Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Archive 30

"POV warrior" slur
I've seen this term used on Wikipedia a number of times. It needs to stop as it violates both WP:AGF and, more seriously, WP:NPA. Jinxmchue 22:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It certainly can be. It can also be a useful description of an all-too-common behavioral pattern. As an aside, WP:AGF starts at home, and something like this hardly puts one in a position to lecture on AGF. MastCell Talk 22:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Boy, that SPADE nonsense sure has come into vogue lately as a way to excuse violations of AGF and NPA. As for "something like this," I've seen nothing to dissuade me from believing those things, particularly in regards to the article about D. James Kennedy. It's all still going on. Jinxmchue 03:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * SPADE is not a policy. WP:NPA is.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Should we create a NPOV noticeboard?
See this thread on VP(P) and comment. Thank you, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Getting sick of ethnic slurs
What are the appropriate responses to ethnic slurs in Wikipedia policy names, procedures, etc.? Jacob Haller 20:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:CIV, WP:NPA.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Those only deal with slurs by one editor against another editor, not slurs embedded in policy. Jacob Haller 19:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds like you're about to post a link to something specific... ...? Sheffield Steel talkstalk 17:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:Vandalism, Administrator intervention against vandalism (sic), etc. Jacob Haller 18:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we can also expect some Swedes to complain about our use of the word "troll". I think the problem isn't Wikipedia so much as the English language. Trying to find a way forward, was there an alternative term you had in mind? Sheffield Steel talkstalk 19:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Usually, I type "revert trashing" and the like, but I've no general suggestion. I suppose the systemic bias wikiproject might be a better place to address this. Jacob Haller 22:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is a real life example
At the talk page of the article Israel & the UN, I ask a question about the limit of the NPOV policy when dealing with real life. In brief, Where is the line between a lie and an opinion? Emmanuelm 18:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

"There's no such thing as objectivity"
As long as you follow this philosophy, nothing on Wikipedia will ever be able to be taken seriously. This is why the vast majority of schools do not allow students to cite Wikipedia as one of their resources, and why many PoV balance issues arise. It is not that objectivity does not exist, it is that the current policies do not allow for objectivity.--69.252.221.116 10:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I completely agree! And I want add that, at WP, objectivity is equated with neutrality. This is untrue; Neutrality is the objectivity of the feeble mind. Emmanuelm 13:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree. The reason WP is not taken seriously as a source is that it is metaphorically a very large public toilet wall, and so many contributors fail to grasp that just because anyone can edit, it doesn't mean that they should.
 * In what way do current policies prohibit or prevent objectivity? Sheffield Steel talkstalk 17:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair point. I posted my first comment [ever] on the discussion page for American Football (Oct 08/07) because apparently unlike any other similar page on Wikipedia, the History section is right at the bottom of the page. (This has become a bee in my bonnet as it seems to show, in a small way, the nature of editors on this site).
 * I noted that the article's 'burial' was probably due to it's assertion that America's national sport was actually developed from the British game of Rugby. Oooh painful!!
 * Well from the two replies that have been posted, the first criticized me for not being polite?? And that the quality of article's writing (not the content) may have resulted in it's position on the page. It was then suggested that I should make a request for the article to be moved. C'mon. Cap, in hand, maybe?
 * The second reply said that they didn't care what other pages have done (ie so Wikipedia doesn't have an acceptable style, unless it's acceptable to them) plus that the whole History article was, at the moment, poorly conceived as it was, for all intense and purposes, a place where colleges could 'brag' about their place in American Football History.
 * So if you can't even have editors sticking to basic principles on page layout then from the thin-end-of-the-wedge position we get to point that Wikipedia is just a collection of facts, opinions amd theories that are there only at the sole discretion of the editors. In both posts there was no suggestion that the article could be improved so that it could be moved to its rightful position as first section on the page. As there is no change, does that mean there is no problem? Or does NPOV mean antipathy too?
 * Philosophically speaking if Wikipedia is about everybody having a right to edit, how come there is so much wrong with it?? Just read the discussion pages!!!

LOL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.106.235 (talk) 10:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Please provide us a list of perfect WP articles
This is a call to all Grand Wikis : please provide us with a list of articles that you judge to be orthodox by all WP policies. Emmanuelm 13:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * See Featured articles and Good articles. --Elonka 23:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Archive
This page is getting ridiculously long... What is the archive policy of this page? It seems that at some point it was two months per archive, but that was done 6 months ago. Should we rather consider User:MiszaBot II for this task? A useful setting might be discussions older than a month. G.A.S 09:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I went ahead and archived manually for now, and set up an archiving bot.  There was a problem before where the talkarchives were using non-standard names (Archive 026 instead of Archive 26), but I've switched numbering systems, so hopefully it'll work now.  :) --Elonka 21:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Question about NPOV
Isn't it impossible to have a neutral point of view because a neutral point of view is a point of view. Mono bi  20:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No. Neutral point of view ≠ No point of view. G.A.S 06:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Bias
The section on bias could be confusing in some instances. For example I've been involved with editing L. Ron Hubbard, mentions of him in WP:RS like Time magazine or the Los Angeles Times paint an overall image of a mentally disturbed power freak out for money.

Some might argue that RS about Hubbard are biased against both him and the religion he created.

They are:

1. Wrong
 * A. Reporting critical material about the creator of a religion is not a direct criticism of the creation. Thus no bias against the religion is implied.
 * B. If a source is considered reliable enough to be in the article, it is not biased.
 * C. A source with no clear motive to defame someone, and evidence exists to prove its assertions, is not biased it is simply critical.
 * D.-Z. Other

2. Right
 * A. The sources have an agenda based on a pre-conceived notion that he was a shady character, since they more or less say so they must also be biased.
 * B.-Z. Other

3. Right about: (A., B., C., etc) Wrong about:

Anynobody 03:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't believe the WP:NPOV policy makes any claim that "reliable sources" are unbiased or otherwise likely to be true. Reliable sources merely help ensure that that the views expressed are significant. Since bias cannot be determined definitively unless one already knows the truth, whether significant views are biased or not and which ones are is for the reader, not Wikipedia, to determine. Best, --Shirahadasha 22:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Discussion about particular attribution
I encourage Wikipedians who watch this page to comment about a new proposal at Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories. Thanks ScienceApologist 17:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Infobox policy
There seems to be a significant lack in policy statements on what is an appropriate infobox. WP:IB and WP:IBT are entirely practical (how to create an infobox and where to find them). The process at List of infoboxes/Proposed appears to be entirely for informational purposes, without any actual review required to set an infobox up (not that there necessarily should be). WP:TFD mostly focuses on practical issues as well (is it used? does it have a logical format?), but does mention the requirement that an infobox must "satisfy NPOV." I think we need a lot more clarity on what that means for an infobox, and perhaps adding a brief section to the NPOV page would be appropriate.

Consider an infobox that lists a person or organization under a certain category, and that there is significant controversy over whether that identification is fair and/or accurate. What is the standard? In an article, balance between POVs can be achieved by citing the opinions of various RSs and their reasons for placing or not placing that entity in that category. But an infobox is not capable of such nuance. Is such a listing in an infobox ipso facto a claim of consensus? Or would another rubric be more appropriate? --BlueMoonlet 06:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S. If this is not the proper venue for this discussion, please feel free to suggest a better one. Thanks. --BlueMoonlet 06:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I suspect that this is indeed not the venue, if this post stagnates much longer you might consider either: WikiProject Infoboxes or the Village pump. Hope this helps. Anynobody 04:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I've placed notices at both those locations, and also put up an RfC. --BlueMoonlet 21:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

This is indeed a very real problem. I don't think there's any explicit policy or guideline so far, and I've sometimes had the impression designers of infoboxes haven't given the problem much thought in some cases. For some items, such as statistical figures, it's become common to include footnotes in infoboxes, but even that can be problematic (if you have five different estimates for the population size of some ethnic group, which of them are you going to quote?). My experience is that among the most bitter edit-wars, a disproportionately high number are caused by infoboxes. In such cases I always try to persuade the parties to simply leave the information out from the box and treat it in the text only. People can get incredibly fixated on entries in infoboxes. In the eyes of many users, the special visual prominence a piece of information gets by being placed in the box apparently constitutes a special form of endorsement. This percieved hightened degree of importance, and the lack of nuance in sourcing and hedging, are problems that can seriously compound each other. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * My notion is that, for factual disputes (i.e. birthdates), there are absolutely no restrictions on using citations in infoboxes; Super Smash Bros. Brawl has seven, for instance. If the dispute relates to something else, there are a number of options: leave the field blank (if there are no sources), find some more-neutral language (i.e. compromise), or simply put "disputed" if the dispute is described and sourced in the article. If sources disagree as to some number, put it the high and low and cite 'em, such as in Battle of Yarmouk. Nifboy 05:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree, all of this can be viable solutions, case-by-case. I'd only be reluctant about the "put disputed into the box" solution - there are many cases where a dispute or uncertainty exists and needs to be treated, but where the "disputed" mark in the box might be perceived as itself giving undue weight to the dispute (or to that party of the dispute that challenges what others perceive as the mainstream view.) Another great opportunity for edit-warring.
 * Another related problem that I've encountered many times is that infobox designers (especially with older infoboxes, before "#if" constructs became technically easy) made too many fields obligatory. Basically, every infobox field where only the slightest chance exist that an entry might become contentious should always be optional. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Then I would ask someone to fix the template. I know infobox Person doesn't have any default fields. Nifboy 13:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

POV in capitalization?
The correct adjectival form referring to the "Quran" is "Quranic". The correct proper adjective for "Veda" is "Vedic". The correct form for "Talmud" is "Talmudic". This is the same as all proper adjectives in English, that are always capitalized, eg. "Lithuanian", "Australian", etc. However, a number of editors have now arisen insisting that the accompanying proper adjective for "Bible" should be "biblical" (small b) as a special exception, and only because they say certain style manuals they claim to be authoritative, ought to trump the notion of maintaining a neutral, even-handed appearance, without any other explanation or rationale being required. (Of course there are many other authorites that allow 'Biblical' with a capital B, but these, they claim, are somehow irrelevant.) The issue, including how it pertains to neutrality, is now being discussed at an RFC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible, please comment there. Til Eulenspiegel 17:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Undue Weight -- Poor Example
This is a silly and inept example. The "view" of the world as flat is not a "view" at all, but rather a departation from fact. The world is provably spherical and as such there is no "view" to be reasonably had on the subject. Instead, a classical example should be given, one of a subject notable for not having ascertainable truths, forcing it to be comprised of views instead (i.e. the existence of God).74.12.74.247 12:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

"The most popular band"
So what do we do when a reliable source discussing a group calls them the most popular band of the 90's? Tarc 16:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * In article as a direct statement, i.e. So-and-so was the most popular band of the 90's. with the source cited.
 * Written with a qualifier (being careful of WP:WEASEL of course) as So-and-so is considered one of the most popular...
 * Directly quoted, to denote that it is the words of a particular journalist/source, i.e. So-and-so is considered "one of the most popular bands of the 90's..."

Cherry picking sources and undue weight
I don't know anything about the late Sri Chinmoy (died Oct. 11) but was struck by the characterization of him in the lead of his Wikipedia article as being "quirky" and wondered if it was fair. Yes, this is sourced to the AP obit, which referred to him as quirky, so it's a reliable source. But if you do a search in Google News for the past month and add that total to a search on Google News Archives, you'll find that there have been 1,665 articles that mention Chinmoy. If you do a search on "Chinmoy quirky," Google returns a single result -- the obit that's cited in the lead of the article. Is it a violation of undue weight to characterize Chinmoy as "quirky" in the lead of this article? Thanks.

(I ask this not because I'm interested in editing that article but simply to get a better understanding of undue weight, which I feel may be widely violated in Wikipedia.) TimidGuy 15:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem of cherry-picking sources is unfortunately a common one on Wikipedia. With thousands of new articles sprouting up each day, there's really no review process that covers of all of them, so it's simply a case that it's up to individual editors who may be reading a particular article to decide if they wish to challenge the information or not. You're right that since there's a reliable source, the term is okay, but if you feel that it's excessive, you could tone it down, remove it, or clarify the source, for example saying, "described as 'quirky' in his AP obituary".  If no one disagrees with your edit, then fine, we have a new consensus.  :)  If someone disagrees, then bring it up on the talkpage and try to find a wording that's agreeable to all editors working on the article. :)  See also Consensus. --Elonka 16:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm involved in a similar situation, and I think I understand what you're asking. The answer (in my opinion)is: Maybe, depending on a couple of things. Of the 1,665 articles that mention Chinmoy, how many are from reliable sites? Of those that are, they should do more than mention him. For example in my situation the subject is L. Ron Hubbard and his personality. Since most RS about his biography don't discuss him in a very positive manner, naturally this concerns Scientologists, to whom he was the greatest man ever. When pointing to examples of RS supporting his/their claim that Hubbard was a humanitarian they have shown a tendency to cite an article from a well known paper's entertainment/celebrity section that is actually about Tom Cruise or a new Scientology center somewhere which refers to Hubbard once as an "author/humanitarian".


 * If there are articles from RSs about this person among the 1600+ links you found then the sources on Sri Chinmoy are incomplete. On the other hand if none of them do meet Wikipedia standards, the sources we have are the best that can be done and as such the article is NPOV. (Hope this made sense) Anynobody 05:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks much, Elonka and Anynobody, for your helpful responses. I realize now that there was a flaw in my logic regarding the Chinmoy example. It could well be that every one of those articles characterized him as quirky but only one chose to use that particular word. My methodology would only work for a more precise and unique term. So the example may not illustrate the issue with NPOV that concerns me. Anynobody, have you been able to successfully argue that an article that just mentions a subject in passing isn't necessarily a reliable source for that subject? It seems like you both agree that a Wikipedia article should give weight according to the preponderance of sources.

I saw above there was discussion of an NPOV Noticeboard. Did anything come of that? TimidGuy 11:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I actually haven't had to initiate that argument (against passing mentions) myself but it does appear to have been effective. (Had there been argument I'd of certainly made some points about why it just makes sense.) You are correct in assessing my view on sources, it's the best way to ensure individual POVs aren't inserted.


 * I don't think anything has happened in regard to a NPOV board. Personally, though I think it's a good idea, in practice I doubt it'll do much good because a lot of people, including some admins, don't understand just what NPOV means. Also my experiences with similar noticeboards like WP:COIN have proven fruitless. Anynobody 22:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Editing Articles On Where you Work At
I have heard of cases where cited sources get deleted becasue they are edited by someone who works at the place the article is about like Quik Trip or Burger King. I know that editing articles about Companies that you own, Yourself (non UserPage), Your own Band, ETC  are believed to be in Violation of NPOV. But Are Editing Articles on where your work or had worked at a violation of Wikipedia Policy (Even if properly cited) and that anything that is believed to be done by that person should be removed from the article now matter how much it belongs? I didn't see anything about editing Articles for Companies you own or where you work at in the FAQ.  Sawblade05  (talk to me undefined my wiki life) 08:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This is covered in Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest policy. In my reading of it, and in following the discussions, it's okay to edit an article if you are employed by a company. And content shouldn't be deleted just because it's been added by an employee. But there are caveats: an employee must be very cautious to observe policies and guidelines, and would ideally make suggestions on the Talk page that are then implemented by a neutral editor. In practice, it simply doesn't make sense, and doesn't help Wikipedia grow, if all employees are barred from contributing. TimidGuy 19:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Which one has the precedence???
After reading Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikipedia principle. According to Jimmy Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable."[1] looks like that the fifth pillar of Wikipedia Wikipedia does not have firm rules besides the five principles outlined here. Be bold in editing, moving, and modifying articles, because perfection is a goal and not a requirement. As all previous versions of articles are kept, content won't be irrevocably destroyed by an editor's mistake. So don't worry about messing up. is not valid anymore. The above sounds like a strong rule.

--Smerdyakoff 23:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no conflict at all... All of our core policies (including NPOV) are discussed in the first pillar. So NPOV is falls within the statement "Wikipedia does not have firm rules besides the five principles outlined here". Blueboar 14:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

An insightful discussion of the NPOV
From Press_coverage
 * Basing on an example from the editing of "Wal-Mart", the article carries out an insightful discussion of the NPOV issues and the importance of the contextual frame in which "neutral" facts are presented in judging the neutrality.
 * "...[B]oth sentences pass the undisputed fact test. But they also violate the logic of Wikipedia's rule: undisputed facts equal neutrality which leads to truth."
 * "...[B]oth sentences pass the undisputed fact test. But they also violate the logic of Wikipedia's rule: undisputed facts equal neutrality which leads to truth."

--Philip Baird Shearer 12:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Catholicism and Freemasonry
I need a neutral party who understands the NPOV policy to look at and comment on the above linked article, and to possibly act as a mediator. The article is contentious... it is also full of half substantiated POV "accusations" and "rebuttals". The article has been tagged for being POV for a long time. I have been calling for a complete re-write of the article for over a year now, attempting to find a POV balance. I am not getting much support for this at the article. I could really use some back up. I am posting a similar request at WP:NOR, since there are issues with that as well... if you know both policies, even better. Thanks in advance Blueboar 01:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I know a little about the subject from both the Catholic and Masonic perspective, being the former and studying the latter rather extensively. As already stated on the Wikipedia talk:No original research page, I think that there may well be a lot of biased material in the article, but that bias to a degree reflects the biases which seem to have been prevalent in society for a great deal of the time discussed. That doesn't mean that those biases should be declared as objective, but it does mean that the content probably in general meets Verifiability and RS standards. What I think the main problem might be is WP:Undue weight, and I'm not right now sure enough about the subject to know all the evidence on the Freemasonry side of the argument to add what should be added, but I think that most of the content, with a few exceptions I noted on the page linked to, probably does at least meet Verifiability and RS requirements. I don't think the article is remotely NPOV, but making it so would require adding material from the Masonic "side of the argument", which I don't myself have ready access to right now. John Carter 19:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Someone Please Direct Me
In the Carmax article, this phrase exists: "Although not unique to CarMax, these features are still interesting." While browsing Wikipedia, I often see this type of phrase. Wouldn't this not be a neutral point of view? What may be "interesting" to one may not be interesting to someone else. Please guide me in the right direction and if there is a section specifically on this type of phrase. Thanks! PGT.Endurance 03:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * That's covered under WP:WTA. Sheffield Steel talkstalk 16:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The responsibilities of one who adds a dispute tag vs. FUD attack or Trolling
I would like to see a section on this page about the responsibilities of one who inserts a "The neutrality of this article is disputed" tag into an article.

One might launch a FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt) attack on Wikipedia by sprinkling various forms of dispute tags in a multitude of articles -- without giving a reason for adding the tags. A visitor who sees a "dispute" message at the top of the article may not ask _why_ there is a dispute. They might just move on to a source which isn't proclaiming doubt about its own contents.

Or, if not engaging in a FUD attack, an editor might merely be "trolling": Trying to get attention by "forcing" others into action at their "command".

A NPOV-dispute tag was recently added to an article on my watch list.

The editor who added the tag has no history of editing the article in question.

Their tag said "Please see the discussion on the talk page." There was no discussion on the talk page about whatever they were disputing.

Their tag said "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved." What dispute? By what measure might it be "resolved"? Who decides when it is "resolved"?

It occurs to me that if one has a problem with the neutrality of a statement, their first action might be to fix it or to question it on the article's talk page -- not to drop seeds of doubt on the whole article.

If one does drop a NPOV-dispute tag, it seems that there would be:
 * A commitment to participate in correcting the "problem"
 * A proposal stating what is necessary to achieve a NPOV

If one takes it upon themselves to drop a NPOV-dispute (or other doubt-inspiring) tag in an article, what are their responsibilities before or after doing so? --Ac44ck 17:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I didn't see the thread at first. Here is the one I put on your talk page:


 * '''Hi! If you are talking about J. Vernon McGee, I did post it on the article page (as you requested) where you requested I do so. Here:

Mattisse 01:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)'''

P.S. I don't know what FUD is, as I have not come upon the term before. Mattisse 02:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what your complaints about trolling are. I tagged 12 articles. So what? Were they all your articles? If so, I truly did not realize it so it was an honest mistake. Please assume good faith also. Tagging is considered to be a contribution to Wikipedia by inspiring editors to improve articles. I tag my own articles often. If it is a good article I want to notify readers what is not verified. Also, sometimes another editor can supply the missing source material. I am very sorry you are so upset. Sincerely,  Mattisse  02:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't find where you posted so I will post on AN/I
I've looked for your post to respond there but can not find it. Sorry! Mattisse 01:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Found it and replied above. Mattisse  02:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

"Criticism" and its legitimacy
I have two questions:
 * First, does the term criticism imply legitimacy? For example, the Criticism of Islam article says "Islam is criticised for not being moral". Does this mean that indeed Islam is not moral, and critics are simply making the observation? Or does it mean that according to the critics, Islam is not moral?
 * Secondly, is it neutral to say that a particular religion is a "false religion" or an "immoral religion". Or is it neutral for wikipedia to portray an opinion that accuses a religion of being "false" as factual and accurate?

Thanks for taking the time to answer these questions.Bless sins (talk) 18:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * While notable criticism definitely belongs in religion articles, some care regarding neutral terminology and portrayal is needed. A good approach would be simply to attribute the criticism directly to the critics in an unambiguous way, e.g. "Critics such as claim that 'Islam is immoral' ". Although direct quotes of a short phrase might be the best way to clarify that this is not Wikipedia's opinion, a paraphrase is also possible as long as any critical claim is attributed to identified critics and is not made in Wikipedia's narrative voice. Wikipedia cannot portray any opinion on religous matters -- good or bad, true or false, moral or immoral -- as factual and accurate. The only relevant facts are whether an opinion is notable ("significant" per the WP:NPOV policy), accurately described and attributed, and whether it is given appropriate weight. These are the facts to be sourced. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 19:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Sneaky land claims
I've noticed that some articles refer to "the ancestral fatherland of the XXX nation" or similar phrases, sometimes in the article title. This tends to suggest ownership by the XXX ethnic group. I can't find any clear policy against this. Fourtildas (talk) 07:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOPOV shortcut only adds to confusion
I would like to change the name of the default shortcut here to WP:YESPOV. The current shortcut goes to a section that explains that the idea of "no pov" is incorrect. As so many editors seem so confused by this concept to begin with, I don't think putting forth WP:NOPOV as a "nickname" helps matters. -- Kendrick7talk 19:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, I went ahead and made the change. -- Kendrick7talk 22:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

What is a "tiny minority?"
I am involved in a debate as to whether a criticism-- one published as an op-ed in two generally notable publications (The Jerusalem Post and The American Spectator)-- deserves mention in a proposed criticism section for a BLP. (see Gayatri Spivak) Other editors have complained that the criticism has not received serious attention in academic circles, and I'm sure they're right. However, I think all criticism in the public sphere is relevant to a person's notability, but I'm not sure where the "tiny minority" threshold for inclusion/non-inclusion is to be drawn. Would double-publication of the criticism as an op-ed alone be enough to bring it out of the tiny minority category? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JrFace (talk • contribs) 12:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It doesn't seem like it would. But I don't know the particulars. TimidGuy 19:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Another case
Should sources acknowledged as extremists be given space on articles, even though they are popular?

For example, on the article Judaism, should The Protocols of the Elders of Zion be given some space, possibly under the header "Criticism of Judaism"? The publication is widely acknowledged as extremist and antisemitic.

Another example: on the article Islam, should The Truth About Muhammad: Founder of the World's Most Intolerant Religion be given some space, possibly under the header "Criticism of Islam"? The publication and the author are acknowledged as extremist and Islamophobic.Bless sins 20:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * There is a difference: the Protocols are clearly proven to be a forgery, while the Islamocritical book mentioned is an utterance of an opinion. Also, the characterisation of the author is controversial so this should not be a basis for exclusion. Str1977 (talk) 21:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * One may replace The Protocols of the Elders of Zion with another book acknowledged as antisemitic. Secondly there are a lot of scholars who believe that "The Truth About Muhammad: Founder of the World's Most Intolerant Religion" is also false, not to mention an example of hate-speech. Also, please note that "threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". Thus we care more about verifiability than the truth here.Bless sins 01:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * BTW, are you seriously suggesting that wikipedia should state that Islam is considered to be "the World's Most Intolerant Religion"?Bless sins 01:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You are not comprehending what "forgery" and "false" means. The Protocols are proven to have been forgered by a Russian secret agent to discredit the Jews. Are you suggesting that Mr Spencer made anything of what he writes up. I am granting you that he has an unfavourable opinion on Islam but that's not quite the same. "Hate speech" is anyway a questionable concept. "Not truth but verifiability" is probably the most abused sentence here on WP. Yes, truth does matter. But even though, Spencer's book is clearly verifiable. I do not care much for that book but your attempts to remove anything that's critical of Islam is scandalous. Str1977 (talk) 10:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * SO you are saying that Mr. Spencer's book is true? Otherwise I don't understand your argument.Bless sins 04:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not saying anything about Spencer's book beyond what I wrote: he didn't make things up. Your reply is ample evidence of your inability to separate his POV from his editing. And that is the one that lectured me about how "truth" was unimportant. Str1977 (talk) 09:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Mr. Spencer's book is presumably truly his own book. The Protocols were held up to be something they were NOT. They were held up as a secret cabal document, and this was later roundly discredited. Epthorn (talk) 12:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Creation Myth vs. Origin Belief
Currently, what I would consider to be the Creation Myth article, has the name "Origin Belief"

It's my understanding that one is actually used in conversation and academic channels, while the other is a semantic treatment of the term. A quick google search will reveal which term is more commonly used.

People who hold supernatural beliefs about the origins of the world are offended by the term "myth" which they believe denotes "false". But the dictionary definition of "myth" does not carry this connotation, nor does the term when used academically. To be fair, I think the word does sometimes carry this connotation in colloquial speech.

On the other hand, anyone searching for the article is going to be looking for "Creation Myth" not "Origin Belief". This is because "Origin Belief" is an invented term designed to assuage people's concern over the word "myth".

My first instinct is that it should be reverted to "Creation Myth" as any encyclopedia should be a collection of facts, and not some sort of blueprint for a more PC world. However, upon reading this article, it's unclear to me whether this is the desire of wikipedia or not.

Basically I'm looking for guidance here. I will ultimately defer to the conventions of wikipedia, even if I disagree with them.

66.152.196.34 19:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * "It should be _reverted_" to the name that it had _when_? When did the article first start to have its current name?


 * The 16:49, 8 Apr 2005 post on the article's talk page indicates that the article was renamed in some way around that time. Was it changed from "Creation Myth" then?  If so, reverting it at this point seems late to me because it appears that:
 * 1. There was discussion about this issue on the talk page before the renaming happened.
 * 2. Others haven't reverted it the 2+ years since it was given the current name.
 * 3. The 15:31, 30 October 2007 post on the article's talk page hasn't rallied support for renaming the article.
 * And Creation myth redirects there. --Ac44ck (talk) 20:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

What is a "tiny minority?"
I am involved in a debate as to whether a criticism-- one published as an op-ed in two generally notable publications (The Jerusalem Post and The American Spectator)-- deserves mention in a proposed criticism section for a BLP. (see Gayatri Spivak) Other editors have complained that the criticism has not received serious attention in academic circles, and I'm sure they're right. However, I think all criticism in the public sphere is relevant to a person's notability, but I'm not sure where the "tiny minority" threshold for inclusion/non-inclusion is to be drawn. Would double-publication of the criticism as an op-ed alone be enough to bring it out of the tiny minority category? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JrFace (talk • contribs) 12:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It doesn't seem like it would. But I don't know the particulars. TimidGuy 19:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Another case
Should sources acknowledged as extremists be given space on articles, even though they are popular?

For example, on the article Judaism, should The Protocols of the Elders of Zion be given some space, possibly under the header "Criticism of Judaism"? The publication is widely acknowledged as extremist and antisemitic.

Another example: on the article Islam, should The Truth About Muhammad: Founder of the World's Most Intolerant Religion be given some space, possibly under the header "Criticism of Islam"? The publication and the author are acknowledged as extremist and Islamophobic.Bless sins 20:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * There is a difference: the Protocols are clearly proven to be a forgery, while the Islamocritical book mentioned is an utterance of an opinion. Also, the characterisation of the author is controversial so this should not be a basis for exclusion. Str1977 (talk) 21:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * One may replace The Protocols of the Elders of Zion with another book acknowledged as antisemitic. Secondly there are a lot of scholars who believe that "The Truth About Muhammad: Founder of the World's Most Intolerant Religion" is also false, not to mention an example of hate-speech. Also, please note that "threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". Thus we care more about verifiability than the truth here.Bless sins 01:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * BTW, are you seriously suggesting that wikipedia should state that Islam is considered to be "the World's Most Intolerant Religion"?Bless sins 01:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You are not comprehending what "forgery" and "false" means. The Protocols are proven to have been forgered by a Russian secret agent to discredit the Jews. Are you suggesting that Mr Spencer made anything of what he writes up. I am granting you that he has an unfavourable opinion on Islam but that's not quite the same. "Hate speech" is anyway a questionable concept. "Not truth but verifiability" is probably the most abused sentence here on WP. Yes, truth does matter. But even though, Spencer's book is clearly verifiable. I do not care much for that book but your attempts to remove anything that's critical of Islam is scandalous. Str1977 (talk) 10:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * SO you are saying that Mr. Spencer's book is true? Otherwise I don't understand your argument.Bless sins 04:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not saying anything about Spencer's book beyond what I wrote: he didn't make things up. Your reply is ample evidence of your inability to separate his POV from his editing. And that is the one that lectured me about how "truth" was unimportant. Str1977 (talk) 09:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Mr. Spencer's book is presumably truly his own book. The Protocols were held up to be something they were NOT. They were held up as a secret cabal document, and this was later roundly discredited. Epthorn (talk) 12:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Creation Myth vs. Origin Belief
Currently, what I would consider to be the Creation Myth article, has the name "Origin Belief"

It's my understanding that one is actually used in conversation and academic channels, while the other is a semantic treatment of the term. A quick google search will reveal which term is more commonly used.

People who hold supernatural beliefs about the origins of the world are offended by the term "myth" which they believe denotes "false". But the dictionary definition of "myth" does not carry this connotation, nor does the term when used academically. To be fair, I think the word does sometimes carry this connotation in colloquial speech.

On the other hand, anyone searching for the article is going to be looking for "Creation Myth" not "Origin Belief". This is because "Origin Belief" is an invented term designed to assuage people's concern over the word "myth".

My first instinct is that it should be reverted to "Creation Myth" as any encyclopedia should be a collection of facts, and not some sort of blueprint for a more PC world. However, upon reading this article, it's unclear to me whether this is the desire of wikipedia or not.

Basically I'm looking for guidance here. I will ultimately defer to the conventions of wikipedia, even if I disagree with them.

66.152.196.34 19:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * "It should be _reverted_" to the name that it had _when_? When did the article first start to have its current name?


 * The 16:49, 8 Apr 2005 post on the article's talk page indicates that the article was renamed in some way around that time. Was it changed from "Creation Myth" then?  If so, reverting it at this point seems late to me because it appears that:
 * 1. There was discussion about this issue on the talk page before the renaming happened.
 * 2. Others haven't reverted it the 2+ years since it was given the current name.
 * 3. The 15:31, 30 October 2007 post on the article's talk page hasn't rallied support for renaming the article.
 * And Creation myth redirects there. --Ac44ck (talk) 20:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

stopped
why am i getting in trouble when im trying to make my own article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dresendiz (talk • contribs) 04:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Demons cause disease
"Europeans in the Middle Ages "knew" that demons caused diseases" Is there a source for this? :) TrickyApron (talk) 10:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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


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

Views
I changed a wording of "...views which are in the extreme minority do not belong in Wikipedia at all" because I found a talk page comment where someone stated that in an article which was about a minority view that view doesn't need to be presented because it's a minority view, and that sounded absurd. I wasn't sure if I should edit this policy with my main account or this, but because I found that talk page related to an arbitration case which I'm uninvolved but made a statement I felt I should use the same account. I have a legitimate main account and I can tell it to someone who isn't involved with that arbitration. I certainly did not plan to get into policy editing with this account. :-) I'm still hoping that I could keep my main account out of these controversies, even though I wanted to make that brief note on an arbitration case and found this a little bit unclear part on this policy. As I understand this is that if a minority view is so extreme that it doesn't even have an article, then it's not presented anywhere. Calejenden 16:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Because this page is so clear about these things in general maybe that one sentence gets understood right here. There's no problem that views which are so extreme that there's no article about them or people advocating them are presented nowhere. And what I tried to add, the same thing is on the page elsewhere. I found a sentence about another matter which I'll comment, it was written 4 July 2007 as a part of a big change which was discussed on the talk page, but I didn't see discussion of that sentence. "A reliable source supporting that a group holds an opinion must accurately describe how large this group is." Link. Many sources assume that the reader has basic information, and often a size of some group would have to be found from another source. I'm leaving this message here hoping that someone who has been developing the wordings of the policy gets to this later. Calejenden 16:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Neutral point of view/Examples - in DRASTIC need of an update
I surfed on in to the NPOV page to look up a specific detail and randomly noticed the link to Neutral point of view/Examples. You can imagine my enormous surprise at finding that this page is essentially unchanged since the day I first posted it back in October 2001. (see the version at Nostalgia).

While I am deeply flattered that something I wrote so long ago is still being referenced, it is fair to say our collective perspective is (ahem) "a tad more sophisticated now". We should either archive it as historical, or subject it to a complete re-write. Manning 13:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

NPOV Noticeboard proposal
A proposal concerning the creation of a new Admin noticeboard has developed into the suggestion/proposal to create Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. See Village pump (proposals). A ecis Brievenbus 23:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Weight of sources for "factual" statements in Wikipedia

 * (Reposting here, was originally on Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources by mistake, and I was directed here instead)

Hi, I'm sure this will be a Wikipedia 101 question, but please review for me? On Talk:Waterboarding, a rather spirited debate is raging for whether it is acceptable to say essentially, "Waterboarding is torture" as a statement. It had gone in quite a few circles, and then I finally asked people to simply list all the sources that say it isn't torture, versus those that say it is.

We got this as a result.

A large variety of sources and notable opinions that indicate, yes, it's torture, and on the other side, two pundits. One basically saying, "Kick it back to the legislature to decide," which is largely irrelevant, as the United States legislature mentioned in her source of course doesn't decide this globally, and the other pundit simply saying he doesn't think it's torture. My take is that, based on the overwhelming weight of opinion and sourced information, we can only go with what we have at this time: Waterboarding is a form of torture, and we can mention in a subsection or later that some may disagree. As apparently only one sourced person disagrees, I wouldn't mention it in the lead, but down below in the text/discussion of waterboarding and the United States.

Am I analyzing this correctly? Lawrence Cohen 19:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Policy enforcement is in it's interpretation
Policy is a wonderful thing. Every CEO will tell you "ït is meant to be interpreted liberallÿ". If Neutral is supposed to be a policy, then all one can do is watch, shuffle and delete paper, and most bureaucrat do, in line with what they see as "policy".

E.g. This talk is is respnse to the deletion of an article, signed by Wikipedia's founder, for copyright violation by Hut 8.5. See deletion log 1 19:25, 8 December 2007 Hut 8.5 (Talk | contribs) deleted "Open Education Declaration" ‎ (copyvio of http://www.capetowndeclaration.org/front-page/read-the-declaration)

Yes, I know Wikipedia is soon going to be migrating to a Creative Commons license, but until that happens the text can't be included in Wikipedia. Even if that wasn't the case, the text would have been deleted through some other mechanism since it wasn't any kind of encyclopedia article and Wikipedia is not the place for any kind of campaigning, as I'm sure Jimmy Wales will know. Hut 8.5 21:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Hut,

Let me get this right. Even if, in the meantime, I get the guys at to put a link to the GNU Free Documentation License, the founder of Wikipedia doesn't have the right to put a document (article) he has signed, whose core aim it is to further the Foundation's aims, on the site he set up?--Simonfj (talk) 21:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

If they license the text under the GFDL then it will not be deleted straight away as a copyright violation. However, Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia, and including text campaigning for anything is a violation of WP:SOAP, and this would likely result in the page being deleted in an articles for deletion discussion. Note that Wikipedia's policy of neutrality was strongly championed by Jimmy Wales, and I seriously doubt he is going to break it. There are other websites the Wikimedia Foundation can use to express support for the petition other than Wikipedia. Hut 8.5 21:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC) -

Now one can't blame Hut 8.5 for doing a good gatekeeping job. But let's consider if we want to let our founder break his own policy; or is this the kind of outcome he meant to encourage by the NPOV policy?--Simonfj (talk) 22:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Publishing the declaration is engaging in the debate, specifically forbidden by WP:NPOV. However, there is nothing at all preventing one from creating an article describing the debate, which is exactly what WP is intended for. 74s181 (talk) 03:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Yay. Yet another Persian gulf question
A question has come up in Talk:Persian Gulf regarding the controversial usage of the alternative (and controversial) name the 'Arabian Gulf' in the Lead. A great many there feel that the addition of the controversial alternative name is an undue weight violation. I am not as sure of this, as the naming controversy of the alternate name usage appears within the article, there is an actual dispute about the name, there are cited references to the usage of the name (both historically and contemporarily) and that a sizable percentage of people in the area refer to it as such. the debate seems to be a perennial issue of debate, and it would be nice to specifically address this so as to resolve the usage question. I've suggested that the matter be rfC'd or even ArbCom'd but the first led nowhere and the second seems like more of a nuclear option, as an AN/I on one of the more uncivil users has served to leaven out the incivility that was brewing there. ArbCom is usually to resolve issues of user condict, not content disputes. the only reason why i still think it might eventually be valid/needed is that it does seem like a policy interpretation dispute. The matter is insoluble to both sides. My own observations of the discussion are that, while it might seem unfair to characterize it as such, this is another cultural-type dispute, similar to the ArbCom Persian Naming Dispute thing from this past summer. Some inpute would be extremely helpful. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  15:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Alternate name of a subject certainly belong in the lead, but perhaps a footnote would be adequate? -- Kendrick7talk 20:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No, they don't want it mentioned anywhere in the article. Besides, as an alternative name, it does belong in the Lead (perhaps in parentheses, afterthe more widely known name). - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  21:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Evolution
if there ever was a biased article, that one was it. We should work on that. The accepted truth isn't the only one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.161.138.241 (talk) 21:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

If wikipedia is going to allow religious fundamentalists such as yourself who support ID/creationism to edit science, we might as well let hard-core atheists edit Christianity. Why don't you give a nod to other theories of intelligent design, such as how mankind was designed by the Greek gods? And what about Norse, Chinese, Egyptian, etc creation and intelligent design ideas?

If not, then that is a testament to your hypocrisy. Intranetusa (talk) 03:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Attempts to undermine this policy with incompatible Guidelines
I just noticed in a relatively new guideline the phrase "Wikipedia self-identifies primarily with mainstream opinion".

I cannot interpret this as anything else but an attempt to undermine (or re-negotiate) our NPOV policy, according to which Wikipedia must not be biased towards any party. "Mainstream" (or majority) opinion is fairly given most space; it is not permitted to let Wikipedia be transformed into a propaganda outlet of majority opinion.

Evidently, Wikipedia must be actively protected from being hijacked by the opinion of any party. What shall we do about it?

Harald88 (talk) 12:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that the wording, found in Fringe theories is questionable. Mainstream doesn't define NPOV, and in fact it often is far from NPOV. This doesn't mean I'm all for WP:SPOV or any other strict notion of what constitutes NPOV, but the word mainstream unfortunately carries connotations of e.g. underinformed masses, of emotional rather than educated judgment. To jump directly to Godwin's law: Mainstream opinion in the Third Reich was that the white race is superior. If Wikipedia had existed at that time in Germany, would that mainstream opinion be NPOV then? Likewise, can mass media generally be considered to be unbiased just because they are the mainstream media? We should however take this to Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories.|dorftrottel |humor me 14:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You could try [[
 * Indeed I do intend to correct that sentence at that place. However, I first brought it up here by way of bad example. It appears that there is a natural push against WP:NPOV simply by the law of majority opinion; and I vaguely think to remember that one of the founders has written about the constant fight against such forces that try to take over.
 * To use your example (thanks): Indeed, had the Third Reich taken world power, Wikipedia would have had to give much space to the opinion that the white race is superior and the Jews "Untermenschen". At the same time, there would have been an intense struggle (even risking death) by some editors who try to give alternative opinions appropriate weight. Usually it's much less dramatical, but on many topics Wikipedia is no dou¨bt under attack by people who try to suppress minority opinions in any possible way.
 * At one point in time there has been an uncontrolled growth of crank articles. I have the impression that this has been properly dealt with, in part thanks to the effectiveness of majority opinion. Thus that was more of an annoyance; the suppresion of notable minority opinions is a much greater danger for NPOV, and, with that, Wikipedia itself.
 * Perhaps this needs to be discussed at an even higher level, such as the Wikipedia Signpost, but I don't know where. I was hoping that someone of the more regular editors of NPOV has an idea.
 * Harald88 (talk) 16:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You could try the WikiEN-l mailing list, or the village pump for policy proposals, but don't get upset if the responses are not overwhelmingly welcoming. WP has a huge inertia, and few are willing to risk any part of the so-so working status quo. |dorftrottel |humor me 17:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

This issue is a highly significant bottleneck to the quality of Wikipedia. I suggest the NPOV policy has a serious flaw since it can't cope with the implications mentioned here. Please give your opinion here:One view will never be nuetral: introduce MPOV to replace NPOV Rokus01 (talk) 18:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a very funny assertion: "Wikipedia self-identifies primarily with mainstream opinion"  Afer all, nearly everyone (on opposing sides) believes their opinions relfect the mainstream!  Anyone who writes this as "policy" is just looking for an excuse to push their own "mainstream opinion." --Strider12 (talk) 22:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * While people may believe whatever they wish about their views, mainstream opinion is typically easily verifiable, at least on scientific topics, through the statements of major medical/scientific bodies. For instance, statements from the NIH, CDC, Surgeon General, WHO, major European health agencies, and major professional organizations (ACOG/RCOG, ACP, APA, etc) are clearly verifiable indications of where mainstream opinion lies. Where such analyses are unavailable, the task of determining mainstream opinion may be a bit more difficult. MastCell Talk 19:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * But statements from people associated with agencies and groups should also be carefully evaluated to see if they represent an official, vetted opinion of that group or are just private opinions. Even the citation of an individual researchers claim that "this is a majority view" by a major organization, such as WHO, does not necessarily mean that WHO has officialy examined a question and come to the same conclusion...unless the document clearly states that this is WHO's official position.


 * To use examples MastCell is very familiar with, let's consider a 1989 peer reviewed literature review by a group of six members of the family planning and population control subgroup of the APA concluding with their opinion that there is no substantial evidence of serious mental health effects of abortion. (Ignore for the moment that this review was prompted by political questions raised about abortion at that time, and the fact that the APA has lobbied for abortion as a civil right--not a medical benefit--a civil right)  While all are APA members, this literture review was never officially adopted by the APA governing body as its "official" conclusions regarding the literature.  And, as there is no evidence that the six person team's opinions necessarily represents the majority opinion of the APA, much less psychologists in general, it should not be given undue weight.  Certainly it should be cited and included, but not given precedence over subsequent material.  But POV-pushers will frequently use such sources as a way to borrow the authority of a larger group, such as the APA, to imply that it has more weight than it really does.


 * Similarly, when the Surgeon General issued a statement, in 1989, that methodological problems in research done to that date made it impossible to draw an definitive conclusions about abortion's mental health effects, it seems evident that this official refusal to issue a conclusion should NOT be portrayed as proof of where the weight of evidence lies. If anything, it implies that equal weight should be given to both sides. Moreover, as these two sources are over 18 years old, and much more research has been done since then.  So should these old sources be allowed to dominate the WEIGHT of an article on post-abortion syndrome?  Just because these, and a commentary in JAMA by a single author, are the best (and nearly only) resources those pushing a POV have, they should not be pushed as the determiners of WEIGHT of medical opinion.


 * In short, when critically examined, these examples, which MastCell frequently relies on at post-abortion syndrome are really not very substantive examples of where "mainstream opinion" lies because there has been no research really done on what constitute the mainstream opinion of physicians and academics.


 * Also, contrary to MastCell's assertion, it is not always easy to interpret mainstream opinion because even official statements are frequently nuanced. In the case of the post-abortion syndrome controversy, for example, even the experts on the pro-choice side will generally make nuanced statements which say less than they appear.  For example, the statement "MOST women do not experience significant emotional" is designed to shift attention away from the implicit admission that some women, a minority, may experience emotional problems. Similarly, the deniers argument that there is "no proof of a CAUSAL connection" is designed to shift attention from the fact that there is abundance evidence of a connection between abortion and mental health problems but a dispute over the causal pathways.  So even these sources  if carefully read, actually admit that the weight of evidence is that some post-abortion problems do occur.  So, citing these sources as proof of the WEIGHT of opinion can actually be misleading if one fails to also report the nuanced statements within these sources and instead concentrates on the broad conclusions which reflect policy recommendations rather than the bare scientific facts. --Strider12 (talk) 21:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, now this is just forum-shopping for a specific content dispute. MastCell Talk 21:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No, this is responding to issues you raise. If you don't want me to respond, stop following me around.--Strider12 (talk) 21:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Prominence and undue weight
Given a number of alternate names which are not widely accepted and are in dispute, would it give the alternate names "undue weight" if they were mentioned in the lead? This is the issue we're trying to sort out over at the Persian Gulf mediation case, and input from the wider community would be welcome. CloudNine (talk) 18:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I would add to this that the alternate names are cited and are a long-standing dispute in the region as per the Persian Gulf naming dispute. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  18:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Further, the particular question is with regard to providing additional prominence, as related to Undue Weight, to a name used by a small minority in the lead where it is already included in the article itself. ObserverToSee (talk) 19:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "Small minority". lol, okay. That isn't really cited, and appears to be a part of the issue of neutrality. :) - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  16:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

One view will never be neutral: introduce MPOV to replace NPOV?
The NPOV policy was never meant to cope with the limits of interpretation. To start with, what could be neutral to any point of view?

A well known strategy of experienced POV pushers is to push out all views they oppose to from an article, on the pretext that those other views are not significant enough. These so-called "insignificant" views easily include published scholarly points of view. Somehow this wrong-doers are free to present those other views as contradicting some kind of "mainstream" popular view, by law of nature identified as "neutral". However, the neutrality of such a "neutral" point of view is irreconcilable to the personal point of view of those that seek to give WP:UNDUE attention to their own opinion, maybe even at the cost of criticism and the results of other investigations.

All of this is possible for those that intent to abuse NPOV policy at the limits of its applicability. Sure, theoretically some kind of "neutrality" could (and should) be achieved by verifiability and objectivity: however, authority and general acceptance will rarely contribute to such a neutrality, not even being a scholarly point of view, and certainly never as a rule of thumb. How "neutral" was the once generally accepted autocratic dogma of the earth being flat? So, if "neutrality" of any point of view is disputable by definition, why not better stop the abuse of NPOV by hard to dethrone cabals and drop NPOV policy altogether. To make an article truely neutral and encyclopedical, Wikipedia should rather adhere to a policy of Multiple Points Of View (MPOV) instead. Rokus01 (talk) 18:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I fully agree with your assessment of what many POV-pushers' tactics are - it amounts to ostracisation tactics being used to endorse one pet hypotheses and pretend all others don't exist or don't count, and I have seen this too many times.  But surely there are already more effective ways to combat this kind of pov-pushing than changing the name of the NPOV policy; since the policy already requires MPOV in effect,  it would be nothing more than a ceremonial and probably highly contentious (thus impractical) name change. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

In defense of MPOV I argue that POV pushers would have a hard time to push out significant scholarly points of views by abusing MPOV policy. Yes, to replace the misnomer of one of the three very pillars of WP policy by a better equivalent could be cumbersome. Still, anything that would contribute to balance, quality and above all, peace, would be worth some consideration - no matter how symbolic. Rokus01 (talk) 18:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * As written now, it already demands multiple points of view adequately enough... Perhaps "MPOV" should be more fully described as a crucial pillar of NPOV, something that is within NPOV. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

By the way, please explain why you deem an official emphasis to multiple views contentious? Won't it be rather the contrary, that people will have to waist less time in WP:OR to advertise their personal point of view as the one and only that would be the "most neutral and significant"? Rokus01 (talk) 18:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh no, I am in agreement with you! I think if MPOV were made a subsection of NPOV, it would satisfy your aims, then such pov pushers could be directed to the MPOV subsection of the NPOV page. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * NPOV is already MPOV. All editors and all sources are biased, the key to NPOV is to describe the POVs, rather than asserting them, as in, 'Expert A says X.  Expert B says Y. Group C teaches Z.'  The policy is clear on this.  Some editors choose not to understand the policy, changing the policy won't make any difference to those editors.  74s181 (talk) 20:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem isn't the wording of the policy, the problem is enforcement. Although NPOV is the core policy of WP, there seems to be much more enforcement of behavioral violations such as violations of WP:NPA, WP:3RR, etc. WP:ARBCOM avoids NPOV disputes, making excuses like:
 * Decline. I believe this is fundamentally a content problem of the sort which we are notoriously bad at fixing... The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Decline. Agree it seems largely to be a content issue. - SimonP 14:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The result of this attitude towards enforcement of WP:NPOV is that a POV pusher can succeed as long as he is 'polite'.  74s181 (talk) 20:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * SeeAbuse of WEIGHT argument below for one recommendation that tries to bridge NPOV while ensuring that "undue weight" does not kill MPOV. In essence, I'm arguing that while there is a reasonable argument for limiting inclusion of references to an unlimited number of non-peer reviewed articles which may distort weight, a different rule should apply to peer reviewed work.  In short, summaries of peer reviewed articles should never be subject to purging because that prevents the true weight of academic work from ever being presented.  The way to show the weight of facts is to let all peer reviewed material be presented.  This also allows the wieght of an article to organically shift as new research is conducted and published, especially in controversial areas.--Strider12 (talk) 22:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, this is well-covered by WP:WEIGHT. There are dozens if not hundreds to thousands of peer-reviewed articles on any serious scientific subject. Nothing magical happens through peer-review that makes a source suddenly inviolable. The idea is not to include as many sources as possible, but to provide an accurate overview of a topic. On scientific topics, where expert bodies have synthesized the available literature, the opinions of these expert bodies should guide the scientific coverage of the topic. But again, this is an attempt to win a content dispute (where Strider12 is a lone and tendentious voice) by moving the policy goalposts. MastCell Talk 00:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I guess WP:WEIGHT focus on authority and acceptance, not on neutrality. NPOV could never make one point of view appear more "neutral" for having more authority or acceptance. Most content disputes are indeed about the coverage of multiple points of view. This does not have anything to do with moving policy goalposts, rather with abusing policy in favor of - typically - some kind of single point of view that is hardly to be called neutral at all. Rokus01 (talk) 00:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Abuse of WEIGHT argument
I propose that Wikipeida policy on WEIGHT should include a note along the following lines


 * ====POV should not be smuggled in via WEIGHT arguments====


 * On occassion, especially in controversial areas, editors who are proponents of one position may argue for the exclusion of peer reviewed studies supporting a competing perspective on the grounds that including such material will give a "minority view" undue weight. For example, abortion is highly controversial and arguments over the scientific evidence for or against post-abortion syndrome enjoys heated debate in both the secular and acedemic community.  In such cases, the inclusion or exclusion of facts drawn from  peer reviewed research for or against post-abortion syndrome may substantially affect the tone of the article and reader's conclusions surrounding this controversy.  For this reason some editors may be tempted to exclude studies which they perceive as undermining their own preferred viewpoint and to offer the "undue weight" argument as a basis for deleting contributions made by editors of the opposing view.


 * As general policy, research published in peer reviewed journals should be always be accepted as facts published in a reliable source. Rather than risking a POV slant based on the judgment of Wikipedia editors, the weight of such information should be kept in balance by including information from other peer reviewed journal articles which may present counterbalancing facts and interpretations of facts.  Moreover, the weight of peer reviewed articles that are older should not be given preference over newer research, as it is possible that trends in new research may be indicative of a shift in weight from an older view to a newer view.  The guiding principle should be inclusion rather than exclusion of all peer reviewed materials.


 * Similarly, especially in controversial areas, the claim of an individual expert or groups of experts have written or issued statements to the effect that "most experts agree with this position" should not be treated an objective measure of the weight of expert opnion. Unless it is supported with empirical evidence, such as polling data which supports such a claim, such claims should be included in the article with a reference in the text identifying the individuals or groups making the claim of majority support for their conclusions.


 * In general, and especially in controversial areas, it is preferable that Wikipeida editors should not seek to determine which side of the controvery has the most WEIGHT to support their arguments. Instead, the editors should seek to retain information from all peer reviewed articles cited by contributors as this will allow the articles weight to be adjust naturally with the publication of new research.

Policy recommendation made by --Strider12 (talk) 21:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Holy cow - that seems like an awful lot of WP:CREEP, which I am of course against. Is this really a problem? Shouldn't we use the Keep It Simple, Stupid approach in policies? UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, less is better here. Bensaccount (talk) 20:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm all for making it shorter, but offer a long detailed version to this discussion page to see if there is agreement people support the general principle I'm suggesting? All the details listed revolve around a real problems where some editors are aggressivley deleting verifiable material offering only feeble WEIGHT argument as their excuse for POV-pushing. (See the discussion page at post-abortion syndrome as a great example.) So do you agree with the principle, if not the length of the principle?--Strider12 (talk) 22:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The context here is that Strider12 is a single-purpose account on post-abortion syndrome. This is a case where scientific consensus is clear and documented; Strider12's edits have focused on highlighting a small number of peer-reviewed studies which have reached conclusions disparate with the consensus, out of proportion to the weight assigned these articles by expert panels and national medical/scientific organizations. Having failed to convince other editors on the article talk page, he appears to be forum-shopping this on policy pages. As to the proposal, the idea of balancing one peer-reviewed article with another reaching a different conclusion, rather than synthesizing an overview based on proportional representation of viewpoints, is unworkable and would have the (intended?) consequence of obscuring scientific consensus where it exists and creating the appearance of scientific debate where none exists. It also relies on individual editors' judgement to select specific articles and their "rebuttal" articles, rather than reflecting the weight given these articles by experts in the field. Which is a recipe for disaster. MastCell Talk 00:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * As further context, as seen on the discussion pages of post-abortion syndrome, MastCell, has defended the purging of at least 22 studies published in the last eight years from that article. Even though these are the majority of studies published in recent years, MastCell cotinues to insist that these recent studies have no weight in light of a 1992 commentary by one psychiatrist and 1989 paper by six APA members (all advocates for abortion) which asserts that abortion has no mental health effects and that "most experts" agree with them.  She repeatedly cites the same handful of same "experts" who claim thier view is the majority position (which is not supported by any polls or other measure of opinion) as the argument for deleting dozens of studies and references to peer reviewed literature that does not support the "majority view" claimed by these "experts."  Yes, it is MastCell's POV slanted views on undue weight, and her refusal to discuss objective terms for judging WEIGHT on the post-abortion syndrome discussion page, which has led me to this page. I welcome MastCell's involvement here and hope he will contribute to this discussion of how WEIGHT should actually be measured.--Strider12 (talk) 20:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Given the context described above, this appears to be a case of wanting to rewrite NPOV in order to allow original research.
 * Without looking at post-abortion syndrome, I suggest that WEIGHT would best be determined by medical reviews. Independent studies should have little or no weight at all in comparison, and any selection and analysis of such studies by wikipedia editors would be WP:OR. --Ronz (talk) 20:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * There are two broad components of weight: (1) the weight of facts (data points) as reported in peer reviewed literature, and (2) the weight of conclusions and inferences offered by experts as expressed either as part of the individual studies or through review articles or by committees.
 * In medical science, the trend is toward evidence based medicine which ranks the value or weight of studies based on objective criteria. Wikipedia's evidence based medicine article is pretty good, and in it you will see that the opinions of experts are the lowest ranked of all evidence regarding the benefits or risks of a medical treatment (in this case, abortion).
 * This low ranking for expert opinion reflects the experience of the medical profession that new research will often displace previously held beliefs, even widely held beliefs, about even non-controversial treatments, much less controversial ones. Moreover, it reflects what Michael Crichton, M.D., has rightly noted: "[T]he work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world."
 * I by no means oppose including expert opinions or consensus statements from Wikipedia articles. I do object to using these, especially selected statements which support a POV-push, as an argument for deleting verifiable information from peer reviewed studies which run counter to the POV of certain editors.
 * Also, it is unreasonable to exclude mention of recent research from an article simply because it has not yet been included in pre-existing literature reviews.

--Strider12 (talk) 21:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Rfc on NPOV
If anybody has expertise in this area, please see Rfc on NPOV and comment as indicated. Pernicious Swarm (talk) 05:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

What is "UNDUE WEIGHT?"
There is an ongoing difference of opinion as to how to interpret this on the article Waterboarding. Most editors are in favour of stating in the lead: Waterboarding is a form of torture. As I understand it the views on this are:
 * 1) Most experts (>140) consider waterboarding torture,
 * 2) A very small group experts (<4) and notable individuals consider it not torture,
 * 3) The fact some oppose the majority view this is torture proves there is a dispute.

Regarding the above I am interested to hear how to interpret this. Do we, as in Intelligent Design, start with the consensus among experts (it is torture) and continue to explain in the article body what a notable minority thinks? Does opposing a similar stance as with ID violate WP:FRINGE/WP:WEIGHT? Respectfully Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 16:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * NPOV is not a weapon for eliminating content in favour of including POVs. A more appropriate rule to consult here would be Define and describe. Bensaccount (talk) 20:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * NPOV and WEIGHT arguments are, unfortunately, frequently misused. I'd be interested in how the experts were polled about their opinions.  At least there is some claim that over 144 experts have been polled.  (And how does one become an "expert" in torture, any way?)   For those who really want to try NPOV, instead of making absolute statements, something like "Waterboarding is a form of torture, according to a poll of most experts."(cite)  The problem is that many POV pushers will not have a cite that actually reflects a poll of experts but instead will simply point to some reporter who claims to know what most experts believe.  Without a real poll of experts, "most" is just an assertion.  "Many" is better.--Strider12 (talk) 14:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Does WP:OR Trump WP:NPOV??
This is a big issue in the article Jewish Lobby where for a couple years a few editors have constantly blocked any attempt by numerous editors to point out the simple fact that in the real world Jewish Lobby is NOT always - or even mostly - used in an antisemitic way. A simple google search of the term will show that it is more frequently used - including especially by Jewish groups - as a synonym for Israel Lobby or to describe lobbying by Jews for things like more police protection of synagogues or anti-discrimination laws.

The recalcitrant editors claim since there are no "reliable source" treatise on this common use of the phrase (as there are on the antisemitic use), therefore it is WP:OR to mention them at all! Opinion pieces that it is NOT antisemitic to use the phrase Jewish Lobby have been dismissed by these editors on dubious wiki-lawyering grounds. (Or do I just have to become a better wikilawyer to defend them?) And of course the easily provable fact that the phrase IS used repeatedly and incessently by Jews and non-Jews in non-antisemitic ways is just dismissed as WP:OR. I am sure on wikipedia there are lots of other phrases where some partisan group prefers one interpretation of a phrase and nixes any mention of a competing interpretation, using WP:OR.

My question is: is this something that has to go to dispute resolution? Or is this a problem in the definition of WP:OR? Or does it need to be said that there are situations like this one where WP:NPOV trumps WP:OR?? Carol Moore 05:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)CarolMooreDC talk


 * OK. I just read NPOV_tutorial and quoted it freely on Talk:Jewish_lobby and then put up a LIMITED template on the main page. I learn fast! How the NPOV, OR and Verifiability ALL have to work together -- and not just be used as excuses for deleting views one doesn't like - does have to be stated more emphatically, however on this viewpoint and in the tutorial.
 * Carol Moore 06:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)CarolMooreDC talk

…1:49P.M.E.S.T. D.G.DeL-Dorchester Mass i'm an easy going guy i type set stuff perhaps in a unique way, my spelling for sure is'nt all that great though a setting on a talk page can somehow be related,now when it comes to an original idem i am mostly in controll lets say it could be judged as a 99% activity all's well, i try and for the corporation well thats the start i understand and then the reference of thought is another reason why i'm glad for the opportunity to subject some thought,though what about my issue of a topic concerning me wich is based on other topics for instence i'll go to a talk page an relate a reference and or message,and then after a bit perhaps weaks maybe a longer time depending on the quality,then start a page under user talk D.G.DeL-Dorchester Mass signing it David George DeLancey going back to my own reference or start of topic with an opinion, from someone else thats ok, though also a deletion of some sort concerning me to the advantage of my page concerning some degree of a relate elsewhere a reason in my mind is still pending. How can a true exsistance be if then when a exsistance of matter is not further capable of a conduct,you know for a nation network concerning of a matter in Case it sure is a lapsing venture,just because someone has a Thought does'nt mean their just posting their thoughts. I supose it can be very posible to start a juction of one's own determinations to end up with a true explanation of something or matter would be the way to go my thought are now in some sort by the wikipedia venture an endless degree of matter sometimes pertaining to nothing so i am aware of through someone else, i agree with this and will judge myself accordingly without the thoughts i pertain though i will still be a log in as D.G.DeL-Dorchester Mass and improve on the Quality of Knowledge note as a free attempt with society to do so i am granted now to end this.2:12 p.m.e.s.t.David George DeLancey (talk) 19:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

…The Title to my last Post here by D.G.DeL-Dorchester Mass is MAKING AN ISSUEDavid George DeLancey (talk) 19:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality vs objectivity -- please clarify in article
I just removed the last use of "objectivity" in the article. Now, I would like to see a paragraph it this article discussing the difference between objectivity and "neutrality". I do not mind the link to this article in the disambiguation page for "objectivity", but a clarification is long overdue.

To get everyone started, here is an example. When discussing Elvis Presley's death, an objective editor would note that his death was objectified with a rather unsurprising autopsy report and would qualify all subsequent reports of posthumous sightings as "undocumented". A neutral editor, however, would argue that the coroner's opinion weighs as much as the opinion of each subsequent Elvis sighter and, arithmetically, would devote more space to them. (Parenthetically, posthumous sightings are not even mentioned in the Elvis Presley article, a clear case of non-neutrality). Emmanuelm (talk) 15:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:FRINGE for how the example you detail should be covered. This policy did not originate to give fringe theories equal perceived weight, but rather to ensure that all viewpoints are covered in appropriate depth. There is a major difference between the two, with the former being entirely incorrect and unlike the approach taken by any respected encyclopaedia. It is misinterpretation of policy like this, and the fact no doubt I will be called wrong for having said this, that has resulted in my withdrawal from all but the smallest of mainspace work. I'll let other people, like scienceappologist, explain this better and in more depth. LinaMishima (talk) 15:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * An important point to keep in mind is that while the coroner is a reliable source, there are no reliable sources that sighted Elvis after his death. While Elvis sightings have been reported enough to warrant mention in an article about the phenomenon and possibly mention in passing in the article about Elvis, the sources which reliably discuss them frame them for the fringe beliefs that they are. In order to adequately apply WP:WEIGHT, we, as editors, need to be able evaluate the reliablity and verifiability of sources. A coroner's report deserves the full weight of reliability while the eyewitness sightings of Elvis are not reliable for inclusion in an article on that subject. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, no, the coroner or the coroner's report is a primary source. Using such a primary source as the basis of an edit would constitute original research.  A newspaper article that cited the coroners report, however, would qualify as a reliable source.  Even if, for example, the same article reported about a person who claimed to see Elvis after his death.  The 'source' in question is not the coroner, nor the person who claimed to see Elvis.  It's the newspaper who published the material being cited. Dlabtot (talk) 23:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure you won't find anyone else who says that you can't use a coroner's report to show someone is dead. That's a laughable argument. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The accreditation of the coroner and the availability of his report makes it reliable. Additional coverage of the report does not automatically magically confer it any additional merit or value (unless the report is not in public archives, in which case the media coverage serves the role of authentication). Reliable primary sources are perfectly acceptable for stating the content of the primary source, as long as they are authenticatable. Similarly, historians, once the origin of a work has been determined (authenticated), simply cite the original work, rather than derivatives, when talking directly about the content of the original work. LinaMishima (talk) 00:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's what historians do. It's called research.  However, we aren't historians.  We're editors.  Dlabtot (talk) 01:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * By this line of reasoning, government policies could never be documented unless covered by some external entity, officially published rankings by a ranking organisation could not be used, a person's biography could never be used for information about the person, and so on. There is a difference between showing that a source is likely reliable and conducting original research. LinaMishima (talk) 02:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Not all research is original. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * In addition, it must be noted that the role of the coroner is to research into the circumstances surrounding the death, often having work done for them by pathology labs. As such, a coroner's report can be considered partially a secondary source into the death, being a synthesis of other, primary, information. LinaMishima (talk) 12:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The editor must decide what is fact and what is opinion. NPOV is not a way around it, depite what many new editors seem to think. Bensaccount (talk) 23:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Nobody can be forced to like the NPOV policy, which is totally unrelated to the idea of an 'objective' POV. In fact, attempts by editors to enforce an 'objective' point of view or to "decide what is fact and what is opinion" are explicitly contrary to the letter and spirit of the policy. No matter how frustrating this reality may be to some editors, it is the reality. Perhaps editing Wikipedia is not the best hobby for everyone to pursue. Dlabtot (talk) 19:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutrality or objectivity, both are worthless as soon as persuing such standards would result in enforcing one certain "prevailing" point of view. Also, seeking to disqualify the information of reliable primary sources as WP:OR won't improve on this issue. This discussion belongs to the WP:OR talkpage, though here I think it's appropiate to point out that compiling information from reliable sources, including primary sources, is always justified and encyclopedic - unless considered offtopic. As I already stated above, neutrality (and objectivity) can only be achieved by giving due weight to multiple points of view, conform this NPOV policy. Here it shows again how this misnomer continues to confuse many editors, notwithstanding the details to be read in the WP:NPOV policy. Morover, it continues to cause many editwars as long as so many editors continue to be particularly bad at reserving some encyclopedic tolerance towards multiple points of view. By the way, I think the example of Emmanuelm proves convincingly that "objectivity" does not solve at all the inherent lack of "neutrality" of any particular point of view. Rokus01 (talk) 21:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Rokus says Here it shows again how this misnomer continues to confuse many editors. Please explain how WP:NPOV is misnamed.
 * Bensaccount says The editor must decide what is fact and what is opinion. NPOV is not a way around it, despite what many new editors seem to think. Ben, after re-reading the policy, I think you are wrong. It is not the responsibility of Wikipedians to separate true from untrue. In fact, WP:NPOV commands to represent all significant views. Please read the Alien abductions article and tell us why you chose not to delete the whole thing.
 * For all who discussed (doubted?) the value of an autopsy report, you must know that I am a Pathologist. Paradoxically, I am reluctant to mock the posthumous Elvis sightings because there are real cases of Pseudocide; objective identification of the cadaver is an important part of the autopsy.
 * My opinion --I just realized I did not answer my own question-- is that, within Wikipedia, it is easy to be neutral but impossible to be objective. Objectivity implies judging the credibility of an idea and, hence, expressing a point of view. Emmanuelm (talk) 01:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, NPOV is not misnamed, but the the name is confusing to a lot of editors, who seem to have figured out what the acronym stands for, but never bothered to read the policy. Although given the vast number of editors who insist on editing as if NPOV means "the unbiased point of view, i.e, my point of view" - I seriously doubt they are all acting in good faith.  I think quite a few editors who 'misunderstand' the NPOV policy are simply being deliberately obtuse. Dlabtot (talk) 02:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Facts must precede opinions. This is the assumed corollary to NPOV. We are not writing a database of quotations. Bensaccount (talk) 02:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The word Pseudoscience
I sense there are fundamental problems regarding the usage of the word pseudoscience on wikipedia. This is starting to become a systemic problem on wikipedia since the concept of pseudoscience is used in a policy.


 * Pseudoscience is a social phenomenon and therefore significant, but it should not obfuscate the description of the main views, and any mention should be proportionate and represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly.

It feels this policy was written for articles on mainstream subjects where a minority objects to the established sciences. This policy then is then usually desired. However in articles where a fringe subject is described this rule is often applied, and then in my opinion in a way that lessens the integrity of the article. This defaults for most editors, because of their education or cultural background, established science. However fringe subjects are outside established science. Consequently, the scientific body on the subject is thus often limited. Often actual science is published in less reputable journals because of its fringe status. Additionally it represent the minority view, so it will be given less weight. These factors introduces a systemic bias into the article text.

I suggest that an accusation of pseudoscience should present a verifiable falsification of the fringe claim. If the methods are regarded to be lacing then this should be described. This way one can let the science do the work, and at the same time avoid using words that lack a place in philosophy of science.

Totally I find the idea of the whole of science giving a subjective conclusion on the basis of the opinion of some notable scientists isn't enough to warrant it to be written exclusively on basis of hard sciences.

The definition debates on what is pseudoscience or not has been detrimental on the quality of articles. I hope my criticism of this policy is understood, since it is indeed a tricky issue. --Benjaminbruheim (talk) 18:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This concept is irrelevant to Wikipedia where, by NPOV policy, all significant ideas, whether true or not, deserve to be discussed. Thus, we have a large and well written article on Homeopathy, complete with over 150 references. Emmanuelm (talk) 14:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Homeopathy has been under heavy discussion from people from both sides, and I feel the article is fairly respectful. There are however scores of articles that has been under "heavy fire" from people watching the fringe-noticeboard. While I do accept that pure non-sense should be removed, I repeatedly see articles be labeled pseudoscience because this is the opinion of some fringe skeptics sites. For example I see that primary sources describing for example fringe technology is considered unreliable sources, and instead replaced with blanket statements about pseudoscience and theories from uninformed skeptics. I could go deeper into the matter, but it boils down to an unprecise definition of what the definition of pseudoscience is, and at a deeper level on a problematic definition of how science should be represented. Currently it is what is considered mainstream science by the majority of editors which gets due weight instead of accepting there are many concurrent contemptary sciences that need to explained on their on terms. The concept of hard sciences being the only true science is an american bias. I agree that cults and gross scientific misconduct should be treated accordingly, but the heavy vigilant activity against fringe topics is promoting misinformation, lacks scientific integrity, and might be against WP:BLP. Benjaminbruheim (talk) 17:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. I suspect there is a language barrier here of sorts between what you are trying to say and what we are interpreting. Carl Sagan argued in his series and book "Cosmos" that scientists should never dismiss out of hand ideas and prevent them being discussed. He put forth the (correct) notion that only by discussing them and allowing free discussion can false ideas be truly shown to be false. Is this what you are referring to? Or are you refering to an undue weight being placed on logic-based scientific method, meaning that practices which have repeatedly actively avoided the use of proper scientific method are discredited on wikipedia as they do not meet 'hard' scientific measures, and that is to your disliking? LinaMishima (talk) 17:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, sorry if I am not clear. Yes, I agree with Carl Sagans reasoning here. I think the undue weight policy introduces subjective bias into an article. The concept of "scientific method" is really a gross simplification if you consider the width of philosophy of science. There are sciences that do have problematic methods, and this should be pointed out. Many of those can be said to "claim to be science, but lack empirical evidence". The problem is bigger with articles that are about anamolous findings, such as Cold Fusion where science has problems finding a mechanic. Other examples are Bio-Psychiatry where the majority POV regards it as unproblematic whilst research which highlights its problem is considered a minority POV. In the article on placebo a number of unproven hypothesises are presented as fact. The problem is that a lot of articles attracts editors that are bent on debunking it and lacks standards, and then succumb to removing information because they regard it as WP:UNDUE, WP:RS, WP:FRINGE and whatever policy helps moving the goalposts for those editors who are actually interested in writing articles portraying the status of the subject. It is frustrating, and it really smells of wikipedia underestimating the intelligence of its readers. Benjaminbruheim (talk) 18:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

When referencing distorts NPOV
I ran into an interesting issue while looking over Anti-Americanism and the "Anti-Americanism in Australia" subsection. It's pretty mediocre so I went to work trying to to draft a "balanced" overview, and I began reference hunting.

But the references providing "evidence of anti-americanism" vastly outnumber the references indicating that it really isn't a major issue. I have endless media reports of protests at visiting US diplomats, numerous major media editorials which criticise individual American decisions and even the Deputy Prime Minister making a sweeping statement in 2005 that "there is a very strong anti-American feeling in Australia" (no I'm not kidding - read it here). I even have a top 20 song by Midnight Oil called "US Forces" which opens with the lyric US Forces give the nod, it's a setback for your country. (Which I confess to singing along with as a teenager).

So the majority of references I can find make it appear that anti-Americanism is utterly rabid here and that we are one step away from gunning down American tourists in the streets,. But as someone living here, I can assure you this simply isn't true. Unfortunately the references that say "although we make snide remarks about Americans every now and then, we basically don't mind them" just don't seem to be out there. It's almost like our media and academia are implying "we all know this, so no-one really needs to says it".

Now my comment here isn't about addressing this specific situation as such, and I'm not asking for anyone to find the references that prove me wrong (although I'll gladly accept them). But I'm curious as to whether there are other "squeaky wheel" type situations where the very act of referencing seems to create POV distortions, and how the community has dealt with them. Manning 10:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Re. the concrete issue: "Howard, een trouwe bondgenoot van de Verenigde Staten, is al 11 jaar aan de macht in Australië." (my translation of this sentence from a VRT new bulletin: "Howard, a faithful ally of the United States, has been in power for eleven years in Australia"). Even if we, simplistic Belgians, can find out that a pro-American leader of a government has been in power for 11 years in Australia (well, he scored with the pro-American view in previous elections didn't he? - arguably something had changed in the period after the last "victorious" election...), it shouldn't be too difficult to find an English speaking political analyst that comes to that conclusion, isn't it?
 * Re. general issue: I wondered about this in the past (most recently when working on the Sejny article: the most contested sentence of that article uses five references - the article currently has a total of seven references), but somehow got convinced there isn't a real problem. As with the Australian example above: maybe the sources you're looking for are just so big you don't see them, or never considered using them. Also, a contention needing many references usually needs to start with something in the vein of according to some sources ("Depending on source,..." in the Sejny case), which automatically, virtually for any reader, has the look and feel of a less certain issue (implying: NPOV isn't distorted). And FYI (regarding the Sejny debate leading to the 5-reference sentence), one of the few cases here at Wikipedia where a Polish-Lithuanian disagreement was settled amicably (compare previous tensions resulting in Requests_for_arbitration/Piotrus): what I want to say is that this time both the Lithuanian and Polish contributors involved (and both groups were involved) could settle for the 5-references sentence after some edgy debate. I even received a nice invitation afterwards.
 * Hope this helps --Francis Schonken 12:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * See post-abortion syndrome discussion page for massive examples of selective POV pushing with the "undue weight" argument.--Strider12 (talk) 22:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * While you're at it, Strider12, please see WP:FORUMSHOP and WP:TE. MastCell Talk 00:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Protesting against American policy, criticizing American decisions, etc. -- those things are not 'anti-Americanism'.  Dlabtot (talk) 16:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Significant minority views
Hi. When making editing decisions about how to present points of view, the Undue Weight aspect of neutrality is crucial. Basically, Undue Weight suggests that tiny-minority (fringe) views may be excluded from an article (even if the fringe view gets its own article) whereas Significant Minority views should be represented, albeit without undue weight.

Therefore, it's important for editors to pay attention to, and learn how to distinguish Significant Minority views. I often find myself explaining Significant Minority policy during Talk disputes. However, while there is WP:FRINGE, there is no shortcut -- not to mention a policy page -- about Significant Minority views. Proposal Would folks agree to add something like WP:SIGMINORITY as a shortcut to the WP:UNDUE section? Thanks. HG | Talk 10:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:SIGNIF is currently simply a redirect to WP:N. I had earlier proposed resurrecting it as a separate guideline and adding content to help give guidance on how to identify a significant viewpoint. I have long thought this redirect inappropriate. A significant viewpoint is very different from a notable one and the two are simply different subjects. Notability only requires a couple of sources, while significance can often require substantially more. I also personally believe that significance needs to depend on context (e.g. how many other views on the subject there are) whereas notability does not, and this context-dependency should be explained. (Example of significance depending on context: If there are only 3 published theories on a scientific question, it might make sense to include all 3 without much fuss. But if there are hundreds of religious doctrines on the specifics of the nature of the Trinity, a different standard would be required to determine which of these viewpoints to mention). Notability is absolute and considers a subject in isolation, whereas significance is relative: in determining significance there is always an implied comparison to a set of other views. (Significance also depends on notability: For barely notable topics all views are significant; tiny minorities can only exist for highly notable topics.) The current view, however, is to rely on WP:FRINGE which explains how to identify non-significant viewpoints. It seems to me to be logical to interpret this outcome as implying that current guidelines favor the inclusion of gray areas (since we only provide guidance on how to exclude clearly non-significant views and we don't provide guidance on how to distinguish signifcant from gray). But I'm not sure if this result was what was actually intended. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 17:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm opposed to the SIGNIF link going to notability because N isn't about article content, but topic inclusion. A redirect to WP:Weight would be better, but I have to agree that a guideline bringing together weight (undue as well as intentionally diminished) and POV significance would be a best. Along the lines of Shirahadasha's thoughts, we might think about delineating religious, hard science, soft science, general academic, and popular culture contexts - or maybe this is too much creep. S, would you mind discussing what you mean by "gray"? Is this a POV between fringe and minority, or fringe and majority, or do you mean things like rejected hypotheses? I'm not sure what you mean. Thanks! Phyesalis (talk) 12:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Worked on the part about objectivity.
It was a bit wishy-washy, so I worked on it a little bit. The way it was written, it suggested that editing with bias is OK. &#9775; Zenwhat (talk) 19:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * reverted, see edit summary. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Francis, your summary did not seem to contradict my edit. I think it has to do with the word "judgment," which may connote an intolerance for other views. Do you agree that users should use "sound judgment"? And would it be better if the word judgment were replaced with a synonym, like assessment? From WP:NPOV:

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

&#9775; Zenwhat (talk) 19:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * "Sound editorial judgement" is guideline stuff, not policy stuff. Sound editorial judgement is that "extra" thing needed to write more than average articles, but which eludes policy wording. It certainly eludes your proposed rewritings.
 * My edit summary:"'basing one's judgment' is exactly NOT 'what editors should do', READERS should be able to base their judgement on neutral descriptions - editors shouldn't impose their judgment by what they write (bolding added)"One of your sentences I had removed:"One common understanding of objectivity is that it involves basing one's judgment on observable phenomena without bias. In accordance with neutral point of view and verifiability, that's precisely what editors should do. (bolding added)"As for your first quote, here's the bolding I'd apply:"One can think of unbiased writing as the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate [...]"I'm quite sure that's a part you missed thus far (replacing "all relevant sides of a debate" by "observable phenomena"), and which makes the difference w.r.t. objectivity: objectivity assumes one side of a debate (the "objective" side), and writes from that side. That's something a reporter who writes an article in a newspaper can strive for, but it is unworkable for an encyclopedia where every article is co-authored by anyone who cares to get involved. Then "objective" is useless, because the "objective" approach can be different depending on background of the author, and can nor should be imposed on other authors of the Wikipedia encyclopedia nor on the reading public. Instead, Wikipedia chose and still chooses to let different biases co-exist on the same page, while biases can't be excluded altogether (beware of the person who tells you s/he is totally unbiased - doesn't exist). In this way articles as a whole approach "lack of bias", while biases should balance each other. This is what the policy means by the "neutral point of view", which is a "point of view" (see 2nd paragraph of WP:NPOV), but which is not a synonym of "objectivity". --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Journalists make no assumptions about objective "sides." That's an appeal to authority. Their analysis is intended to be objective -- meaning based on evidence and bias-free. &#9775; Zenwhat (talk) 22:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No analysis is "objective", any analysis bears the marks of the (background of the) individual performing the analysis. Whatever an analysis is based upon, no two analyses will be exactly the same, even when their authors independently strive for objectivity and avoidance of bias.
 * And, as said, whatever a single author of a newspaper article strives for, it has little bearing on how to write an encyclopedia where any paragraph can be co-authored by an indiscriminate number of authors. One person's "objectivity" is another person's "bias". Wikipedia policy does not try to avoid the unavoidable. Well, sure, if more editors would grasp how to put that basic premise of Wikipedia's NPOV policy in practice, there wouldn't have been any need to list so many names here --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I fully support Francis Schonken's revert. We certainly don't want to advise folks to edit based on what they decide is the "Objective POV" Dlabtot (talk) 23:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Frank Schonken, the claim that there is "no such thing as objective analysis." Is that a fact or is that just your personal opinion? &#9775; Zenwhat (talk) 01:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It could be both, it could be neither (false dichotomy). Really, I don't see why whether or not that is my personal opinion would make any difference for the content of the WP:NPOV/FAQ page.
 * As said, a choice was made (probably before either of us got involved in the Wikipedia project) on how to go about with objectivity in this project. At first glance that choice may even seem surprising, as Wikipedia's founder was inspired by Ayn Rand (Objectivism!). So it seems (although I'm probably not expert enough on these matters to write this) that even Wikipedia's founder's personal opinion on objectivity wasn't the sole determining factor for what went in the NPOV policy and what didn't (neither did Jimbo ever say otherwise). --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Here we go again, confusing objectivity & neutrality. I will repeat myself : objectivity is feasible but incompatible with the NPOV policy because objectivity implies judging the credibility of an idea and, hence, expressing a point of view. Emmanuelm (talk) 12:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Those who are incapable of doing this are worthless not only to this project, but to society in general. Bensaccount (talk) 15:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Bensaccount put it very harshly, but he's right. Such an attitude does not belong on Wikipedia or elsewhere, for that matter. See Eel wriggling, Sophistry, and Nihilism. If you don't believe it's possible to "objectively evaluate" sources, it's hard to follow how you could adhere to WP:NPOV. &#9775; Zenwhat (talk) 08:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


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

Wjhonson, it's not the existence of views that I'm objecting to. Scientists and journalists have views as well, but what makes them good scientists and journalists is the ability to move beyond their views and analyze the facts objectively. Editors are worthless if they can't let go of their views or avoid using Wikipedia to push their own biases. This idea is already reflected in existing policy, as shown above, so avoiding the word "objective" and the nonsense here here seems silly. It's not true. It seems like it's just up there to make Francis Schonken feel good. &#9775; Zenwhat (talk) 21:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

An open question: What is a "neutral reader," in fact? &#9775; Zenwhat (talk) 21:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * One point at a time. If you could express each suggested edit in the form:Here is what it says"blah blah blaq" and Here is what I want it to say"blah blah blaggerblaq" it would be helpful for those of us who like to address changes at an atomic level.  In that form we can see, right here, the possible effect of the change, instead of needing to review stale edit fights.  Thanks Wjhonson (talk) 22:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Wjhonson, I posted a diff above. I want it to be worded strongly. As it stands now, it supports Factual relativism, which is in violation of WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:FRINGE. &#9775; Zenwhat (talk) 00:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


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

Here is the same diff I posted above. &#9775; Zenwhat (talk) 14:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Shirahadasha, in general Wikipedia should not make judgments, but as Bensaccount noted above, if somebody does not believe in facts or the capability to attempt to be objective, then it is impossible for them to follow Wikipedia policy and collaborate. It would be impossible for such a person to follow either WP:V and WP:NPOV. &#9775; Zenwhat (talk) 18:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Referring to the relation between objectivity and NPOV as a strictly "empirical question, not a philosophical one" is absurd. &#9775; Zenwhat (talk) 17:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

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


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


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


 * Yeah, see WP:BOLD, including BOLD and BOLD. Also, WP:BOLD doesn't say anything about someone's BOLD edits not being subject to revert and discussion -- quite the opposite -- see BOLD%2C_revert%2C_discuss_cycle. Dlabtot (talk) 21:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Again: So what? I don't see anything related to creating redirects in the links above. --Ronz (talk) 03:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, you are the one who brought up WP:BOLD. If you believe your own comments are off-topic.... OK. Dlabtot (talk) 19:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I brought up BOLD. My response to you is, "So what?"  To be crystal clear, I cannot find anything relevant in your responses here to the discussion.  --Ronz (talk) 19:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. Dlabtot (talk) 20:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

(OD) The main issue to me is yes be bold. However. When you're bold on little-viewed pages it can be seen as a great contribution to the project. When you're bold on core pages, you're likely to be reverted and asked to seek consensus on Talk first. Which is what I did. This is especially the case if the bold edit is then being used to bolster one-side in a long contentious content-war.Wjhonson (talk) 01:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems to me like this discussion has became more one of personal reasons and interpretations than one over the merits of the action taken. Regards to the merits, removing the reference whilst in RfD is perhaps not a good idea, as it could be seen as gaming (commenters follow redir, see that it is not listed here). The original bold edit in question was perhaps not the adding of the redirect's details, but the redirect itself. I shall not comment on that here, as there is another, better, location for that to be done. LinaMishima (talk) 01:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

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


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

What sources to rely on
There is a long-standing argument on creationism and intelligent design pages, over how creationist views should be presented. Obviously, the scientific community doesn't support creationism, considers it a purely religious viewpoint, outside the realm of scientific inquiry, etc. I agree that their views should be present in the articles, prominently. However, within the US and the Muslim world, evolution by natural selection enjoys almost no support outside of academia (around 10% in the US according to a Gallup Poll). So should popular views be cited? And what about the views of religious leaders, who overwhemingly support creationism and theistic evolution? It seems to me that the current state of these articles gives undue weight to the views of the scientific community, only because they don't mention any other viewpoint. GusChiggins21 (talk) 16:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * See the above discussion on Undue V fringe. The general consensus seems to be that it depends how people present a concept. If creationism and ID were presented as being theological matters of belief, then they should be covered as such. However if the framework the proponents of a subject desire is a different one, such as being a scientific subject, then they are requesting that they be viewed as a science and be treated as such, with due weight hence requiring that the majority scientific opinion, as requested, is given prominence. LinaMishima (talk) 16:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. Stephen B Streater (talk) 19:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Somewhat off-topic - do you have a citation for the claim that only 10% of people in the US "outside of academia" believe in evolution by natural selection? MastCell Talk 19:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's just a belief ;-) Stephen B Streater (talk) 19:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I dunno... it seems falsifiable... :) MastCell Talk 20:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to see a citation to the Gallup poll that says only 10% in the US believe in evolution by natural selection. Just for my own edification, if nothing else. Dlabtot (talk) 21:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The poll is in level of support for evolution. Let me clarify what I think the problem may be. It's totally appropriate to have the views of the scientific community featured very prominently in ID and creationism and evolution articles. The problem I see is that it is generally being presented as truth, as opposed to all other views, which are usually called wrong, or pseudoscience. Would it be appropriate to add small sections about popular support for creationism, or support amongst various religious denominations? I think this would help to balance the article, because right now many of the articles seem to be arguing for evolution. Thoughts? GusChiggins21 (talk) 22:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe you have innocently mischaracterized that poll. It doesn't say that "only 10% in the US believe in evolution by natural selection, in fact, it doesn't even mention 'natural selection'.  The citation also does not allow you to examine the actual poll, rather, it is a link to someone's analysis of a variety of data. More appropriate would be the USA Today/Gallup poll conducted  June 1-3, 2007, which asked: "Next, we'd like to ask about your views on two different explanations for the origin and development of life on earth. Do you think  is definitely true, probably true, probably false, or definitely false? Evolution -- that is, the idea that human beings developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life. Definitely true: 18%, Probabley true: 35%  " -- Dlabtot (talk) 23:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem with this is that it's only asking about support for evolution, not specifically evolution by natural selection. Most people who support evolution are actually theistic evolution supporters (i.e. the Catholic Church's position). It gets hairy because, strictly speaking theistic evolution is still an appeal to a deity, and generally doesn't regard natural selection as the only method of evolution, or even the main method. So if you only include people who believe that evolution occurred without any assistance from god, I think the 10% number makes sense. GusChiggins21 (talk) 06:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. All I can do is present the verifiable facts, it's up to you to decide if you want to acknowledge them or ignore them. Dlabtot (talk) 06:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * "Would it be appropriate to add small sections about popular support for creationism, or support amongst various religious denominations?" It would indeed be amiss for an article to not talk about the supporters of an idea. WP:WEIGHT does not preclude including such material, not at all - indeed the policy as a whole states that it should be present, simply in appropriate moderation. LinaMishima (talk) 23:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, the consensus on intelligent design, creationism, and evolution pages seems to be that the only support that should be mentioned is that of the scientific community. GusChiggins21 (talk) 06:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sadly, that claim is as inaccurate as the 10% claim. ID claims to be science, period.  Hence the scientific viewpoint carries the weight of the discussion.  Evolution is science, so ditto.  As all leading proponents of creationism dispute evolution, science must again be prominent, unless one is merely discussing creationism as a part of a religious belief -- something that never happens.
 * Bear in mind too, that like your previous red herring, popular belief, in particular that limited to less than 5% of the world's population is of little or no value in writing a reference work on anything other than popular opinion. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 06:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Reading the Intelligent design article, I am afraid that I fail to see a major issue in this regard (although I will admit that I am biased). The viewpoints and opinions of ID proponents are detailed first in apparently good depth, before then the criticism is included within the relevant section. Responses to criticism might be a worthwhile addition, however, as could greater coverage of polls and their critics. However those are matters best suited to discussion elsewhere, on ID's talk page. If you believe local bias is at work, call an RfC to draw in external opinions.LinaMishima (talk) 12:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

To put it another way, if the emperor has no clothes, but all the kings officials, and even diplomats visiting from other kingdoms, insist he's quite well dressed, and if about half the people have seen the king walking around without clothes, what does NPOV demand from the "best-dressed list"? Is the king on the list or not? Is he on the list with a footnote? Is he put on a separate list? How about the list of people who don't wear clothes; does the king get put on that list even though he is officially well-dressed? Readin (talk) 15:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, policies are pretty clear. Wikipedia content must be verifiable - cited to reliable sources ("Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made.") There are strict guidelines which constrain the use of self-published sources.
 * We are not working on the Soviet Union Wikipedia, and we are not inside the Soviet Union. If the Emperor has no clothes, it has no doubt been noted in a published source.   If it hasn't, then it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Dlabtot (talk) 16:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


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


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

I would like to agree, that there is a lacune in our policies. See below for more. &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 07:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC) i.e.

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

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

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

But: This explanation itself however, is often subject to debate, for which no independent reliable sources can be found: most reliable sources, if they would say anything about it at all, would have already committed themselves to idea "A". But what if idea "A" could be false?
 * when we have a pre-conceived idea, "A", which seems supported by facts by RS;
 * when we then find some facts, "X, Y, Z" which seem to conflict with "A", but are also supported by reliable sources, then we have to options:
 * idea "A" is false
 * there is an explanation for "X, Y, Z" occuring while A is true.

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

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

Therefore, if we insist on using NFSM in our articles, we must have some logical reason for doing so: we either need to be absolutely sure that our narrative is a true account (and would need a very heavy RS which enjoys consensus for this extraordinary claim); or... the NFSM we follow must be known flawless. (&#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) )


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

request rationale
So now I am asking you all to help and show a RS or an authority on logic which indicates that NFSM would be the right way to go about, and that using NFSM would lead to truthful encyclopedic articles? (If we have none, should we not abandon NFSM?) &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 08:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

NPOV and Books
I'm struggling to figure out how NPOV applies to books of pseudohistory or I guess even flawed history books. The example I am working with is Where Troy Once Stood. I started looking at this a few days ago. It had external links to bronze age finds with no clear relationship with the book, it had a sentence in the first paragraph which linked to a personal Amazon page which listed the book as a great book, it had the Odyssey evidence still there, etc. I started by adding a section on linguistics which quotes the author and pointed out that the languages he was discussing didn't exist at the time, and that was left in. I added short sections on archaeology quoting Michael Wood about artefacts found in the Eastern Med, and a short section on geology quoting recent research that shows the geology around Hissarlik (where Schliemann thought he found Troy) matches Homer's description, something that contradicts Wilkens. That was removed on the basis "Attempts to disprove the book's thesis don't belong in the article either--we should stick to what secondary sources say about this book, which is almost nothing." But the arguments about the Odyssey were left in. I then put an external link in to the scientific article about the geology, and that was removed also. (As, to be fair, were the links to Bronze Age finds). But what is left now could almost be a publicity release from the publishers. Not quite, but almost. And that doesn't seem neutral to me. One of the problems is one discussed before, this is so way out few scholars have spent any time looking at it. Thus there are virtually no critical reviews or articles. I've spent quite a bit of book time looking at the archaeology, I know a professor of linguistics who has looked at his linguistics, I know someone who has visited some of the sites in person. But all of this is unpublished original research, verboten on Wikipedia. So is there any way out of this situation where the Wikipedia article is not giving a balanced view of the arguments even if it is describing the book accurately? Thanks. --Dougweller (talk) 10:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Say "this book has received no reviews in academic periodicals" (assuming that to be the case). Make sure of that though, with help from a librarian, and give the source used to determine this. The reader will understand. DGG (talk) 02:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Good summary quote
I found this in Robert Nozick's Philosophical Explanations:
 * "If a person is wondering whether or not to believe p, can't we offer him reason to believe it as help?" Yes, if your help is neutral. But do you also offer reasons for not believing p? Do you pursue with further reasons for p if the first fail to convince?

Maybe it could be added somewhere in WP:NPOV? &mdash; BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-11-26 13:57Z

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

Undue Weight versus Narrative-based fact selection Mechanism?
First I quote two paragraphs from the guideline 19:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC):
 * Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.
 * Verifiability is only one content criterion. Neutral point of view is a core policy of Wikipedia, mandatory, non-negotiable, and to be followed in all articles. Concerns related to undue weight, non-neutral fact selection and wording, and advancing a personal view, are not addressed even slightly by asserting that the matter is verifiable and cited. The two are different questions, and both must be considered in full, in deciding how the matter should be presented in an article.

When reading these excerpts, they seem at first glance perfectly reasonable to me. Suppose that on a given subject X there exist 2 views, A and B, where A is widely accepted, whereas B is held by a small (but significant) minority; then it would not be fair/balanced to devote 50% of the article to B: that would not be a neutral viewpoint for Wikipedia to take. <BR>But some aspects of this guideline could be mis-interpreted and lead to "censor"ship. When a group of editors feels very strongly about supporting view A, they may want to reduce the attention which is given to group B to 1% or less. Because "undue weight" not only applies to views, but also to facts and statements, they might incline to remove all facts which support view B or seem an anomaly to view A. Now we would have an interesting situation: the article X will be telling the narrative A, supported by all the A-facts, and omitting all the B-facts which might have lead a reader to conclude that A is not necessarily the truth, and that B might be a view worth further attention. Because B and especially all the facts which support it now get marginalized in the article X, it will look to the reader as if A is perfectly supported by the facts, and therefore a certainty &mdash; where it is just a (majority) view. <BR>And remember that it is not just Wikipedia which is following this approach; most of the Reliable sources which we base ourselves on are using a similar mechanism: quoting eachother as authority. Now a mechanism emerges, in which the dominant narrative chosen for the article is now steering the future selection of facts, thereby omitting facts which would balance the article and make clear to the reader that one cannot simply decide whether it is view A or view B which is the most correct.<BR>I have not thought of a solution yet, but I assume the ultimate goal of our guidelines is to have articles which can be relied upon to be fair, balanced, and as close to truth as humanly achievable; not a random fantasy based on selective quoting of reliable sources, copying their narrative and excluding the rest of the evidence from public view. <BR>We cannot vote what is true; we have to let the facts decide; and when we cannot agree on which view follows from the facts, a majority should not be erasing the facts which a minority contributes to article X. But, on the other hand, a minority should not be allowed to swamp any article with half-truths and insinuations, thus compromising the neutrality the other way around. <BR>Resuming: a view should be given treatment in proportion to its promenence, but does this mean that facts supporting or weakening that view should be mentioned in proportion to the promenence of the view which these facts are supporting? Wouldn't that distort the whole encyclopic process and lead to circular reasoning? Help! &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind infinity) 19:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

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


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


 * ultimately, what is not yet known, we cannot talk about. If the consensus of all authorities is false, neither have we any way of knowing this. (adapted from Wittgenstein).DGG (talk) 02:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * We cannot know, but we need not obscure the facts which do not fit to that consensus, either. Especially when they were reported by RS. &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 18:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If there is actual consensus, this implies there is no significant minority view and hence this issue wouldn't come up. The existence of a significant minority view means that that there is no consensus. If this doesn't explain the situation, an example might help. --Shirahadasha (talk) 03:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * If there is an actual significant minority viewpoint -- a viewpoint that is independently notable and supported by reliable sources etc. but nonetheless a minority view on a general topic, one approach would be to have a separate article on the viewpoint describing it in complete detail. The article on the general topic could then refer to the separate article with the complete argument on the viewpoint. Notability involves an absolute inquiry -- one doesn't compare to anything else in determining if a topic is notable -- while significance is relative, it requires comparison with other viewpoints. It should be noted that to avoid WP:POVFORK issues, the minority-view article would need to clear identify the view as a minority one and refer to both the general topic article and any separate articles on other views. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 03:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * True, a seperate article with criticism on article A could be made, but I still feel that an article should be balanced in itsself, and not ONLY by the existence of another article which criticizes the first article. &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 18:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, dedicated to the best info available, neutral and balanced. And complete. &mdash; Sockrates dual 18:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * In the historical example, we could easily include mention of both theories since both theories are reliably sourced. The difficulty is (let's further assume) that Theory A, the dominant theory, can be easily explained, while explaining Theory B sufficiently to understand why some people are questioning the dominant theory requires presenting complicated facts that take up more space than is needed to present Theory A. This is not an uncommon situation; alternative theories have historically required explaining small-seeming anomalies in detail and depended on complex experiments (Plank's constant for radiation and relativity come to mind). It could be argued that this approach will discount new theories that turn out to be substantiated. Nonetheless, the policy is weighted, by design, to giving greater weight to presenting the dominant view. One reason is that for every hard-to-explain emergent theory that becomes the dominant view later, there are many that turn out to be mistaken and forgotten, and we use the present expected value of a theory (discounting due to the fact that most emergent theories don't pan out), not its true future value from prophetic hindsight (which we don't have). A separate article with complete detail on the new theory, and a summary in the main article permitting presenting it (but without every detail), is a valid way to balance the interests involved. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 19:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: A very similar hindsight example could be made about companies (among many other things) We know to a near certainty that some of today's companies that are currently comparatively insignificant will become tomorrow's giants. The problem is, we don't know which ones. For very similar reasons, we choose to wait until stature is actually established. We deliberately miss out on the chance to be the first to report on the next big thing in order to ensure that the reported size does not become unduly exaggerated. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 19:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Shirahadasha, I thank you for your contribution. For me, the NPOV policy is quite clear where it comes to balancing of theories in the wording in the article. We could however be more clear about the inclusion of facts. With a fact I mean a direct observable, not the (logical or illogical) interpretation of it. In the above article, wikipedians might want to wish to exclude the results of certain measurements. Fictional example of fact for this fictional example: "In 1960, in experiment so and so, prof. X and his team found that when protons collided with energies higher then Y MeV, the dispersion pattern was not such as one would expect from a point-symmetrical particle." (There is a common agreed notion on what the pattern should look like in view A, and prof. X found a different pattern.) Some wikipedians would then argue: "We should not include those facts. No other team has produced the same results. The findings are probably wrong, due to some undetected measurement fault. They do not fit into the narrative of the article, and we know protons are an elementary particle, so the findings are certainly going to have some logical explanation. There are thousands of experiments worldwide which give false results. We cannot possibly include them all. Ah, here it is: prof. Z of such and such university here states that he believes the findings of his competitor prof. X are wrong. There you go. No need to include it."<BR>I think we need to be clear about when to include such seemingly contradictory facts, and when not. How could we decide? &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 06:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


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


 * I think we should make a distinction between:
 * scientific topic
 * histirical topic
 * actuality topic
 * there are obvioulsy other categories but let's consider these three to point out a distinction: for scientific and historical topic we have a community (or more than one) of experts that has the authority to decide what is relevant or not and the mainstream POV of these community deserve a greater importance than the POV of little minorities of the communuty. For actuality topic there is a greater problem (especially if they have political implications). In this cases there is not a community of experts that can be considered a legitimate authority to take the decision about what is relevant and what is not. In particular mainstream media (like TV and newspapers) are definitely not in this position.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 09:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Pokipsy76, let's focus on historical topics then. On any part of history, there will be a mainstream view, and there will be tiny minority views of experts and layman who disagree with the main view. Our policy is not to write about tiny minority views. But we do write about significant minority views. But, apart from the view, there are the facts. Modern science is based on several theories. However, they are mutually contradictory, so in their present form the accepted state of the art science is certainly "wrong". We stick with it, however, because we believe it will be close to "the truth" and have nothing better. Suppose now there is an experiment done which contradicts an established theory, should we be forbidden to report this fact in an article? If the fact was presented in a RS, we could include it, even if all of the RS outthere ignore the fact after first publication. Finding sources for our articles is not OR, it is the core business of writing wikipedia. Drawing conclusions which were not drawn by any RS, that's OR. Agree?<BR>How could a RS believe in the relevance of a fact, which is add odds with something they themselves believe in? As a wikipedia, we should not hold believes of our own, but simply report the believes of others. I have my personal believes, but they change and evolve over time, and they do not deserve mentioning in any article. But the facts from which we create our believes deserve inclusion. We have to select facts. The question is: how? Shall we selectively include only those facts which support a single viewpoint, or should we also include facts which might contradict that single viewpoint? Who is doing the fact-picking? We both are, but is the beauty of wikipedia not in the compromise, the neutrality, the consensus? I cannot see how using the NFSM could give the best, neutral articles. &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 14:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * We should select facts which are reported as relevant by reliable sources. That's our whole purpose here &mdash; facts which "contradict" the mainstream account, but which no reliable sources ties to the subject at all are not relevant to an article.  Only an individual's original research makes them relevant &mdash; if a fact is truly relevant, even if it contradicts the main account, then as this article tells us we should be able to name prominent individuals who believe it is connected, and source the claims of their beliefs to reliable sources.  You are advocating that Wikipedia editors do the fact picking &mdash; that's textbook original research, and you just don't seem to "get" that. --Haemo (talk) 19:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You say: "which are reported as relevant"; I would say: "which were reported at least once". I think that's the core of our difference in view. (Agree?) A reliable source will on the one hand report facts, and on the other hand, in its editorial comments, will report its own view on the facts (interpretation). A reliable source is not in the business of bringing the same news time and time again, they bring new news. So, if a fact is not relevant to their view, they will not bring it up again. As wikipedia however, contrary to most other RS, we should not have a view of our own, but give all non-tiny views fair, neutral and sympathetic treatment. That means: presenting facts from across the spectrum, not only those that are relevant to any particular view. Single-purpose fact selection violates our NPOV policy. Fact selection itself is however inescapable, and we should come to an agreement on how to proceed. I disagree with you that we should blindly copy and paste the work of RS reporting a majority view. That would dwindle the significant majority views, and therefore violate our NPOV intentions. &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 12:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Images are quite different from text, and I believe they should get some sort of treatment here which allows the editor to follow policy directly instead of simply going over the rest of the text and assuming that "since [inapplicable note] can't really apply to images, I can overlook this, and since this concept is generally applicable, I should stick with this". This can lead to quite a bit of overstepping in several directions, because there is still a question of "how applicable" the majority of the policy text really is to the inclusion of certain images.--C.Logan (talk) 09:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I would like to distinguish between three concepts: the world "out there", our ideas about it, and the language we use to convey these ideas to eachother. Like words, images are a tool to convey ideas. The policy reads: Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. So the images, when they are not neutral to a debate, should be distributed as such. Now, what more clarity would you like, since I do not understand what vagueness you are referring to? &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 15:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

sympathetically?
This needs clearing up: the FAQ suggests views should be worded sympathically on both sides of the debate; the article says it should not show sympathy. I can imagine this both be true, but it is not very clear. Any native speakers for suggesting improvements? I think wikipedia should treat all nontiny views with respect (and sympathy as such), but endorse none (no sympathy as such) &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 19:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:NEUTRAL : The neutral point of view is a point of view that is neutral, that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject.
 * WP:NPOVFAQ : [is it] possible to describe disputes in such a way that all the major participants will agree that their views are presented sympathetically and comprehensively[?]


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


 * Thx. Are you a native speaker? Perhaps make an edit to WP:NPOV to make it more clear! It is currently confusing, it seems. &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 20:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Try meself, then. &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 02:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Encyclopedic content?
I was wondering what the second sentence means by "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content ..." SlimVirgin (talk) (contribs) 01:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's referring to lists (which might not be considered articles). There's also images, spoken versions of certain articles, etc. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 01:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


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

The neutral point of view.
I've undone the alteration of the section caption. I feel that:
 * The neutral point of view

is more clear. NPOV has two meanings: it is a qualifier for an article, and it is a viewpoint which is not an opinion but a perspective. The word "the" has extra meaning and extra clarity for me, and that should imo overrule naming conventions. &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 20:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Question above
I posted a question above late in the discussion but I fear that it may have gotten lost, buried above the many discussions which follow it. If anyone uninvolved in the immediate dispute has both the time and the inclination, I would appreciate reading some of your input. Thanks so much. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 04:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You posted many questions and the link you gave does not go anywhere. I do not want to read through pages of nonsense and guess what you want answered. I think you are not understanding UNDUE, which can also have consequences across all of Wikipedia. We do not want to have 20,000 minihomeopathy articles here. So that is the concern I suspect that you are not quite getting. Also, there is a question of how notable the use of homeopathy is in a given article.--Filll (talk) 14:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


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


 * Filll, perhaps you are not clicking it correctly, but my link should take you to the section above entitled: "Does the inclusion of this text in anyway violate WP:NPOV? It is a pretty direct single question which if you would like to answer, I would appreciate it. That said, rather than stating that I don't understand UNDUE, I think it would be safer to say that I don't understand your understanding of UNDUE. Please feel free to elucidate your understanding with citations from the actual policy. Much thanks. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 04:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


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


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

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

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

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

More specifically, what happens when the topic is only notable because of the unscientific majority belief? - perfectblue (talk) 21:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It depends how something is presenting itself. If a subject wishes to present itself as being scientific, then it must be presented giving weight to the majority scientific opinion. However if a subject presents itself as a belief, with more of the article dedicated to aspects of this belief rather than claims of effectiveness or method of action, then the scientific opinion matters little to the subject. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - if no such claims are significantly made, then no such evidence is needed, but the reverse applies equally. LinaMishima (talk) 21:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Fringe status is with respect to a particular framework. The Great Story, for example, is an excellent example of fringe theology, opinion representing itself as theology which isn't accepted as legitimate by mainstream theologians. The same story might not be fringe with respect to a different framework. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 23:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


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


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


 * Your comment above If a subject wishes to present itself as being scientific, then it must be presented giving weight to the majority scientific opinion seems to contradict WP:WEIGHT which says Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them—Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. But on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it must make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. So appropriate reference is the correct reading. Anthon01 (talk) 12:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think Anthon is agreeing with me - that if something presents itself as a myth, legend or belief then it should be addressed first and foremost as a myth, legend or belief, whilst if something purports to be a science, then the appropriate frame of reference is that of science. If someone can suggest a means to enhance the wording of the section to make this 'framework' aspect clear, perhaps we could discuss clarifying this? LinaMishima (talk) 16:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know where you got the impression that he is agreeing with you, considering that he explicitly disagreed. I disagree as well. This idea of a 'framework' under which 'a subject wishes to present itself' doesn't appear in the policy for several good reasons.  One being that 'subjects', such as don't possess the ability to 'wish' nor do the poseess the ability to 'present themselves'.  People, that is editors, must present the topic, and the frame of reference (another way of saying point of view) under which they must be presented is not a scientitific or mythic one but a neutral one, which represents fairly and, as much as possible, without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources).  Undue weight also quite clearly says that it applies to "Articles that compare views", and then goes on to state that, as Anthon01 has already quoted, "Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them—Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. But on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it must make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view."  Note also that nothing in the NPOV policy treats the scientific view as a special case in any way. Dlabtot (talk) 19:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps not, but LinaMishima is correct regarding how topics are generally addressed here. The goal is to write an encyclopedia that could function as a respectable reference work. Topics that identify as "scientific" are generally treated from a scientific-majority perspective. ArbCom has codified this widespread practice in one of their more oft-cited decisions: "Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Wikipedia aspires to be such a respected work." In other words, on "scientific topics", there is a fairly clear overlap between SPOV and NPOV. The difficult detail, as always, is what constitutes a "scientific topic", and that can only be resolved on a case-by-case basis and not by generalities. MastCell Talk 19:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The scientific point of view is not a competing policy with WP:NPOV.  The WP:SPOV shortcut links to a page that says it is: A historical page is either no longer relevant or consensus has become unclear.  Dlabtot (talk) 19:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * SPOV was rejected as a separate policy because of concerns that it would be applied outside strictly scientific fields, and because its salient points were already better covered under WP:NPOV. Nonetheless, the "scientific" point of view does overlap dramatically with the neutral point of view on scientific topics, given the goal of creating a useful and respectable reference work, as ArbCom has affirmed. MastCell Talk 19:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * As you rightly point out, SPOV, is not a policy, it is a point of view. Therefore it can't by definition, 'overlap' with the policy that states how it, and other points of view, should be presented.   If you want to claim that ArbCom "has affirmed" otherwise, you should provide a quote or diff that says that, not one that says something quite different from your assertion. Dlabtot (talk) 21:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Re-read the ArbCom ruling . Overviews of scientific topics are expected to be in line with respected scientific thought. Discussions of the SPOV proposal are somewhat of a red herring here. As for the discussion at hand, you seem to be advocating an 'absolute point of view', that there is such a thing as a truly neutral and purely objective view on anything (the closest thing to this is logic, which is the basis of the scientific method...). As irrational beings with instincts, emotions, upbringings and opinions, with experience of but a single ball of rock (in almost all cases), we simply cannot ourselves be the arbiters of what the absolute point of view is (however tragic this inability may be). As such, the best we can rationally achieve is an impartial point of view, including all opinions upon a matter in accordance to the prominence of each in relation to the others and those within related and interworking fields of study with relate to the subject to hand, and with respect to the direct topic at hand rather than those which relate but are not directly the subject in question (the wording of this entire passage is, I admit, utterly awful). What ultimately governs this coverage is, and may be widely observed to be throughout wikipedia, the notability of the various aspects of a subject (as much as a generally prefer to avoid notability). This is why we do not devote the majority of the article on a religion to the 14th century discussions over the importance of cheese to the faith (unless, of course, this forms the basis of the faith). Similarly, this is why we talk about the impact that a person themselves had in greater depth to that of their son's impacts upon the world. I could go on and on, but it should be clear that some form of determination has to be drawn as to what gets covered within an article, it is simply impossible to compartmentalise subjects in individual articles otherwise, and similarly those matters of greater importance to a subject must be covered in more depth. If someone reading this is feeling very kind, they may wish to translate much of the waffle here into plain english, it is most hard to write about such subjects without using terms such as neutral, impartial, weight, and so on! LinaMishima (talk) 23:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Since I never said or implied anything that remotely approximates what you say I "seem to be advocating", I don't have any response to your response to an argument I did not make. Dlabtot (talk) 23:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * As i understand it, Wikipedia has expressly rejected favoring scientific points of views as opposed to other points of views. Views are significant with respect to (a) sheer numbers (the most common popular viewpoint is generally significant) and (b) contribution to general culture/knowledge etc. Scientific points of view have made a major contribution to general culture and hence scientific points of view are essentially always significant, but religious, humanistic, philosophical, and other points of view are often significant as well. Viewpoints need to be represented as such. One good reason for including more than one viewpoint is that different viewpoints influence each other and can change each other over time. For example, half a century ago environmentalism was thought to be a non- or even anti-scientific point of view, whereas it is now commonly thought of as a scientific point of view. But non-scientific thought about the environment affected the cultural environment in which scientists did their work. The ArbCom ruling is limited to theories that purport to be scientific (if they claim to be scientific, then that claim must be backed up by mainstream science), and doesn't apply to general culture and other viewpoints that don't claim to be science-based. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 02:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well put. Dlabtot (talk) 04:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Amen. &mdash;Whig (talk) 22:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You say: "sheer numbers (the most common popular viewpoint is generally significant)". Are you suggesting science articles need to include the popular consensus or are you refering to popular viewpoints among scientists? If the former, that makes little sense when wrting an encyclopedia. What is your rationale for throwing all ideas, even those long discredited into the pot? This approach seems more like a history of science approach to writing about science. David D. (Talk) 03:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * WP favors the scientific consensus in whatever field of science an article is about. But the reason isn't that this is most scientific, but that within the sci field -within the subject range of the article- it is most notable.  If an article isn't about science, then notability is followed in other ways.  And certainly, in an article on evolution for instance, it wouldn't be complete without a mention of dissenting views.  But the consensus in the scientific field of evolution takes up the vast majority of the article. It's about the notable presented neutrally.  Science doesn't really even have to be considered as such.  —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 04:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy, NPOV and Minority Topics
This talk page is for discussing the policy itsself, not its interpretation in a specific case. Such a case may be an example of where the policy needs improving or discussing, but this Homeopathy debate has run off-topic, and has now become distracting to this page history, so I move the discussion to a subpage. &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 08:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I see many cases being discussed here. I admit that the discussion was diverted from the topic, but I am committed to returning and remaining on topic. I would like to try to collapse the unecessary sections and leave this this discussion here. Anthon01 (talk) 13:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * So go ahead and propose new wording for the policy, since you are so certain you are correct.--Filll (talk) 13:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Neutral point of view/Noticeboard
I've done the bold thing and created Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, which was the last core/major policy whose implications seem to get fought over all the time and lead to no small number of edit wars. Lawrence §  t / e  16:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Great idea! Anthon01 (talk) 16:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Thanks for your time. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 20:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


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


 * Thanks. I'd appreciate it. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 22:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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


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


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


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


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


 * No homeopathic remedies actually contain any belladonna, so it seems a bit odd that you'd want to include -in an article about belladonna- a sentence about water. Dan Beale-Cocks  16:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This discussion has moved over to WP:NPOV/N. Please know that there the proposed sentence is that deadly nightshade is use in the preparation of homeopathic remedies. This way, regardless of whether you believe any bit of deadly nightshade remains after the dilution process, the sentence is still true. Anyhow, I invite you and anyone else reading this come participate at NPOV/N. Thanks. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 18:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

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


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

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

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

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

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


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


 * And I contend that the Oxford Book of Health Food is such a source. My contention was confirmed at WP:RSN by every outside editor. This book satisfies your desire to have an independent reliable source - a bar which I believe you are setting WAY too high. Regardless, your high bar has been met with this book which fully supports this statement for inclusion: According to The Oxford Book of Health Foods, Deadly nightshade "is included... in homeopathic preparations for acne, boils, and sunburns". -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 18:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


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


 * Quite the opposite. This is a from a book about health foods (of which I guess Deadly Nightshade can be considered). And this is from an article in said book about Deadly Nightshade specifically, not about Homeopathy. Hence, if anything, this source shows the "importance" (more like "relevance") of homeopathy to deadly nightshade. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 23:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


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


 * You are free to add your own views to the tutorial if you disagree with the portrayal so far. Stephen B Streater (talk) 22:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This rant, mistakenly labeled a tutorial, is so wrong in so many ways, it's better left alone to sink under the weight of its own bombast. The real issue here is summed up quite well by below. Dlabtot (talk) 16:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I thought it was very clear and well argued. If you can't pinpoint any errors, then I can accept that. Stephen B Streater (talk) 16:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * LOL, sure, pretend that it is "without error". Like wisdom engraved on tablets and handed down by God. That's a good one. Dlabtot (talk) 16:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There's a perfectly good undue weight tutorial at WP:UNDUE. That's what people should read if they want to be tutored in undue weight. Dlabtot (talk) 16:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No one is saying you have to explain your criticisms. Equally, your link to WP:UNDUE is helpful. Particularly this comment by Jimbo: If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not. In the UK and US, homeopathy is used by 1 in 50 who have medical treatment - ie some fraction of this in the population at large. And deadly nightshade could be some miniscule fraction of this. Stephen B Streater (talk) 17:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The Homeopathy article should be discussed at Talk:Homeopathy, Belladonna, at Talk:Deadly_nightshade They are not subjects in which I have any interest. Dlabtot (talk) 18:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Someone brought the discussion on the relevance of homeopathy to deadly nightshade here. That is what we are discussing now. If you have no interest in them, I suggest you don't join in. Stephen B Streater (talk) 18:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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


 * I've asked a few other contributors, whose opinion I respect and who seem to have a clear understanding of past policy debates to weigh in, to wit: Slimvirgin and Blueboar. I would note for all editors above, that this process is not to conclude what we've previously decided, but rather the possibility of coming to a new conclusion or opening the process to further consensus-gathering to reach a clearer interpretation or possible new policy language to clarify the situation. I.E. it's a process, not a judgement. Wjhonson (talk) 20:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Do have any examples of where this makes a difference? LinaMishima (talk) 21:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


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


 * And with this statement, we know exactly where this view is coming from: According to The Oxford Book of Health Foods, Deadly nightshade "is included... in homeopathic preparations for acne, boils, and sunburns". I don't think it is a minority view that DN is used like this; rather I think it is a minority view that it is a scientifically effective treatment. But we are not saying that. Are we? -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 22:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


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


 * Does anyone outside of homeopathy care?
 * Academic botany books
 * Rheumatology, one of the most highly regarded Medical journals
 * University of Marland Medical Center
 * Warts -- for warts of any location except plantar.
 * Prostatitis - specifically if there is a forked stream of urine
 * Belladonna -- for seizures that occur in individuals with a high fever
 * Lupus - Thuja occidentalis -
 * Lyme - *
 * Whitman College - (Top ranked) Enviro studies dept.
 * Cedars-Sinai Medical Center - When the prostate is enlarged -
 * Would you like more? --Anthon01 (talk) 23:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


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


 * Well, most people don't care about most things in Wikipedia. If this is a use of Deadly Nightshade popular enough to be verifiable (which it appears to be), it deserves mention (probably under its own section: Homeopathic use).  S  B Harris 22:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Right on. Though I can see how having its own section might possibly be giving it too much weight. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 23:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure having your own section header per se confers the caché of importance (like the "rich sardine"- just one per can...") A seperate section header can also be simply a separation for topics that don't fit with others. You can view as being like the wall of a leper colony. It's more the length of discussion that needs to vaguely correlate with relative minority interests. And of course these things are hard to balance. Does once great historical interest balance minor present interest? And if so, how much? Depends on how much ancient history interests you. "Interest" always has a subjective component. Wikipedia rages with an ongoing war between the classicists ("Arisotle's essays are more important than Nintendo Wii games, even if more people DO care about Wii!"), vs. popularists. My own feeling is that the way to maximize the happiness of both classes, is to put it ALL in, somewhere. That's the luxury of a non-paper encyclopedia.  S  B Harris 23:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Your logic is sound, Sbharris. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 00:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Just sticking your finger in the air and saying that something is interesting is rather a subjective way of deciding what goes in here. Different people will have different views. We look for independent third parties who think information is worth adding. If homeopathy is so important to deadly nightshade, there should be many deadly nightshade articles outside homeopathy which give homeopathy some prominence. I haven't seen a single one yet. Stephen B Streater (talk) 08:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

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


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


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


 * My apologies for posting Thuja data before. Please note, Belladonna is deadly nightshade.
 * U of SF - those most commonly used in the treatment of headache pain are belladonna
 * Belladonna and Bryonia  are classic homeopathic remedies often used for an inflamed appendix
 * University of Maryland Medical Center
 * Ear infection -
 * Belladonna - for throbbing headaches that come on suddenly
 * Infantile colic -
 * sinus congestion and headache -
 * and 28 more -
 * University of Chicago Medical Center
 * Oregon health and Science University
 * University of NH
 * Cedar-Sinai - Urinary Tract Infection -
 * Uof T Medical -  Belladonna (Deadly Nightshade) is used when the classic symptoms of inflammation are present: pain, heat, erythema and swelling.
 * Cornell U. - throbbing headache
 * 
 * MedlinePlus - helps in IBS -
 * Nat Cancer Inst - Dictionary - exhibits antiinflammatory activity -
 * Clinical Trials.gov - ongoing study -
 * This is just a small sampling of independent articles which discuss homeopathic belladonna a.k.a. deadly nightshade. Anthon01 (talk) 13:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Some of these, such as University of Maryland have some good points. The page discusses appendicitis. It includes However, no scientific literature supports the use of homeopathy for appendicitis indicating that it is not a homeopathic source, but it does still think it worthwhile including: Belladonna and Bryonia are classic homeopathic remedies often used for an inflamed appendix, which according to the strictest interpretation of my rule would indicate that homeopathic Belladonna could be included in the appendicitis article. It is still possible that homeopathic treatment of appendicitis is so marginal a use of belladonna that it doesn't warrant a mention in the belladonna article. So to summarise, these medical articles are not conclusive for including homeopathy in the belladonna article unless it is also shown that homeopathic medicine is an important use of belladonna - what has been shown is that belladonna is important in homeopathy. The easiest way to show this is to find a book which discusses belladonna, which talks about uses in homeopathy. Nevertheless, one argument which hasn't been used is that a certain amount of space is allocated to medicinal uses in the WP article and also in general medical references, and so it would be reasonable to mirror this proportion of medical use in the WP article (provided this was enough to make a coherent entry). Stephen B Streater (talk) 16:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * For godssake! I'm an opponent of homeopathy (as you see from my userpage), but I'm also a big believer in fighting hypocrisy. Wikipedia is full of articles about odd and superstitious things, including all articles related to religion. And articles referencing religous ideas in articles about OTHER things! What counts is not the "importance" of this stuff (that's subjective), but the frequency of mention of these ideas in verifiable sources. If you google "belladonna", the FIRST reference that comes up, is a homeopathic one! And there is a "belladonna + homeopathy" link referenced as a major one from there. That pretty much means the use warrents a line in the belladonna wiki, end of argument. I don't care if the use is wrongheaded and crazy and stupid and quackish. It's done, and done frequently enough to have all kinds of commercial links. Wikipedia is about what humans DO, not what they SHOULD do. As a rationalist, I don't think people should join the Scientologists or the Mormons, or pay any attention to Fatwas or Talmudic arguments, but (guess what?) my personal opinions in the matter doesn't count, insofar as encyclopedia-worthiness. Enough people disagree with me that their opinions should be represented HERE. S  B Harris 21:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * When I looked up belladonna in Google, the top non sexual/WP hit I got was this, which is a long article about deadly nightshade which doesn't mention homeopathy at all, despite a long medical section. You may believe that homeopathic use of belladonna is common or important, but then you may like to explain why none of the (non-specifically-homeopathic) articles mention homeopathy. My explanation is that homeopathy is a self-promoting industry which publishes a lot of propaganda (in non reliable sources) so they get high up in the Google rankings - but that they are basically irrelevant. If they are as important as you say, there must be many reliable articles about belladonna which talk about homeopathic uses. But the ones I have listed before, and this most recent one, do not even mention the homeopathic use of belladonna. All the ones I have found so far ignore homeopathy, which leads me to believe the article should to. And just because some articles contain rubbish doesn't meant that the one I am working on should too. Rather, all unsupported irrelevant or marginal information should be removed from articles making them shorter, cleaner and clearer. Stephen B Streater (talk) 21:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You missed this "Hahnemann proved that tincture of Belladonna given in very small doses will protect from the infection of scarlet fever, and at one time Belladonnna leaves were held to be curative of cancer, when applied externally as a poultice, either fresh or dried and powdered." Now, what say you? Anthon01 (talk) 21:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That first sentence is a tad dubious, which may remove it as a reliable source. Stephen might have wrongly identified it as one. Jefffire (talk) 21:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Predictably he'll say he doesn't believe it, even if the article says it. BTW, I'm a bit astounded that the top reference on google has moved to the "sponsored links" side, just in the hour since I checked it last. Does that mean this change happened just today? At any rate, it's advertising. Apparently the only advertising that links to belladonna, if you search google for that single word. And it's a homeopathic pharmacy . You can't "ignore" homeopathy any more than you can ignore astrology. So what if it's self-promoting? So is every politician, even the bad ones. That doesn't make them non-encyclopedic. S  B Harris 21:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * A reasonable guess. But actually my problem with this is that the very small doses mentioned in the article are not homeopathic doses, which would be billions of times smaller. The article is not talking about homeopathy. Stephen B Streater (talk) 22:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I missed this comment. If you are correct, then Hahnemann was poisoning his patients. Anthon01 (talk) 01:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * In fact this reference to Hahnemann was clearly about a homeopathic remedy. Anthon01 (talk) 02:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. The figures quoted for the eye of 1/50000 grain are very small and given as safe. As the part you are referring to talks about scarlet fever, this is relevant - an account of early controlled trials to test the efficacy of belladonna to help scarlet fever (mentioning the earlier homeopathic claims): Begbie concludes: It is our opinion that experience has altogether failed to recommend the employment of belladonna, and that we should now be prepared to abandon the practice, as not only insufficient but absurd. (Begbie 1855, p 101). Just because something was incorrectly thought to be helpful does not merit its inclusion in an encyclopaedia. Stephen B Streater (talk) 08:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


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


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

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


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


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

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


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


 * Permit me - with all due respect - to show a possible flaw in your comparison using Jamie Oliver. Jamie Oliver is a person notable for cooking. Much like Samuel Hahnemann is a person notable for homeopathy. Now your comparison would be applicable if we were trying to include information about Hahnemann in this article. But we are not. We are trying to include information about his profession. So, using your analogy, would we be more likely to see mention of "cooking" in the beans article or "beans" in cooking article? Clearly - and you can check this out for yourself to be true - cooking (as a use) is mentioned in the beans article, but beans are not mentioned in the cooking article. A direct comparison reveals that homeopathy (as a use) should be mentioned in the belladonna article, while mentioning belladonna in the homeopathy article would be a little too specific. There's really no beans about it. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 10:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


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


 * Actually I have already found such a book (a non-homeopathic book, not the non-cooking book). Remember The Oxford Book of Health Food? I found this quite readily. So in your opinion, can we include the info now? -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 18:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


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


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


 * Perhaps the sentence could read as such: According to The Oxford Book of Health Foods, Belladonna "is included... in homeopathic preparations for acne, boils, and sunburns" however "there is no experimental evidence to support the use of belladonna in homeopathic medicine." Sound reasonable? -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 21:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I really don't see the need for so many qualifiers. Jefffire (talk) 21:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * What would be your suggested wording? -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 22:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The reference will make it clear where it comes from. We could say: Belladonna is included in homeopathic preparations for acne, boils, and sunburns despite the absence of scientific support for its use. Stephen B Streater (talk) 08:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * How significant is the absence of evidence? Have studies disconfirmed or just not been performed? &mdash;Whig (talk) 08:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Studies have been performed for various claimed uses, and have all showed no discernable effect. I quoted an early one a few days ago. When making medical claims, the onus is on those making the claims to provide evidence that they are not just talking rubbish. We can't include a claim in this encyclopaedia just because some one said it.Stephen B Streater (talk) 08:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No, of course we cannot include non V/RS claims. But it goes both directions, we can't make non V/RS negative claims either. &mdash;Whig (talk) 09:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Given the source we are using, I think Stephen B Streater's wording is acceptable. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 15:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "eye of newt and toe of frog, wool of bat, and tongue of dog are frequently included in witch's brews, despite the absence of scientific support for their use."  do you see the problem here? As soon as we say, "witch's brews", it is unnecessary to go further and point out that there is no scientific support.  It is a statement that those things are included as ingredients, not a statement that witch's brews are effective.  The question of  whether or not witch's brews are effective does not even arise. But are witch's brews effective? Res ipsa loquitur.  Dlabtot (talk) 16:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, but my point is that the source which we are using for Belladonna actually does say: There is no experimental evidence to support the use of belladonna in homeopathic medicine. I figured why not include it? Especially if it is a compromise that will appease those otherwise wishing to keep this information off the page. Of course, if a reliable source was produced which negated the statement - a source which showed that there is experimental evidence to support the use of belladonna in homeopathy - then, of course the statement should be removed. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 17:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree - later experimental evidence trumps a prior lack of experimental evidence. The difference between witches brews and homeopathy is that some claim that homeopathy is supported by science, so a clear statement it is not is required. Putting homeopathic uses in WP automatically gives them some credence, and we wouldn't want people to think that the homeopathic claims were scientifically supported when they are not. PS The recent reduction in obsolete medicine section solves another undue weight issue! Stephen B Streater (talk) 19:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm speaking strictly in terms of what is the best style to use. Homeopathy is quackery; rational people understand that; non-rational people aren't going to change their minds because every time homeopathy is mentioned in Wikipedia (if ever, lol), we add a disclaimer that says it has no scientific basis. Such a disclaimer is simply unnecessary. But I recognize that given the ongoing battle raging on many pages, questions of what the best style for an encyclopedia to use are considered somewhat secondary. Dlabtot (talk) 19:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


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


 * I think the consensus (though not necessarily unanimous view) is now to include a proportionate mention. The warning balances the fact of the entry. I have added this to the article (!) as I think any further debate will be more balanced between different views from this point rather than the lack of mention position of the article. Stephen B Streater (talk) 19:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * To answer your specific point, the article in the original source thought it was worth mentioning, and as we are using this as our reliable source, I think we can safely mention it too. Not mentioning it may risk accusations of editorial bias. Stephen B Streater (talk) 19:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Scientific justification
I don't understand how a statement about people's beliefs or behavior could be regarded as non-fringe only if the belief or behavior itself is considered scientifically justified. If the use of belladonna for folk or homeopathic remedies is a significant human use of the plant, and this can be reliably documented, judgements about the reasonableness of the beliefs or behavior involved would not seem to matter. Since human beliefs and behvior are often characterized as unreasonable, omitting statements about them based on opinions of their accuracy/value, rather than on objective considerations such as observed frequency of occurrance, would seem to pose WP:NPOV difficulties. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 19:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 20:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. But here we can do better, by providing a wikilink to the article about the beliefs, so people can explore the idea for themselves. Stephen B Streater (talk) 20:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There are editors who will not have it, and so it is their on POV that will prevail. Anthon01 (talk) 20:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with SBS; we should provide a link to homeopathy so interested readers can go there and learn more - that's the advantage of an electronic encyclopedia! -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 20:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * And I don't want to get in revert wars with editors who seem to be ignoring NPOV in this particular instance. Edits such as this seem to me to be disregarding NPOV (and V and RS). -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 20:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Does the inclusion of this text in anyway violate WP:NPOV
There is a lot of talk above. More editors favor inclusion than not. Those that are against inclusion maintain that the NPOV policy should be interpreted such that a source must be presented which shows not that Deadly Nightshade is notable to Homeopathy but rather that Homeopathy is notable to Deadly Nightshade. I have asked for passages from NPOV which justify this rationale and still have not see an answer. Meanwhile, many references have been provided all confirming that Deadly Nightshade is in fact used in the preparation of a homeopathic remedy. This usage has been notable enough to be researched in a few dozen studies published in notable scientific journals, and written about in both homeopathic and non-homeopathic books; most relevant to this discussion is its mention in the Oxford Book of Health Food and its description in Medline. Using these sources, we can easily devise a sentence which in effect would read: Deadly nightshade is included in homeopathic preparations for acne, boils, and sunburns despite the absence of scientific support for its use. It's neutrally worded from the sources and totally verified. The question which we would like answered here remains: Does the inclusion of this text at Deadly nightshade in anyway violate WP:NPOV? If so, how? Please be specific. If not, can we please include this text and move onto something better? Please! :-) -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 03:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * To be honest, it's no worse than any of the other mentions of uses for Deadly Nightshade (though whether that section at all should be there is another debate). If those stay in, there's nothing wrong with a mention of homeopathy. The reason, I suspect, that there's such a big deal about this is because there was a massive push by a group of pro-homeopathy editors to include mentions of homeopathy across the encyclopedia, in only tangentially-related articles. If these mentions had been made by neutral editors, I doubt there'd be much of an issue. But then the "defense" started to overflow, and so now you have another group trying to eradicate mentions of homeopathy wherever possible. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 04:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Chicken or egg --- who started it seems pretty irrelevant. Thank you for weighing in on the question of whether inclusion of this material is appropriate. I agree with your assessment that it is.  Dlabtot (talk) 05:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


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


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

Since you ask for more input, the criterion for inclusion of any mention of this minority subject which lacks mainstream scientific support is, in WP:NPOV terms, its significance to the topic of the article. The implications of WP:SOAP for advocacy of ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view, such as esoteric claims about medicine, are clarified in WP:FRINGE. The need for notability is set out in WP:FRINGE, "In order to be notable, a fringe theory should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory. Even debunking or disparaging references are adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents. .. Theories should receive attention in Wikipedia in proportion to the level of detail in the sources from which the article is written." From WP:FRINGE, "Conjectures that have not received critical review from the scientific community or that have been rejected should be excluded from articles about scientific subjects." So, the significance to the subject has to be verified by third party reliable sources independent of the proponents of homeopathy. Where that's established, both the homeopathic claim and the mainstream view of such treatment have to be shown to avoid undue weight, and the formulation shown above appears to be on the right lines. . . dave souza, talk 22:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * We have discussed this in detail on another thread, Homeopathy cannot be described as fringe in that it is used by millions of people and is part of the mainstream of medicine in some countries. &mdash;Whig (talk) 22:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study." That description applies to homeopathy in relation to mainstream medical science, regardless of what proportion of people use the medication in one or two countries. The term fringe may seem unfortunate, but that's what the guidance page is called. .. dave souza, talk 23:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Except, as I have pointed out, homeopathy is perfectly within the mainstream view in its field of study in India. &mdash;Whig (talk) 23:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)