style of the sources I'm citing?  Is this information too detailed to be appropriate for a summary, or is that article too opinionated to be factual?) and what to do about factual information that doesn't look quite like a traditional encyclopedia article (e.g., lists, tabular information/data, or articles that are presently very short).  WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Of course we operate based off a general sense of encyclopedicity, but hopefully it's understandable how it seems a lot of our content policy is built upon a word that simply isn't that well-defined other than "akin to how the Britannica was". Moreover, just because we have a working notion of what the word means doesn't mean it will help inform others when written in a didactic policy. The example distinction between "linguistic" and "factual" information you've made is slightly odd also, as a search of Britannicas website for etymology will find many such sections: surely they're important to a general discussion of many topics? Remsense' 诉  16:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The word that is most problematic in terms of being not so practical is not "encyclopedia", but "weight" as used in UNDUE, BALANCE, etc. I wrote the essay Find and then present the points of view about that and I would appreciate commentaries.  The essay does not say that this notion of weight has no counterpart outside Wikipedia, in other words, that it is completely a Wikipedia's jargon, but it strongly suggests it. I believe it is entirely a Wikipedia's jargon. The essay does not say either that the notion of weight in sources does not exist in Wikipedians' practice, but it also strongly suggests it. I believe that, in practice,  we don't use a notion of weight in sources. In practice, we simply read the sources to understand them and determine the relevancy of different contents and their relative importance. The essay says that this editorial process is important and neglected in the policy.  I would not be surprised if someone shows to me debates that refer to "weight" in sources as if it was a real quantity that can be measured, say using the amount of characters attributed to the content in sources, but most likely these debates will be artificial, just as in an argument about who will win if the flying spaghetti monster fight with a Unicorn. By this I mean that there is no real intent or mean to measure the "weight", just like there is no mean to observe the flying spaghetti monster in a fight with a unicorn. I am not referring to the notion of weight in the article. Once we have read and understood the sources as a part of a complex editorial process, it is possible to make a judgement on the relative importance of points of view and determine on that basis that a view point takes too much space in the article. This notion of weight in the article is still a Wikipedia's jargon. This time it has a practical meaning. Yet, as a jargon, it should not be used, especially because it is very confusing: "due weight" in that jargon has a completely different meaning than outside Wikipedia, as explained in the essay. Dominic Mayers (talk) 16:52, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The word might be ours, but I don't think the concept is ours. An article that doesn't give due weight to the various viewpoints about the subject and to provide a balanced summary of the subject isn't a good encyclopedia article.  In fact, the most famous example of that was the French Encyclopédie, which for ideological reasons ended up with articles that were supposedly about, e.g., a small town, but whose wildly unbalanced contents were primarily about a single resident of the town.  It was criticized for this problem in the 18th century, just like a non-neutral and unbalanced Wikipedia article ought to be criticized for it in the 21st century. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree that the notion of too much space given to a content is universally bad. I am criticizing the use of a bad jargon here. It is bad, because "give due weight" outside Wikipedia is simply about the attention given to what is available in sources or from witnesses in the case of a judicial trial, nothing more than that. It is not about the article or about the final ruling in the case of a judicial trial. Moreover, you have not commented on the essential. I cannot tell how often people do it, but some times people somehow assume that we can measure the weight in sources, as if the notion of weight could replace the usual complex editorial process. It is implicitly done in the policy, because little is said about that process, in particular, inclusion of information, giving the arguments, etc.. Dominic Mayers (talk) 21:43, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Giving due weight cannot replace "the usual complex editorial process", because it is part of that usual complex editorial process. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * We have an important agreement here that Wikipedia is based on a complex editorial process, but this agreement is not useful until it leads to a text of the NPOV policy that better takes this complex process into account, especially the fact that it requires that we find all relevant informations. In particular, as I tried to explain, some people somehow think that "give due weight" (with its meaning in Wikipedia's jargon) requires only that we use some magical method to directly compute the weight of each point of view in the sources and then respect the same proportion in the article. It's problematic, because, with this magical way of thinking, they don't appreciate that the actual method to evaluate the relative importance of the points of view is this usual complex editorial process that requires that we actively look for all relevant informations. This problem seems to exist in the current text of the NPOV policy, which fails to acknowledge the different kind of information that often need to be included. Dominic Mayers (talk) 01:07, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I doubt that there is a single editorial process.
 * If editors don't believe that they need to "actively look for all relevant information", then they have not read this policy. For example, the first sentence says articles need to contain "all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic".  It does not say articles should contain only "some of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic", nor "all the significant views that you are personally familiar with", nor even "all the significant views that you agree with".  How can anyone include "all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic" without searching for a wide variety of sources?
 * WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:18, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I doubt that there is a single editorial process., but we must try to agree on the key rules that guide that process for each one of us. That's what we are trying to do here.
 * The policy says these things, but it used to be more specific. It used to say that arguments might need to be provided, etc. A case that might be of interest to you is that it does not say that a basic info such as where a person was born does not need reliable sources to show that it is relevant (only reliable sources to guarantee that the information is correct). In other words, currently the text of the policy is not well balanced and focus too much on due weight (with its meaning in Wikipedia's jargon) to reject information and not enough on the editorial process per se, which must use patterns of inclusion of information. When to apply these patterns must be determined on a case by case basis, but it would be good to discuss more these patterns in the policy.
 * Dominic Mayers (talk) 01:36, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Do you have a link to a version with more specific statements about needing to provide arguments? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:26, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * In the original 2001 version (just pick the oldest version), an example is given in which it is said that arguments must be given. But that is not the key point. The key point is that even today, it is true that giving the arguments is a way to obtain a neutral point of view. Once that key point is understood, then it is worth mentioning that this example was removed, but it's not more important than that.  Dominic Mayers (talk) 00:20, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You're talking about the quotation from Jimmy Wales that says "An encyclopedia article should not argue that laissez-faire capitalism is the best social system. (I happen to believe this, by the way.)  It should instead present the arguments of the advocates of that point of view, and the arguments of the people who disagree with that point of view."
 * I'm not sure that I agree with him.
 * To begin with, I'm not sure that we should be presenting arguments for/against why a given political philosophy is best. An encyclopedia should be more interested in the facts:  laissez-faire capitalism leads to greater wealth for the investors, less wealth for ordinary workers, and more pollution for the earth; it can only exist in practice when courts strongly protect individual autonomy, enforce contracts, and punish fraud; etc.
 * It doesn't make sense for an encyclopedia to give arguments like "Alice says it is best because _____" or "Bob says it isn't best because _____". The article should primarily present facts like "The right of workers to unionize and to strike against an employer isn't compatible with laissez-faire capitalism" and let the reader decide whether limiting workers' rights is an argument 'for' or 'against' laissez-faire capitalism.
 * Even if it makes sense in some cases, I think it's not the right thing to do for all subjects. Arguments 'for' and 'against' might make sense for political philosophies, but they don't make much sense for, e.g., artistic appraisal or settled facts.  It might be suitable to have a list of arguments for and against a government policy, but it would be silly to have a list of arguments for and against the fact that cigarette smoking is unhealthy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:31, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This is why I refer to providing arguments as a pattern. It is a pattern in the editorial process, just like a statistical strategy is a pattern in scientific research. Which statistical approach must be used depends on many things. Whether or not Jimmy Wales proposed a good example for that pattern is not the most important issue. I am not saying that I agree with your specific criticisms of the examples considered, but I do not want to enter into this, because I believe the "provide arguments" pattern and other patterns cannot be proven correct by examples until people agree on their purpose. The general idea is more important and it is a primary notion that cannot be defined. This is why in the essay I make reference to that notion outside Wikipedia using accepted contexts. If we had some common concrete objectives such as our health, how much money in our bank account, etc. it will be simpler, but we don't. We need to connect with our deepest inner values concerning what is a good article. It is at this level that the notion lies.    Dominic Mayers (talk) 17:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Huh. I tend to take the opposite view:  a pattern can't be proven correct (i.e., useful and appropriate) until there is some example where we agree that following that pattern makes a better article.   WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It's the reasonable way to look at it. The problem, as I explained, is that we must share the criteria for the "useful and appropriate" part. Dominic Mayers (talk) 01:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The only criterion that really matters for that is that editors agree that it makes the article better. Consensus is the wiki way. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:50, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Sure, but you fail to address the issue: what is a better article ? This is where the concept of neutral point of view needs to be discussed, because it is our attempt to agree on what is a good article. I wrote my essay with this in mind. Dominic Mayers (talk) 05:53, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * A better article is the one that the community agrees is better. This is the actual definition in a consensus-based system.
 * Do you mean to ask something like "What criteria does the community usually apply in practice (or claim to apply in theory/aspirationally), when they are trying to decide whether a given version is better?" WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:10, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, but I feel the discussion is stalling. We are dealing with meta considerations about the goal, the question or the problem we try to solve. Usually, this should be shared to begin with or easily shared after a few exchanges so that the real useful discussions can occur.   Dominic Mayers (talk) 06:24, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Perhaps this is a cultural difference, like whether a good paper at school begins with a thesis statement and then provides supporting details, or if it begins with seemingly unrelated details and weaves them together into a proven claim.
 * I think my starting point is If it ain't broke, don't fix it. I've asked for evidence that something's broken and that the broken article could be fixed providing "arguments". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:50, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This will make us enter into philosophical considerations. I love philosophical considerations, but here is not the place. If you read my essay and write comments in its PdD that are specifically related to the essay and possibly have a philosophical component, I will be happy to respond. Dominic Mayers (talk) 18:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Providing a very specific example or evidence to the issues you claim is not creating anything philosophical; it cements the discussion to that specific example to determine what you think is wrong and how a policy adjustment could change it. And reading that essay, I am still confused where you are wanting to see development of policy, except that I see the flavor of what we caution about from WP:FALSEBALACE in there - we can't do any type of DUE analysis of what we think is out there, only from what reliable sources say, but some of what you say in that is exactly along those lines.<span id="Masem:1721262706799:Wikipedia_talkFTTCLNNeutral_point_of_view" class="FTTCmt"> — M asem (t) 00:31, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Remsense, click on Encyclopedia, and read the last sentence of the first paragraph. The difference between a factual treatment of a subject and a linguistic one should be clear. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:24, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * "Generally speaking" is rather key, here. It doesn't really seem like you intend to argue that linguistic dimensions are never germane to a general discussion of a topic, so I'll cut this short here. Remsense  诉  21:32, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think I'm the one who started using "enclyclopedic" in this thread. My context was that it was clearly main information about a topic which people would expect to find in an encyclopedia article but where POV warriors used this policy (in an unintended way) to exclude it. and I gave a hypothetical but representative example at the start of the "discussion of issues" section. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 16:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

What do to about NPOV?
After barking up a number of wrong trees, I think I'm finally at the right place. I'm concerned about what's happened to WP:NPOV since October 7 in that it's become weaponized in a pursuit of having one's narrative reflected.

When I first encountered this I was frustrated; I was shouting at the clouds about WP:ADVOCACY while everyone was tiptoeing around me. While it may only be an explanatory essay, as a subsection of WP:NPOV, it should have some sort of jurisdiction. I don't see it any different to COI whereby an editor is conflicted/compromised because of this.

People have biases and that's fine, but not at the expense of independence, balance and neutrality.

But as people are putting their own agenda and concerns over and above Wikipedia's - discussions and votes have been reduced to a kangaroo court. Wikipedia should reflects the facts - the truth. There should be nuance as real life is. It shouldn't be about sides and who can muster the most votes. It shouldn't be about pushing through RFCs and closing them just so we can win them. There should be no winning here, but this isn't the case. Far from it and if this continues, the biggest loser will be Wikipedia - if it loses its reputation as a neutral independent encyclopaedia the damage is significant.

Additionally WP:NOTNEWS has been completely ignored as Wikipedia has is some instances, become basically a newspaper.

I'd love to work with some senior editors/admins on this and see what we can do about this. MaskedSinger (talk) 06:35, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Well... @MaskedSinger, I have a lot of sympathy for you. However, I don't think it's entirely a solvable problem.  This is a "we have to let humans in here, many of whom have human failings" problem, not a "formal policy" problem.  It affects every controversial area, and has for decades. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:14, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply @WhatamIdoing - Even if it isn't solvable, why can't we try and improve the situation?
 * Everyone's true north should be is Wikipedia an encyclopedia that is impartial and independent and neutral? MaskedSinger (talk) 06:43, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The policy hasn't changed in the time that you described, and doesn't need changing. WP:AGF, this should already be everyone's true north. I think the point is to go forth and apply this policy, which can be hard in practice. If there are articles that fail, the discussion should start there. Shooterwalker (talk) 10:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Policy hasn't changed for years, but the problem is that we've been more permissive of content that is against NOTNEWS - particularly when it comes to talking-heads opinions from everyone and their sibling - on current topics, using the fact that "oh, it appeared in RSes, it must be true." rather than using critical thinking to think first before adding and to work towards summarizing rather than detailing the news. When we write to that level of detail, it creates significant problems across multiple policies including NPOV. M asem (t) 12:42, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Shooterwalker@Masem I love that you replied and we're discussing this. So thank you for that. What can we do to keep this conversation going - from looking at Wikipedia holistically and having its best interests at heart. MaskedSinger (talk) 13:07, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * How much of this could be mitigated by encouraging encyclopedic summaries instead of detailed, blow-by-blow descriptions? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:50, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @WhatamIdoing It seems to be that the first of all commandments here is AGF and trumps everything else. That's fine but, if someone is actually acting in bad faith, what can you do about it? The person who has Wikipedia's best interests at heart is punished because theyre casting aspersions, making accusations. If all things are equal, 100% you have to AGF but if they're violating NPOV, you should be able to question their GF without everyone freaking out. MaskedSinger (talk) 06:04, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If we understand "bad faith" as deliberately trying to hurt Wikipedia, then I don't usually find that editors engaged in POV advocacy are trying to hurt Wikipedia. Instead, they are usually (from their point of view) trying to help Wikipedia, by making Wikipedia match the beliefs, etc., that they have developed and believe to be true. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:37, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * While I agree with your theory of mind approach to understanding the issue, I'm not so sure this is a helpful perspective in practice. The notion that intent matters seems to be something that most people believe and take for granted. But not all systems work that way. Some systems do not care about intent. They only care about the consequences of someone's action regardless of intent. The intent of an editor is very often something we can't observe or verify. It is possible, and perfectly reasonable in my view, to look at biased editing, advocacy, POV pushing etc. from that perspective, where the observable is the negative impact on content or the dynamics of interactions between editors etc. and intent is treated as unknowable/irrelevant. Either way, the Wikimedia Universal Code of Conduct's prohibition against "Systematically manipulating content to favor specific interpretations of facts or points of view" is pretty clear. Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:54, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Our Assume good faith rules are based on the idea that intent matters. Specifically, if someone is obviously trying to hurt Wikipedia, then treat it as vandalism, but if they're not obviously trying to hurt Wikipedia, assume that they're trying to help, and just aren't very good at it, and occasionally even that they might have a point, and that what looks like a "negative impact on the content" or "biased editing, advocacy, POV pushing etc." is actually an improvement consistent with the WP:YESPOV part of this policy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @WhatamIdoing How in theory is this different from a paid editor? CEO of a Fortune 500 company has a 3 line Wikipedia article. Hires a PR company and they improve the article significantly - abiding by all Wikipedia guidelines except for UPE. Now theres a great in-depth encyclopedic-worthy article.
 * Have they hurt or helped Wikipedia? MaskedSinger (talk) 05:33, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Creating a great in-depth encyclopedic-worthy article is helping.
 * Our traditional reason for worrying about this is that they tend not to create a great in-depth encyclopedic-worthy article. Instead, they usually create a rather mediocre page that is crammed full of buzzwords and paints the subject more favorably than is warranted.
 * More recently, a minority of editors are very worried about whether allowing any COI edits at all, even if the edit itself is entirely desirable, causes Wikipedia to have a sort of Ritual uncleanliness. This is often expressed in terms of "reader trust" or fears about "Wikipedia's reputation".  I do not share this view, as I think the content is more important than the contributor, but I also believe that COI edits generally result in bad content, so in most cases, I would also reject edits from a COI editor.  The only difference is that I would reject them because the edits are bad, whereas these editors would reject them because the editor is 'bad'.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:21, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @WhatamIdoing I thought of another example. Someone edits their own article and we don't know it's them - what they do is completely within the guidelines interms of sourcing, etc. Helping or hurting Wikipedia?? MaskedSinger (talk) 15:09, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If it's completely within the content guidelines, it's helping. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:18, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Most of the problem that I see when NOTNEWS is tied are editors operating in good faith, but slipping into poor editorial practices because they have a viewpoint that is generally backed up by the media's tone and approach to covering something, that they want to make sure that those news articles are included into WP to validate their viewpoints, because that otherwise appears to meet content policy, but that lets slip problems of taking short-term news coverage as being necessarily the best sourcing, which in the long term is not really the case. For example, most editors on WP, like the bulk of media, have left-leaning tendencies when it comes to US politics. This makes it very easy when it comes to articles on American politics to find no end to criticism of people, agencies, and other aspects that lean more to the right. We are clearly from the news coverage likely not to necessarily have articles that make sure figures look like angels (eg we're not going to use FALSEBALANCE to ignore valid criticism), but the way some of these are written make them look like the worst possible people that existed, because "oh, that's how the media presents them". While we can't change the public perception, we still have a duty on WP to write neutrally and impartially, and that generally means toning down the rhetoric that the media has no problem dialing up.
 * I'm certain that with Oct 7 and thus anything in the Israel/Palestine (IP) area, this has gotten even worse due to how strongly the major figures (not directly involved with the conflict) are sticking to one side or the other, and my impression from the media is that situation is even worse than the US politics one. If we were starting to write about the current conflict, but ten years down the road with far more academic sources, as we have with conflicts likes WWII, we've have a far better window to know what are actually important viewpoints and aspects that were judged by academics and historians to focus on. We're trying to judge that window now, and that's where these implicit editor biases come in, because the combination of media bias and editor bias creates what seemingly may be proper under WP's content policies, but has major problems. M asem (t) 12:51, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Well said! Couldn't agree with you more!! MaskedSinger (talk) 15:07, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This highlights a flaw in how (too) many of our articles on current events are written. We are supposed to read lots and lots of sources first, and then summarize them with due weight.
 * Instead, we (too) often reverse that process … we first decide to add some bit of information we think is important, and then find sources to support what was added. This reversal results in Due weight being applied as an afterthought, instead of being applied as a preliminary part of the process.
 * Admittedly, preliminary analysis is difficult to do with current events, because there may not (yet) be “lots and lots” of sources to summarize and weigh. But it is, to my mind, a crucial part of writing a neutral article.
 * Blueboar (talk) 15:40, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This reversal results in Due weight being applied as an afterthought, instead of being applied as a preliminary part of the process. Yep, this is the main issue. The policy is too much about the final result and too little about the process itself. Interestingly, "due weight" outside Wikipedia refers to the process. For example, when it is said that a judge must give due weight to facts or arguments, it means that the judge should not discard any argument without a good reason. The corresponding requirement in Wikipedia should be that editors must give proper attention to the sources and make sure nothing important is omitted. Also, when the focus is on the final result only, what is rejected determines what is included. As a consequence, one naively thinks that knowing what to reject is enough. When the focus is on the process, this is not true . When we consider the editorial process, what kind of information must be added becomes very important. Dominic Mayers (talk) 17:02, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Shout out to 's excellent essay on this (which you maybe were alluding to already): Writing Wikipedia articles backward. It's focused more on article creation than established articles, but the principles still apply. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:06, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There is no need to search info or do some non trivial editorial process only when the sources are not polemical and not too opinionated. Otherwise, you need "backward" aspects (search for information) in your editorial process. Dominic Mayers (talk) 17:26, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The way we *should* be writing current event articles in the short term is to focus primarily on the crystal clear facts and omit speculation and opinion, unless that itself is part of the story. Its fine if we are overblown on factual details at this stage, as that doesn't present a NPOV problem, and that helps with rewriting in summary later (That said, I HATE HATE HATE articles that are 90+% proseline, which is just lazy writing efforts). But its when editors start trying to judge what analysis and opinions are important when those haven't been identified by RSe themselves, and that creates the NPOV problem that I talked about above. Short term opinions from those unassociated with the event but otherwise commenting or reporting are it should be considered inappropriate to include until a point some saner summary of these can be made. M asem (t) 18:39, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * articles that are 90+% proseline: Thanks for the reminder that I need to get back to COVID-19 pandemic in California and other articles.  Anyone who hates a Proseline should feel free to join in. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:27, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think you're onto something there. And the problem is wider than current events: a lot of the POV problems we see in science and history articles recently can be traced back to someone rushing to add the incorporate the latest research (or more often than not, the garbled news media summary of the latest research) into articles. The result is the equivalent of Proseline for science: a list of contextless 'findings' with no regard for whether anyone else finds those claims remotely plausible. I think the general public knows that Wikipedia will not accept unverifiable material or material based on unreliable sources. But the smoke the media blew up our collective arse around COVID, all that "last good place on the internet business", is making a lot of editors to forget the wisdom of WP:WEIGHT, WP:PSTS, Recentism, etc. – not all "reliable sources" are equal and being a few years out of date isn't a bad thing in an encyclopaedia. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 10:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Joe, +1 on all counts. This seems to me a mix of rushing to include new updates, both by our editors and by our major sources. Search engines bias towards recentism and popularity, as do media outlets of record. Both increasingly give more visibility to high-profile opinions, and separately to every instance of a hot take, than to rarer balanced overviews.  This also affects sources of peer review. So a casual researcher writing up the state of X and assigning weight to the # of takes in plausibly reliable sources, might really believe that the Biggest Event in the History of X was a moment of recent drama which led to 90% of all current search results.  – SJ +  13:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree, recentism is what many editors too often highlight, and news-feeder is what they are doing, regardless of NPOV or anything else. It is too radical a suggestion, but it would make sense to internally split the project, into Encyclopedia, and Current Events or News Digest (sub orged by year, like the old year books). Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:31, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I mean, we have Wikinews as a sister project that no one seems to remember exists.<br style="margin-bottom:0.5em"/>We do need more editor awareness and investment to limiting what "breaking" news goes into articles to be more discriminatory, and to come back to these articles and improve the summary approach every so often as to bring more recent developments into an educational narrative. Thats a factor that all the four content policies feed into.<span id="Masem:1720447683724:Wikipedia_talkFTTCLNNeutral_point_of_view" class="FTTCmt"> — M asem (t) 14:08, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * But that's not where are ediors go to write their current events and news digest articles, as I suggested that's why there were Year Books alongside encyclopedias (ofcourse, the Yearbook comparison is not perfect as at least, it had a chance to look back on the year and make judgements). Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:14, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Being a few years out of date is bad for an online encyclopedia. The readers and the public at large have spoken: Wikipedia is a summary of current knowledge, up-to-the-minute current knowledge, not just historical knowledge. There is no changing that. Trying to remove current events from Wikipedia is a fool's errand; it's been tried before and fails every time. And while too-new information is a problem (WP:RECENTISM), IME too-old information is as much or more of a problem (WP:AGEMATTERS); I've seen as many problems caused by editors rushing to add the latest news, as I have from editors using outdated sources and obsolete information. The answer is to strike a balance, to use the best sources and information available, to use them properly, and to update with better sources regularly. That's a tall order; we have too many articles and not enough people to do it; but AI source summarization will help (give that technology another year to develop and we'll all be using it to write articles). But there will be no world in which Wikipedia doesn't cover an ongoing war or health crisis or sporting event using news media reports. It's not media or search engines or sources that have recency bias, it's people, that's who wants the latest information, because that's the information that really matters, and that's why media, search engines, sources, and Wikipedia, will provide it. "I'll tell you what happened today in a couple years when we have the benefit of hindsight" is not something that people will ever accept. Levivich (talk) 14:30, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, I would not have put it as "out of date", but rather as tested, confirmed and reconfirmed; but still regardless of what should be done, it is not being done and that's the point with NPOV and recentism. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:41, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * On the point about balance and bringing this around to NPOV, we of course are going to cover current and ongoing events with near real time updating.and we should not discourage that, as long as editors use common sense to know what breaking news will likely have relevance in the future, and come back later to rework if too much was included. But key here is that in the short term we should be urging editors to avoid inclusion of opinion pieces and similar, and only as the topic ages to start incorporating viewpoints once we can see those emerge from a DUE/WEIGHT approach. And that is a factor that NPOV does not actually address yet. M asem (t) 14:45, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, that would require a "new" policy/guideline, even if added here, and would be breaking articles governed into a subset. It is probable, editors generally don't understand or acknowledge the real limitations of news, even the best. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think any change along these lines would be a combination of updating Weight to talk about how short term sources should carry far less weight than long term, and then making sure RECENTISM as a guideline hits these points as a do/dont type aspect. But that's just my thoughts M asem (t) 15:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Is a short-term source something like a news article, and a long-term source something like a book? We might think of the 'shelf life' of breaking news as being a couple of days, and a regular news article maybe a month to a year, but a book often seems useful for a decade or more. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:19, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It clearly depends on the topic, but I would generally catalog books and review-style journal articles as long term, while average news reporting as short term. Mind you, newspapers like the NYTes often publish long form articles that can be taken as long term, while books can be rushed out before an event has stained making it long term. It is going to be based likely on the duration of the topic or event at hand. And keep on mind this aspect is more important when it comes to any type of intellectual transformation, like analysis or opinions, and far less on patently clear facts which short term sources are fine for. What we do want to avoid is trying to craft a story from these facts in the short term that would get us into NOR problems (like accidental causation claims)<span id="Masem:1720564140056:Wikipedia_talkFTTCLNNeutral_point_of_view" class="FTTCmt"> — M asem  (t) 22:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * To @Levivich: Being a year out of date is bad. Being a few weeks out of date is less bad.  Mentioning that an event from the last few weeks is unfolding without presenting any conclusion of how it will unfold or what the implications will be, is probably good.
 * The media-hype-cycle problems I've seen usually take place over a period of 2-4 weeks. During a cycle [while it is in the public eye], advocates try to ensure their point of view is reflected in the lede of the Wikipedia articles on the topic.  We can set both norms and policies that avoid that and make WP less fertile ground for that sort of advocacy. – SJ +  23:58, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Implications for due weight for trending topics

 * TLDR for this section: what changes might strengthen our commitment to a) avoiding recency bias overall, not being news / overweighting historical articles on news, b) giving bursts of recent sources less weight than older sources in determining balance of independent views and proportional coverage, and c) giving more weight to thoughtful experts than to pundits and partisans?

I came here to discuss exactly this; having run across a comment today that suggested WP:DUE implies that as news media publish more and more articles about an event, that event should take up more and more space in related Wikipedia articles.

Related quotes:
 * WP:NOTNEWS is often ignored; we've been more permissive of content that is against NOTNEWS (Masem + user:MaskedSinger)
 * "The problem is that as time goes on, the volume of articles outputted increases, skewing WP:DUE towards WP:RECENTISM. So based on the current definition of WP:DUE, I would favor A or B, because this topic has had a lot of discussion in the press. Hope we can find a different way to evaluate DUE-ness in the future." - on Talk:Anti-Defamation League

To Joe's point above, another recent article where I ran into this was LK-99, where almost all physicists in the subfield had little to say about it: it looked like Yet Another High-temp Superconductor Crank, this happens regularly, there was nothing special about this case compared to others [it wasn't even the most plausible cranky research in the past few years - others even passed peer review once], &c. But a handful of people took it seriously, and were amplified by hundreds of otherwise-reliable media outlets, all covering the same few points with a custom hot take. Here are some thoughts using that case as example:

– SJ + 16:40, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) Speed + Recentism: editors generally felt that all articles on this topic should reflect the latest frothy coverage in news outlets. Those viewing any RS mention as demonstration of notable coverage, wanted to mention LK-99 in every article on superconductors, in various ledes as the 'latest development', &c.
 * 2) * A stronger commitment to NOTNEWS would have been helpful (perhaps w/ a specific exception for a single Timeline section in the main article to address the prominent interest of many readers and editors, but specifically not propagating NEWS into other articles.)
 * 3) Weighting by buzziness, vs by repute: Editors wanted the article on the alloy to cover the optimistic crank claims (widely repeated as 'claimed by the preprint authors') proportional to how often they appeared in, e.g., search results of general-purpose reliable sources.
 * 4) * There are sources specific to superconductors and high-T superconducting, and most of these had little to say about it (official panels set up to review the paper take time; only preprints had come out to date). Their non-commentary was harder to mention or cite in the article.
 * 5) * By reputation, the most reputable scientists all pointed out how unlikely this was to play out, or highlighted concerns with the observed effects, or ran their own replications which failed to find sc without entirely ruling out the possibility. In that case, editors rarely weighted sources by in-field reputation, beyond a very basic "RS / non-RS". I'm not aware of MEDRS levels of attention to expertise in any topic outside of medicine.
 * 6) Weighted by volume of coverage, vs by independent reliable assessment: As more and more articles came out reporting a handful of unproven claims (such as unpublished replication studies that announced on blog posts they had seen positive results), editors argued the sheer volume of coverage merited inclusion, in the article and the lede, of both the existence of the most-talked-about claims and extensive details about them.
 * 7) * While those claims were generally the least-well justified and the most easily rebutted by other scientists, the publication ratio of pundits incentivized them to repeat such claims, to scientists with time to rebut the claims, was at some point well over 100:1. We might want policies to highlight that, in NEWS scenarios where one can expect this sort of mismatch, a single expert assessment of a claim is worth hundreds of pundits repeating it.
 * 8) Amplification of drama: Because lots of sources write about drama and responses to it, some editors want to include that as now notable in its own right, in articles on related topics. This is where Wikipedia tends to be weakest: where we leave extensive space for drama in articles that are nominally about something else.
 * 9) * Specifically, if a bunch of partisan "it's over" / "we're back" articles are getting a lot of attention, the ideal article would not include them or people critiquing or debunking them. But often our articles have extensive timelines of these seesaws rather than downgrading sources that engage in such things as obviously less neutral and reliable on the topic.
 * 10) * Finally, these issues seem to come up most prominently for topics that become trendy for professional pundits to weigh in on. Perhaps we can also more explicitly down-weight punditry, even when it appears in an RS -- or at least distinguish "reviews by a field expert in an RS" from "commentary by a pundit employed by an RS to continually produce takes".
 * So... I think it's complicated.
 * First, to reinforce something that @Levivich said, the public expects up-to-the-minute coverage here. When a major 'event' happens (e.g., when Queen Elizabeth died), the relevant Wikipedia article gets a lot of page views.  People read our articles primarily in the first couple of days, while the more authoritative sources are still sending their drafts through their internal review processes.  Once more official sources are available, then interest in the Wikipedia articles tends to decline.
 * Second, NOTNEWS is one of those WP:UPPERCASE problems. Here's NOTNEWS in its entirety:
 * Editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events. However, not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Ensure that Wikipedia articles are not:
 * Original reporting. Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories. Wikipedia does not constitute a primary source. However, our sister projects Wikisource and Wikinews do exactly that, and are intended to be primary sources. Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news, and can be updated with recently verified information.
 * News reports. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Wikipedia is not written in news style. For example, routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities, while sometimes useful, is not by itself a sufficient basis for inclusion of the subject of that coverage (see WP:ROUTINE for more on this with regard to routine events). Also, while including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews.
 * Who's who. Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic. (See Biographies of living persons for more details.)
 * Celebrity gossip and diary. Even when an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in are. For example, news reporting about celebrities and sports figures can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia, but using all these sources would lead to overly detailed articles that look like a diary. Not every facet of a celebrity's life, personal details, matches played, or goals scored warrants inclusion in the biography of that person, only those for which they have notability or for which our readers are reasonably likely to have an interest.
 * Personally, I'd summarize it this way:
 * We do not want articles to be out of date. We do want articles about some current events.  However, we also do not want articles that are only:
 * Original reports. Don't write "I just witnessed the tornado picking up a house" or "Reports from people interviewed by a Wikipedian indicate that the tornado picked up a woman riding a bicycle".  Do cite news reports that were published today, if that will help you write a decent article.
 * News reports. Don't write about everything that's in your news feed this morning.  Don't overemphasize today's news.  The tornado was big, but it's not the only thing that ever happened in Kansas.  Also, don't mimic the style used by newspapers and magazines.
 * Who's who. Just because Dorothy got mentioned by name in a source doesn't mean that we have to inflict a BLP article on them permanently.  Or even mention her name anywhere.  She could be "a local resident" instead of "Dorothy, a local resident".
 * Celebrity gossip and diary. Nobody actually cares what color tie that politician was wearing.  Encyclopedias produce summaries, not endless details.
 * Does this align with your understanding? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think we need an additional bullet which is not there yet, on what "enduring notability" means and how to handle "breaking" hot takes vs news about events with a small fact base and a large range of projected implications. News outlets tend to repeat exaggerated claims ("someone said this, if true it would be newsworthy"), we don't need to.  A single note that "researchers issued a PR claiming they had cured death, a common claim in this subfield" is fine, we don't need to include every RS that repeated this claim and opined on what that would mean for the world if true. – SJ +  23:52, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Sj, I think that some aspects of "not news!" should be much less contentious. For example, we know that the Super Bowl will happen every year.  We know somewhat in advance which teams will play.  I don't know if there is "enduring notability" behind a sentence like "On February 30, 2025, the Red Team and the Blue Team will play in Hypeville", but I do think that sentence should be added prominently as soon as the facts are known.  It may be "breaking news" on the first night, but it's also obviously worth including. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:02, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Fully agreed. I don't think we're discussing "factual updates" here but "how much space to give to common hype / dramatized controversy / other attention hacking".  Claims that should be tuned down / not included in a lede:
 * "A predicted this will be the most watched Hypegame ever"
 * "B noted the energy invested in halftime shows and ads is rivaling that put into top films"
 * "Described as the most iconic sporting event in the country"[1][2][3]
 * "Since a contentious ad campaign crossover with Pepsi [earlier this month], described by RollingMoss as [scandalous], Hypegame has been persistently associated with [scandal]" – SJ + 17:04, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * About different ways of weighting things (e.g., by media buzz and volume of coverage):
 * In medicine-related articles, I have often found it more practical to write something about high-profile news than to have a fight over whether to include it. Specifically, I find that a sentence or two that acknowledges but downplays a given event ("On Octember 32nd, researchers issued a press release claiming that they had cured death") is usually enough to help readers (they will get a more precise and accurate statement here that they'll see in the headlines, and a few of them might even read our hand-picked sources) and to stop edit wars and drama.
 * And, if we're lucky, someone will mark their calendars to improve the article a few weeks later, where "improve" often means "quietly remove that bit about science by press conference, now that nobody really cares about it any longer". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:09, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The other strategy that has worked, and that we recommend at WPMED for persistent problems (news-related or otherwise), is to write a really good article, but this requires a lot more effort than can be dedicated to most subjects. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * A smaller lift that "write a really good article" is "write a really good sentence noting that an extraordinary claim was made, noting that such claims require extraordinary evidence [and none was forthcoming], and noting how often such claims have been made in the past by authors in similar situations, none of which have to date panned out." There's some house style needed here that is not OR. – SJ + 23:52, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Reply to SJ: That reminds me of the "cold fusion" debacle of the 1980s. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * A smaller lift that "write a really good article" is "write a really good sentence noting that an extraordinary claim was made, noting that such claims require extraordinary evidence [and none was forthcoming], and noting how often such claims have been made in the past by authors in similar situations, none of which have to date panned out." There's some house style needed here that is not OR. – SJ + 23:52, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Reply to SJ: That reminds me of the "cold fusion" debacle of the 1980s. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)


 * One proposal is the following. For certain topics we should prefer articles that coverage a fairly large part of the topic. So, for example, for ADL, we should prefer sources that cover most of ADL's history. At the very least, we should use such sources to determine WP:DUE weight, at least broadly speaking, to different parts of the article. So if an article on the overview of ADL gives most weight to its history in the 1940s period, then so should we, for example. Also consider this discussion I had with .VR (Please ping on reply) 21:52, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That makes sense to me. – SJ + 23:52, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * In that vein, it should be that we prefer sources that are more comprehensive of a topic, and more distant in time from the period the topic was most relevant (like for the ADL, since it's founding). These factors typically work hand in hand but there are cases where a short comprehensive summary would work, or where we have to use multiple articles from the long term to establish a comprehensive picture. M asem (t) 16:27, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course, but that assumes that there has been some time and distance, and it doesn't help us when the complaint is that the hurricane is happening today, or the winners of the Oscars are being announced right now, or the Big Game is at half-time – and we've got to stop them from starting an article about a current event, because Wikipedia is not a newspaper!
 * In other instances, the problem isn't that the whole article is new, but that people, using their best judgment, believe that a new thing needs to be included in an existing one. Some of them are obvious (e.g., Michael Jackson died), and some of them are less obvious, but fairly often, we know that it needs to be included, and we're working with the WP:BESTSOURCES that exist, rather than the ideal sources in theory.  Especially when an editor is personally uncomfortable with the facts, they may try to delay the addition on any possible grounds, including claims that we need sources "that are more comprehensive of a topic" or "more distant in time" and that "establish a comprehensive picture".  But the fact is that if a public figure gets arrested for murder, the article needs to include that, because NOTNEWS itself says that Wikipedia articles should not be out of date, even if the most that can appropriately be said is "The Daily Newspaper reported that he's been arrested and charged with murder".   WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:59, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Here is an example, though the person was not arrested and it was not a murder, only an involuntary manslaughter: the event was reported the day after. I have no opinion about that. I don't follow current event on Wikipedia and I certainly do not contribute to them. I just looked for an example for myself and decided to share it. Dominic Mayers (talk) 16:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If we are focused only on the facts in the short term, and with some common sense knowledge of which facts are those with permanence and part of our encyclopedic coverage, then using short term sources are fine. In some cases, however, some facts may later prove trivial based on how more comprehensive sources cover the topic, and we'll end up deleting those in favor of how these latter sources summarize a topic with the benefit of time. Eg the COVID articles will benefit from time, as well as our coverage of both the Ukraine and Gaza situation. I don't have any issue if we overload an article with short term sourced objective facts about a topic as long as it's understood future edits will likely work to make a better summary.<br style="margin-bottom:0.5em"/>But it's when we start getting to subjective statements that we need more patience to wait for these sources.<span id="Masem:1720644114739:Wikipedia_talkFTTCLNNeutral_point_of_view" class="FTTCmt"> — M asem (t) 20:41, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Attributed opinions are also facts. It's the idea of attribution: it becomes a fact that it was the opinion of some important person or group. I wonder if someone could find examples of opinions that could be consider immediately important. Dominic Mayers (talk) 21:19, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * What it may be factual that "X said Y", that's still for purposes of a NPOV evaluation, a viewpoint, unless that viewpoint itself became part of the story (for example, Trump's recent claim of having no knowledge of Project 2025). When we include attributed opinions, we are still expressing them as verified truths about what the speaker said, but we are not assigning truth to whether the state is true or not, and hence falls into a viewpoint to be considered under WEIGHT.<span id="Masem:1720704040952:Wikipedia_talkFTTCLNNeutral_point_of_view" class="FTTCmt"> — M asem (t) 13:20, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I believe that in most interesting cases of attribution, it is difficult to evaluate the importance of what is stated separately from who states it. It is tightly connected. If it is not tightly connected, the attribution might not be appropriate. But, again, I think it will be interesting to have examples of attributions, if any, that would be appropriate to include immediately, just after the event. Dominic Mayers (talk) 13:52, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I suspect that most WP:INTEXT attribution is the rather boring case: "Paul Politician said something about his opponent" or "Chris Critic said the movie was artistic" or "Cigarette manufacturers claim that their products are perfectly safe".  Even those can be tightly connected to the speaker, though. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:32, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, finding boring cases that we should not include is easy and this is true as much for attributions as for any other kind of facts. The question is do we have interesting cases of attributions that we would include just after the event. Also, yes, I suppose there could be a tight connection in boring cases as well, but I did not say the contrary. Dominic Mayers (talk) 23:41, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * For an event, one might expect comments from some type of authority figure. For example, "Paul Presidential said that the government is providing emergency services" or "Bob Business said that the disaster was not his company's fault" or "Ellery Expert said that this event set a new record".  The goal with attribution in some cases, particularly early on, is to provide information but to contextualize it as what one person said, rather than as a widely accepted fact.
 * For example: Almost 3,000 people died in the September 11 attacks, but in the early days, the news was reporting twice that.  In those early days, it should say "The Red Cross estimated around 6,000" or "News reports claimed about 6,000", not "there were definitely exactly 6,000 deaths." WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:41, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That seems a good example of an attribution that we would include immediately, but it is an attribution of a direct statement about a fact. What we are looking for is an attribution of an opinion that we would include immediately, because we know immediately that it is very important and will be recalled years later. In other words, I am asking if there are counter examples to MASEM's suggestion that attributions of opinion should not be included immediately after the event, because they should be deal with as if they were  opinions, not facts, even though they are actually facts: it is a fact that the opinion was expressed. ... The more I think about it, the more I believe that attributed opinions always belong in the category of boring facts, but I am still open to counter examples. Perhaps, a fictive and unrealistic counter example would be a statement by Biden reported in the most respected newspaper, viewed in all major TV news that Trump was the greatest president of all times and will be again the best president ever if reelected.  Dominic Mayers (talk) 23:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * For all purposes, we must by default take attributed opinion as a viewpoint for the purposes of DUE and WEIGHT. It is right that "X said Y" as an attributed opinion is verified and meets WP:V but we should not treat it as a "fact" for purposes of writing articles. M asem (t) 17:25, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I would agree. Do you think its worth proposing changes to policy? VR (Please ping on reply) 16:50, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Two points that I think should update policy: 1. A thousand op-eds about Y (or drama Y_d in the history of Y), over the course of a few weeks, are often not significant from the perspective of enduring notability. The latest drama is generally not suitable to include in the lede about Y.  A thousand people saying "LK-99 could be huge! If the authors' claims are true, we could have antigravity, cheap fusion, and fast space travel!" isn't notable in the history of physics, or of superconductors (which has had hundreds of such claims, each trying to outdo the last; notably the real physics superconductivity breakthroughs never resort to press releases).
 * 2. We should be particularly careful about a sort of 'social proof citogenesis'. If Wikipedia editors find it notable to quote op-eds that say "Y_d changed public perceptions of Y", and stick that into the article about Y, other more reliable sources which would never cite op-eds directly, may start referencing Wikipedia to show that in fact D changed perceptions of Y.  (by definition, if 100M more people read the Wikipedia article than the minor op-eds it summarizes, that's true.) It is doubly important to avoid this because so many advocacy groups take this into consideration, and spend time on WP trying to use our articles as the mechanism for getting a claim [usually about a product, person, or group] into the public sphere.  – SJ +  23:52, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * An example of an opinion that should likely be reported immediately: the Pope makes a comment that could indicate a significant change in Catholic dogma is being considered. Blueboar (talk) 01:14, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Nixon said "I am not a crook".
 * For that matter, any accused person denying guilt should normally have their denial included as a matter of neutrality. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:46, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * In the same vein, when a natural or man-made notable disaster happens, the reactions (and ideally actual steps to restore normalcy to those affected) by the region or national leaders are reasonable, while those from other countries that are just, for all purposes, the equivalent of "hope and prayers" reactions are not necessary to include. Unfortunately, these reaction sections tend to end up filling with these latter aspects. M asem (t) 17:23, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * ^ This is a significant problem. Perhaps we should address that specifically.
 * Taking a hypothetical earthquake in Mexico City (they have a lot of them), and thinking about the early days, offhand I'd say:
 * The 'reaction' from the president of Mexico is worth including: "The President of Mexico said he would do everything necessary".
 * The 'reaction' from close neighbors, especially (in this case) from the US, might be worth including, but not in the lead/not prominently: "The US President expressed concern."  ("Close" includes non-geographical relationships.)
 * The 'reaction' from distant countries is not worth including.
 * The significant practical actions from anywhere in the world are worth including: "Canada offered $20M in disaster relief supplies, the UK offered satellite communications support, and China sent railway engineers."
 * Once significant/academic sources become available, then I think that "hopes and prayers" can be eliminated, even from the local head of government, as there will be more important things to say.
 * What do you think? Would you make a different recommendation? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:18, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, that goes along with how I think we should be discriminating of including immediate reactions in such cases. I would also add that in such cases, media and non-govt reactions typically also should be ignored (if we start getting into man-made disasters like mass shootings) M asem (t) 19:25, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The annual California wildfire season usually gets these kinds of responses:
 * Government officials: We're sending firefighters.  Evacuation zones are over there.  BTW, campfires are illegal now.
 * Neighboring government officials: Hopes and prayers!
 * Meteorologists/experts: Everything is super dry, and the wind is going to be bad for the next few days.
 * Various advocacy groups: This just goes to show what happens when you let people live there/you allow electricity in rural areas/we haven't stopped climate change.
 * Various targets of blame: Nope, it's probably not our fault, and we're pretty sure that it was caused by some guy using our transmission towers for target practice, or maybe by lightning, even though it hasn't been raining.  Please don't blame us.
 * Various affected people: (First 48–72 hours):  We are just so grateful to be alive.  The rescue services are incredible, and everyone is working together.  (After that):  I'm angry and tired and broke and everything's disrupted and I haven't slept well since we got here because other people's babies keep crying and I don't know what to do.  Why can't a government official at least tell me if my house has burned down yet?  What's so hard about driving through a wildfire and making a list of all the houses and whether they're damaged?  I blame them all.
 * (For that last one, we probably need an article on the subject. I've read that disaster relief orgs use the switch from gratitude to anger as an indication that the victims are past the worst.  You don't yell about what's going to happen next week when you're consumed by whether you'll survive the next few minutes.)
 * For this list, I'd want the relevant officials and experts soon, but the rest are not urgent. Affected individuals probably shouldn't be named/quoted (ever).  The blame givers/blame avoiders can be reserved until we're sure that this is likely to have some enduring relevance.  That could be fairly soon (e.g., if it's confirmed fairly soon that the fire was probably caused by an electrical malfunction), but we don't want the article history to run "It was electrical malfunction – oh, oops, it was vandalism – oh, sorry, it was lightning". WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:58, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Another way to think about this us how would we write about a 10+ year old event today if starting from scratch? I can tell with certainty that the amount of reaction material would be very minimal and mostly delegated to actual steps by officials and others to bring back normalcy would be included while anything that amounts to just words and not actions would be omitted. That's the problem that how we writing breaking news articles day explemifies, that editors have no filter of what actually would be part of our summary approach if we were writing about the topic ten years later, both on degree of factual detail and of talking head material. We need an approach in NPOV to at least have editors think of what appropriate reactions that will be impacyful in the long term and part of an appropriate ten year smart rather than trying to emulation the news. M asem (t) 15:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, I did that last October: Oklahoma county commissioner scandal.  I didn't include any quotations (except from two words from a report).  There's nothing about the immediate reactions, no daily diary of how many people were arrested or tried on any given day, or any sort of blow-by-blow description.  It focuses on the problem (theft of public funds), the cause (an institutional structure that let individuals spend millions of dollars with no oversight), and the results (some people went to prison, and some laws got changed). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:10, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thoughts on examples:
 * Report promptly:
 * + Summary of a statement by the subject, or by official sources
 * + A statement by a field expert, offering not just a hot take but putting an event in context
 * Be judicious:
 * - A statement by a professional pundit or contrarian
 * - A statement by a scholar in the field who has a standard take on such things, and provided that take mapped onto this recent event. [Pope and Antipope commenting on one another's authority]
 * - A statement forecasting the future ["we are so back / it is so over"]
 * - A detailed statement by an accused person attacking their opponents
 * - Repeating verbatim the statements of a PR campaign (for or against a topic) – SJ + 19:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Suggest attention at Pamela Paul
I would suggest NPOV participants to look in at this article, where contentions are being made by new editor @User:Standing and Staring, of terms to describe this NYT Opinion writer, contentions that are not based on others' stating the terms, but rather based on on that editor stating the terms (conclusions), and providing what they believe to be primary source evidence of their assertion. I believe this violates WP:OR, WP:VERIFY, AND WP:NPOV. The discourse is at the 1RR stage. (I am a retired faculty member, and retired Wikipedian, and was looking in at that article to do WP:VERIFY type edits, and seem to have just mis-timed my presence with this red-letter editor's appearance and POV editing.) 98.206.30.195 (talk) 23:25, 13 July 2024 (UTC)


 * You could tag it as having POV problems, or you could post a request for help at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard (the official place to ask questions about fixing non-neutral articles) or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red (the most active group writing about women). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Posting at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard may be an idea, it tends to have a lot more watchers and this is a BLP article. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 11:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Fake names of editors
Why are editors allowed to use “stage names” and not real, verified names? Does that ensure neutrality or the opposite? 68.132.121.58 (talk) 00:15, 18 July 2024 (UTC)