Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Archive 34

ArbComm decision
I have added the following statement to the FAQ on pseudoscience:
 * ArbCom also ruled that neutral point of view requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience.

ScienceApologist has removed it, arguing that "Legitimate" is hard to define and that Arbcomm doesn't legislate policy anyway.

I disagree with these arguments: all words in policies are difficult to define; moreover, they don't have to be precisely defined (see The rules are principles, not civil code or exacting law). So, nobody needs to legislate anything. The arguments presented by ScienceApologist are not relevant.

On the other hand, ArbComm IS a firm, reliable source for FAQ relating to policies, and that ruling is directly relevant to the question here. Moreover, the statement I added follows other relevant statements from ArbComm. Does ScienceApologist suggests to remove the other statements too ? No. So, let's be consistent.

Any comments ? Pcarbonn (talk) 16:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see any merit in doubling up on what is already there: "Questionable science" and "Alternative theoretical formulations". It would be redundant. What you included is simply repeating what was already said (according to Wikipedia) to not be pseudoscience. The FAQ is about what to do when it is pseudoscience, not what to do when it isn't. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 17:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Neal. The proposed addition doesn't really say anything that's not already covered.  Arbcomm is a reliable source for policy interpretations, but the issue in question has been addressed.  I'd also avoid words like legitimate since that requires a value judgment from the editor and we want that value judgment from a reliable source.  SDY (talk) 17:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, what they said. I'm reverting back per consensus. Hope everyone's okay with that. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Woops. Sorry. For some reason, my watchlist did not show your comments, so I had missed them.  I'm fine with the consensus decision.  Pcarbonn (talk) 21:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Is this original reserch?
Are the three following statments too POV and OR?

"During this period the Broncos had only two losing seasons, were AFC champions five times and Super Bowl champions for two consecutive years".

"They did not make the playoffs and had only two winning seasons".

"They also experienced their two worst seasons ever, winning only two of fourteen games in both 1963 and 1964".Buc (talk) 06:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not OR if you provide a source for the results. As to whether it is neutral, that is a harder question. The inclusion of the word "only" certainly does editorialise rather. It might be enough, depending on what other editors think, to change "only" to "just" which is less strong in my opinion. Ideally, though, you would find an article written by a respected sports commentator providing an account of the team's performance through different periods, since you can then cite their interpretation of the stats, rather than your own. Hope this helps.  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 21:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "Worst" could also be softened, I suppose. I mean, I think "worst" in this case means the season with the most losses; however, "worst" could be subjective. Maybe they played really hard that year but were just unlucky. I don't know. Maybe just spell it out: They lost more games in the 1963 and 1964 seasons than any other season, winning only two of fourteen games.
 * Please note that WP:NPOVN may provide a better forum for addressing your concerns. -- Levine2112 discuss 21:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Suggest discusssing original research issues on the Original research talk page. You'll get a better audience. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 23:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Or try WP:NOR/N. -- Levine2112 discuss 17:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

"Concerned parties"
I notice that in the reverting, the change of

was changed back to

This was discussed previously here and seemed to be uncontroversial. Is there anybody who would object to me reinstating this change? Tim Vickers (talk) 14:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll put this back in. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. --Shirahadasha (talk) 18:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

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


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


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


 * There is a Birthright citizenship in the United States of America article which has a wordy but neutral title. Considering that there is no definition in a respected dictionary, it's at the very least a neologism, which is something that's specifically avoided.  SDY (talk) 21:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know how long words have to be in the English language before they are no longer considered neologisms. Anchor child has been used since at least 1987 (that's the earliest I could find it in the Los Angeles Times Magazine (Dec 13)) and Anchor baby has been used since at least 1997 (in the Providence Journal Bulletin (Jan 7)). Words that are more recent and which are used in Wikipedia include blue state, red state, swing state, corporatocracy, and Islamofascism.  -198.97.67.57 (talk) 18:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

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

Neutrality is, unfortunately, subjective. That reliable sources have indicated that the term is pejorative is pretty strong evidence that it's a phrase to avoid. SDY (talk) 01:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * According to Wikipedia policy, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a convincing arguement. Specifically, the policy states, "When used correctly though, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes. The problem arises when legitimate comparisons are disregarded without thought because "other stuff existing is not a reason to keep/create/etc." -198.97.67.56 (talk) 16:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The essence of otherstuff is essentially that the arguments must stand on their own merits, not simply because similar pages exist. At any rate, notability isn't the question to answer on this particular talk page, so let's get back to neutrality.  The article currently has reliable sources calling the term pejorative.  Unless there are other reliable sources that dispute that assertion, I would hold that the term is not neutral.  Calling Mahmoud Ahmadinejad an Islamofascist equally obviously fails NPOV.  SDY (talk) 01:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The article has quotes sources which aren't reliable - in the Chicago Times article I couldn't find the statement which it is suppossed to support, can you? But that same article does state that Doug Rivlin, a spokesman for the National Immigration Forum (a leading immigrants rights group) said he doesn't consider the term particularly offensive.  The Sun-Times article is by an author for whom I can find no other article written other than this one - is someone with unknown credentials who wrote one solitary article a reliable source?-198.97.67.56 (talk) 17:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

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


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

NPOV in general and pressure on publications
scientists aren't stupid by any stretch, but isn't this furthering our notion of science as a cosmology?

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

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


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

Regarding the term "myth"
I wanted to ask if it would be ok to add a note about about the word myth, similarly to the "fundamentalism" note already in the FAQ. It's a frequent concern on many talk pages of articles that use the term, creation myth for instance. Some articles editors have gone so far as to add an entire section on it within the article, for example Islamic mythology and a similar section was just trimmed from the Christian mythology page. It's also justified on pages like WP:WTA, and several templates have been made that mention this too. It seems the complaints are generally based on neutrality, so I'm hoping a small note here is ok instead of the mess that is out there now. If it is ok, I don't think an entire paragraph is necessary - maybe something similar to the template that is being used on several of the pages? Ben (talk) 11:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you be more specific? Asking if you can add a note doesn't tell us much unless you say what you think the note should say. A lot of the complaints about the term are simply invalid and used as an attempt to push POV in articles, and I would most strongly oppose any note worded in a way to coddle those people, for example. DreamGuy (talk) 15:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know the best way to word it, so all I could do was suggest the wording used in this template. I'm not trying to coddle POV pushers, I'm just hoping that a note here will allow editors to point users who don't like the word to a central point, and free them up from having to deal with it on an article by article basis (and there are many such articles) by writing up templates, entire sections in articles, etc. Cheers, Ben (talk) 22:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * If you start flagging religious myths, will you also flag Camelot and Mickey Mouse? To flag a story as "myth" is actually a POV. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. If there are published authors who denied the veracity of a story, NPOV says you must include their opinions too. If an article complies with NPOV, there is no need for a flag. Emmanuelm (talk) 13:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't intend to flag anything. In fact, I intended to start removing templates and notices from articles that discussed use of the term if there was a central place (ie. here) discussing it in general. Ben (talk) 14:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

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

Why is there no article called Neutrality?
Cross-posted in Talk:Objectivity (philosophy)

Neutral and Neutrality lead to a disambig page, not to an article. Neutrality (philosophy) is a red link. There is an article called Objectivity (philosophy), and the disambig page actually directs the reader to it, as if the two concepts were synonymous. But in the Objectivity article, there is no section called Objectivity vs. Neutrality. This absence is hard to understand from Wikipedia, the champion of neutrality. Is this the result of a policy? Emmanuelm (talk) 14:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ironically, it may have been deleted due to multiple users complaining of the article not being written from a neutral point of view. Man, that would be so funny (yet sad) if true :-|. But to be honest, I don't know. It may be down to the reason I jokingly gave above, or to something else. Maybe you could request for someone to start the topic? Or start it yourself? You may on the other hand want to ask someone like Jimbo. Plus, I would hardly describe Wikipedia as The Champion of neutrality, for neutrality is (to many) the fatal flaw in this site. So many controversial topics have been given varying degrees of protection to stop people adding extreemist views. Thats why so many people disuade others from using Wiki as a source for issues such as Adoption or Euthanasia. Because you'll always find people replacing one bias with another. A Prodigy Talk  21:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


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

New policy proposal and draft help
Scientific standards

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


 * That sounds like an excellent suggestion to me. S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 19:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


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

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

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


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

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

Facts & opinions
The policy says (more than once, I think) that we have to give due weight to all opinions in reliable sources. WP:RS defines a reliable source as one with a reputation for fact-checking. Can anyone explain why a reputation for fact-checking is relevant to the status of opinions? Peter jackson (talk) 16:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Because Wikipedia policies don't distinguish between opinions and fact. See WP:V. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


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

Recent rewording of UNDUE
I don't think the following is clear at all. It could even be read as contradictory to the preceeding paragraph: "Minority views appropriately receive full attention on pages specifically devoted to them—Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. But on such pages, though a view should be be described fully in the necessary detail,, some appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint should be made where relevant; such pages are not intended to rewrite majority-view content solely from the perspective of the minority view." So I reverted it: "Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them—Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. But on such pages, though a view may be described in detail, appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint should be made wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view." Seems like this should be worked out here. --Ronz (talk) 00:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


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


 * lol - please, let's not make it a gauntlett. I'd rather just discuss the issue.   Let me go through what you said point by point:
 * "My fear is that this subtle change in wording may mislead some editors into thinking that we can present minority opinions microcosmically on their own pages without any other text to distract from their presentation." That, I think, is a valid fear.  the balance I was trying to strike here was between articles which solely present the minority-view to the exclusion of every other perspective, and articles that are primarily critiques of the minority view to the exclusion of the view itself.  however, when you look at the entire sentence in context - "Minority views can be presented in articles specifically devoted to them, since Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. In such articles, the minority view should be described in detail, with appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint" - it seems clear that this would not be a problem
 * "though a view may be described in detail" to "minority view should be described in detail" - since we are tqalking about minority views in this paragraph, I can't really see the difference between these two phrases (except that the latter is clearer).
 * removing 'wherever relevant' - that's a stylistic change I could go either way on.
 * adding "nor to rewrite minority view positions from the perspective of the majority" - you are incorrect where you assume that the "framing of the minority opinion will always be in the lens of the majority". there are always sources which will frame the minority opinion in its own perspective.  these sources are perfectly valid for establishing what the main beliefs of the minority view are, and can then be tempered and given perspective by including mainstream sources.  the problem comes when you try to talk about a minority viewpoint only from the perspective of mainstream sources; that can only produce a biased misrepresentation of what the minority position actually is.
 * that being said, I think the revised version is clearly better, though I can see how it might need some revisions. -- Ludwigs 2  19:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


 * you're just spewing gas. if you'd take the time to discuss the matter, you'd see that I'm not arguing with you anywhere near as much as you think I am.  please pull yourself together and try again.  -- Ludwigs 2  22:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "usually it's better to read what was written before responding, rather than just spouting off what ever happens to be in your head at the moment" and "you're just spewing gas." are two comments that are both uncivil and needlessly personal. Please consider striking them. I also commented on your edit-summary attacks in an edit summary of my own. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ludwigs, you've been blocked what 2,3,4 times over the past couple of months? You shouldn't be attacking anyone like you just did.  Please refactor.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 00:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I see no reason to refactor (except possibly the part about spewing gas, which is unnecessarily colorful). the fact of the matter is, SA's response has little or no bearing on the issue at hand, and is a gross misrepresentation of what I said. how would you have dealt with that problem?  I could explain it again, if you like...  -- Ludwigs 2  01:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Questions on UNDUE

 * As long as WP:UNDUE is in a fluid state, there are issues we have discussed elsewhere which would do well to be addressed and maybe clarified if there is enough agreement. Such as, to what extent does UNDUE restrict the content of an article about a minority view? Does it exclude any sources per se? Etc. PSWG1920 (talk) 04:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * UNDUE is not in a fluid state. --Ronz (talk) 15:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I meant since UNDUE is getting considerable attention, perhaps now would be a good time to get opinions on those questions, and clarify it if there is enough agreement. PSWG1920 (talk) 15:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your suggestions, PSWG1920. Sorry. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:UNDUE concerns the amount of coverage different views of a topic should receive, and as such is nothing to do with whether a given article should exist, or whether a particular source should be used. I think it is a mistake to try to set out how each wikipedia policy affects each other policy, not least because there are so many of them.  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 15:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Repeating PSWG1920's questions: --Ronz (talk) 15:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "to what extent does UNDUE restrict the content of an article about a minority view?"
 * "Does it exclude any sources per se?"


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

ScienceApologist (talk) 16:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As all three of Wikipedia's core content policies note, in their leads, it is a serious mistake to interpret any of them in isolation from the others. The content of all articles, including those on minority views, is governed by WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. Using a poor-quality source may violate WP:V; using it to advance a novel conclusion may violate WP:NOR; or giving it equal time to "rebut" the conclusions of much more reliable sources may violate WP:NPOV. Generic questions about policy are almost always futile, because the applications are often content- and subject-specific. That's what article talk pages are for. The policies aren't ends in themselves, but means to build a serious, respectable reference work. MastCell Talk 18:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think that's quite correct, MastCell. the content of articles is not governed by policy; if anything, the content of articles is governed by consensus, and policy is used to help settle disputes where consensus fails.  in an article about a minority view, it seems reasonable that any reference which gives a clear description of the minority view should be acceptable, so long as that view is not presented as true, or as validated or accepted by any group other than its proponents.  -- Ludwigs 2  18:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * No. While de facto consensus rules on content, de jure consensus cannot overrule policy. This is most prominent in cases of WP:BLP but it applies elsewhere. Please read WP:CONEXCEPT. A reference which gives a clear description of the minority view may be acceptable if the reference is reliable. Even if some random guy writes a webpage on some minority view that is very clear, that is not an acceptable source for an article on the minority view unless it can somehow be established that the source lives up to WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:NOR. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Well said. --Ronz (talk) 18:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


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


 * MastCell. first off, I don't think anyone suggested that we use a webpage "some random guy" made; that would be a bit silly, and a complete strawman argument. that aside, consensus de jure can, should, and does override policy when policy is extended beyond where it's supposed to apply.  as it says in wp:reliable:
 * noting the important "only", of course, this suggests that such views are perfectly reliable sources for expressing minority views in minority topic articles. trying to exclude them would be a narrow and over-extended use of policy which ought to be ignored.  As long as the comments about primary sourcing in wp:primary are kept in mind, where's the problem?
 * Yak. did you seriously just suggest that consensus is only a tool? wp:consensus says "Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making", which seems pretty specific.  -- Ludwigs 2  22:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No, the "only" is your insertion, which renders the statement quite different than what I originally meant. Your WP quote actually suggests it is indeed a very powerful tool (or perhaps metatool, if you wish to split hairs), which I agree with.  But it is not infallible (like, say, the law of gravity); WP:IAR exists as an acknowledgement of that, as well as that "adhering to policy" isn't either (though both work just fine an awful lot of the time).  Baccyak4H (Yak!) 04:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Nothing is infallible, and wikipedia is never going to be 'right', and basically I agree with you.  I just start to frown a bit when I hear editors start to talk about the various core policies as though they give some special access to the truth.  NPOV, NOP, and VERIFIABILTY may be really good rules, but they don't quite constitute a holy trinity, if you know what I mean...

Application to articles about a minority view
My main point is that UNDUE could more clearly distinguish its application to articles about a minority view from its application to more general-subject articles. Perhaps it could be split into two subsections? PSWG1920 (talk) 18:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not understand the problem. If the subject is, then the aspects of should be presented in due proportion to their importance to .  Importance is determined by how much attention reliable sources place on that aspect (and not, say, the attention given them by Wikipedia editors that happen to be adherents).  (Please remember that said attention can be positive or negative:  "X is complete garbage because..." is still attention, and it's not just reliable-sources-among-proponents that you survey for this purpose.)
 * If the topic itself is a minority view, then you do not redundantly repeat the majority view at great length – not because we're presenting the minority view as being correct, or as being without critics, or even as being plausible, but because the details of the majority view are largely irrelevant to a description of the minority view (and if they aren't irrelevant, then the articles need to be merged). To give an example, if you have an article on the Beliefs of ancient Romans, you don't fill that article with long descriptions of the beliefs of all other times and cultures (although you may certainly mention them by way of explaining concepts, providing enlightening contrasts, or eludicidating the widely accepted demerits of the beliefs held by ancient residents of Rome, such as the idea that firefighting ought to be run by private companies that wouldn't put out the fire until you agreed to pay their price).
 * What exactly is the problem that we're trying to solve? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. The article that PSWG1920 and Ronz have in common is Bates method, a discredited early-20th century idea that eye exercises could eliminate refractive vision problems.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was just explaining that but there was an edit conflict and now I see there's no need to. UNDUE has been cited there a few times, but it seems to me that most of it is more applicable to whether and to what extent the Bates method merits mention in a more general optometry-related article than what should and shouldn't be in the Bates method article itself. Hence my suggestion for a more clear distinction between UNDUE's application to an article about a minority viewpoint and its application to a more general-subject article. PSWG1920 (talk) 19:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Excellent suggestion: let's do it.

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

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

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


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


 * That's right, but the intrinsic reliability of the source may not be an issue, relative to what the mainstream believes or scientific consensus. One can use a book or article if the source is acknowledged to speak for the field.  Even if it isn't mainstream or scientific.  In other words, reliable sources are relative to the subject being discussed.  We should specifically incorporate this obvious principle, as people often argue that because the source is not reliable in one sense it is not reliable in others. However, if a self published source is acknowledged to speak for a field, it can be so used.  —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 21:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no way a self-published source can speak for a "field". It can speak for the self-publisher (who, in some cases, may encompass the entire group of people who are active in a fringe field). ScienceApologist (talk) 22:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Not true. If 'Mega Corporation' has its own press, publishing under the 'Mega Corporation Press' imprint, then anything that business publishes at MCP is self-published.  Such a publication should also be a highly reliable source for the business' perspective.  It is not possible for a self-published source to simultaneously (a) encompass 100% of the members of a set and (b) not speak for all the members of the set (especially when n=1, as it does in my example).  When "all the publishers" = "all the people in the field", then a self-published book does speak for "all the people in the field."  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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


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


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


 * SA - again, that's a complete strawman argument. reliable sources are (of course) reliable universally, but reliable sources should be presented according to their particular weight in a topic, and within a minority viewpoint article mainstream reliable sources are relatively minor voices compared to a discussion of the minority viewpoint.  a reader who reads a article on an off-beat subject ought to come away from it with FIRST a clear understanding of the perspective of that off-beat subject, and SECOND a recognition of why mainstream sources disregard that subject.  if either is missing, or if the mainstream sourcing prevents a clear understanding of the off-beat topic, then the article is biased.  -- Ludwigs 2  23:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


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


 * again, if you would quit arguing and actually discuss the matter, we would come to an understanding very quickly. I'm not unsympathetic to your position; I'm just trying to introduce some common sense into it.  Obviously, if you have some off-the-wall concept, the best person to describe the off-the-wall concept is someone who advocates for it.  Mainstream sources do not have a lot of insight into off-the-wall concepts, because (again, obviously) mainstream sources think the concept is off-the-wall.  Mainstream sources are necessary to place the off-the-wall concept into proper worldly perspective, but they are not particularly useful for saying what the concept is.  now, you may be of the opinion that off-the-wall concepts don't belong in wikipedia at all (which strikes me as opposed to wp:notability and wp:notcensored, but may be worth discussion), but if they are included, they should be described accurately and critiqued fairly.  correct?  -- Ludwigs 2  01:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


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


 * ok, I'll take this as non-argumentative and respond in kind. my concern here would be that a mainstream source (except in those cases where they are being particularly careful and sensitive) will present a fringe view exclusively through the lens of mainstream views.  thus, when you get to some of the more demented ideas in the world, mainstream sources will tend to present them simply as demented, and miss the very elements that made that demented idea make sense to its followers.  Advocates don't have that problem: they will present the demented idea as though it were the most perfectly logical thing in the world, and the reader will be able to see how someone might have believed that demented thing.  then the mainstream views can come in to show why it is demented, and the reader will have learned much more than would have been possible simply by reading the mainstream views, while still avoiding the possibility that they might get sucked into the demented worldview.  now if you get a careful and sensitive mainstream source that adequately does the job of presenting the demented view and refuting it, then that source is truly excellent.  but if not, then I think the best way to reach something akin to NPOV is to carefully balance advocates who understand the logic of the demented view and mainstream sources who can keep things firmly rooted on the planet earth.  does that make sense?  -- Ludwigs 2  02:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

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


 * I think SA is getting distracted by the issue of sourcing. WEIGHT is about how many sentences are presented to each point.  In an article on a minority view, Beliefs of Ancient Romans, or Beliefs of some new sect, or whatever, we should spend more time talking about what the beliefs are than we do about why those beliefs are wrong/rare/rejected.  Agreed?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * well, from things SA (and some of his friends) have said before, I actually think they are hung up on a kind of ontological universalism: i.e. "a minority viewpoint is always and everywhere a minority viewpoint, and should always and everywhere be treated as such". that strikes me as incorrect, since it's clear to me that the significance of any viewpoint has to be relative to the topic being discussed, but...  of course, I could be misinterpreting what they are saying.  -- Ludwigs 2  21:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

balance
I revereted this edit - "and give precedence to those sources that are most reliable and verifiable." to the balance section, because I think it confuses the issue. really I object to the 'give precedence' phrase, which makes it sound as though other perspectives should be discounted. is there a better way to phrase this? -- Ludwigs 2 19:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You also undid edits to UNDUE, which is being discussed above.
 * As far as the changes to balance go, i'm not happy with the wording either. I'm more concerned that it should tie-in WP:OR though. --Ronz (talk) 20:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The entire section is suspect. I've always contended that NPOV != balance. The fact that we have WEIGHT is an indicator of this. Should we maybe get rid of the entire section? Does it add anything? ScienceApologist (talk) 20:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * hmmm... it seems to me that what the section was originally trying to say was an extension of what it says at the top in wp:Neutral_point_of_view.  the extension being that some preference should be given to sources that are attempting to be neutral (as opposed to sources that have a clear bias or agenda).  interesting thought, though I'm not sure how well that could be assessed in a discussion.  is that kind of thing a useful addition?  -- Ludwigs 2  01:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As is often the case, we have no real way of determining which sources are "attempting to be neutral" and which aren't. Unless we have some standards that can help us determine this, I say that this is probably a vestige of an earlier understanding of NPOV. I don't see many people arguing about the neutrality of a source anymore. The issue of WP:RS and WP:V tend to trump those considerations, especially considering our WP:YESPOV ideal. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * oh, I don't know about that. at least, it's fairly clear when a source is not trying to be neutral.  -- Ludwigs 2  21:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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


 * WP:FRINGE answers your concerns about inclusion of minority views, methinks. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I also contend if you have enough WP:RS to verify inclusion, then it moves beyond a minority view.  Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 20:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

You mean, should we describe the viewpoint that Hell is eternal even though it is utterly offensive and wrong? Read WP:NOTABILITY also. However, I like the principle: if it's wrong, it's minority, and doesn't get mentioned. I could use that a lot =D But really, I think you are getting mixed up between fringe views in articles on mainstream views, and fringe views in their own articles (people do that a lot). No, a 1% view would not get mentioned in a mainstream article, or would be given no more than a sentence- if that, and only when the proponents managed to get into a lot of the sources. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 20:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought Hell was other people? Like in that play where the same four or five people are stuck on the same talk page, having the same discussions and the same conflicts over and over again for eternity? Oops, did I say "talk page"? :) MastCell Talk 22:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


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


 * Heh, heh, you funny. Since we seem to agree on the general principle (above sections), and it would be possible to make things clear enough to clean up this whole mess, why not help out? —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 23:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Two words: learned helplessness. MastCell Talk 05:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * lol - it's like I always say - society is a wonderful thing that's ruined because we have to share it with others. we can't omit a view because it's offensive.  we can omit a view because it's not a particularly significant point of view within a particular topic, although (so I think) if the point of view is notable enough to have its own article, then it ought to get a fair reading within that article, if nowhere else. that last point, however, seems to be contested... -- Ludwigs 2  01:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You're right. The last point you made is contested because NPOV != fair. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * SA, if you want to open that can of worms again, let's make a new thread. you know that I think that's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard, right?   -- Ludwigs 2  21:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

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


 * One would think so, but it is all about whether they get the press in the reliable sources. Sorry, but WP works on a level over common sense sometimes, because humans don't. In this case, who determines it's wrong?  As WP editors, we're not supposed to be in that business. —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 05:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Martin, how can we agree on the amount of weight which is due? Agreeing with you that we should not be the judge of what view is correct and what is not; it would seem rediculous nonetheless to give a minority view -which is in error- the weight of e.g. changing every "is" into a "might be" or "is generally assumed".  So, how much support must a minority view have in order that we should treat it as one of the possible perspectives in which we describe an article's subject? Would it be appropriate to name prominent adherents of the minority view by name?  Would it be appropriate to include information which is very important in the eyes of such adherents, but at the same time unimportant when the subject is viewed from the mainstream perspective? I do not see an easy way to reach consensus, especially when such minority views are held by quite a lot of wiki-editors.  &mdash; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 16:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It matters whether the article is about the general subject or specifically about the minority view. If it's about the general subject, the amount of the article dedicated to the minority view depends directly on the importance of minority view.  You determine this directly by considering the amount of attention given the minority group in your reliable sources on the general subject (that is, not reliable sources that are specifically about the minority view).  As a quick rule of thumb, if you've got five good reliable sources on the general subject, and on average about 10% of their attention is on the minority view, then about 10% of Wikipedia's general-subject article should be on the minority view.  This is really not that hard.
 * If, however, you are writing an article specifically dedicated to the minority view, then you look at your reliable sources that are specifically about the minority view, and follow them. Your approach is the same as their approach.  If they generally present the co-dominance of the Invisible Pink Unicorn and the Flying Spaghetti Monster as a normal, reasonable perspective, then you do, too, even though this is the majority view.  If they generally present the minority view of the FSM's supremacy over the IPU as a plausible take on matters, then you do, too.  You just follow your sources.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Almost. Rather, we should present the material from the most reliable sources on the subject, but not "present it as" anything.  Rather, present it as them presenting it as.  And have whatever reference we can find in the sources to its reception in the wider community as well.  It is our duty to give context as well as just present the subject.  However, such context is not where we take a position, and should not take over the presentation of the subject in terms of WEIGHT.  In the past, we have had all of these problems.  Being clear about this subject would eliminate the basis for a lot of problems. —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 20:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪, again, that is the magic of having WEIGHT be relative to the subject of the article. When it is acknowledged as being relative to the article subject, then you just say things without qualifiers, then give the dissenting view (you note dissent in the lead).  You don't have to have the minority view contaminate the majority view.  The reader, upon reading a dissenting view, is not going to go back and think you should have put qualifiers.  You present the majority view relative to the subject of the article, and present the dissenting view relative to its weight in sources on the subject. In both cases, you don't qualify: rather you state the viewpoint, then present the view. I agree with WhatamIdoing on what one would do to determine the relative weight given to each view in an article. If there is stuff which adherents of a minority view  think is important, they can have it in the article on their view, if it's basically notable and sourced.  Sometimes, you get into difficulty, when the minority view is a detailed technical argument, while the majority view is easy to explain.  However, merely stating the minority's conclusion might be enough for the article.  The  article subject will indicate to you what view you present as primary.  In the article on the minority view, that view is primary, and has most weight.   In neither article does WP present a view as right.  —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 20:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * (undent) you know, my own belief is that the sole purpose of an encyclopedia is to inform, and when you look at it that way, this whole issue becomes much less tangled. Any article must inform the reader of those things which are needed to contextually understand a given topic thoroughly.  Fringe ideas are generally not necessary to understand a mainstream view, except where the fringe theory has received enough attention and enough response from mainstream sources that a discussion of it is integral to understanding the topic (e.g., it would be difficult to discuss the theory of evolution without some mention of the Christian responses to evolution theory).  bias is simply a dearth or excess of pertinent information.  WEIGHT discussions should always center around whether a particular thought informs the reader about the topic, and to what extent that information is necessary to understanding the topic.  -- Ludwigs 2  21:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, but it's misunderstood a lot. For example, consider this quotation, from an admin: "In [the] Intelligent design [article], SPOV should be dominant, but NPOV says we also have to explain what intelligent design proponents claim for NPOV."   Such views are based on thinking of WEIGHT as relative to larger entities, in this case the field evolutionary science.  Of course, we generally have weight relative to the subject.  Otherwise articles would be gibberish (think Atheism).  But that principle is so deeply ingrained that people don't notice they are doing it.  Thus, they don't know what to say when words like "mainstream" are interpreted in different ways, or when the instructions about "minority" versus "majority" views which are meant to apply to articles on mainstream subjects, are then applied to articles on fringe subjects.  In that case, no one knows what to say to the argument that in an article on a fringe subject, the main majority view which has the most weight (coverage) is the view from outside the field- often the critical view. —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 22:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

After much discussion of WP:UNDUE...
...We don't seem to have "solved the problem". Perhaps I can offer an outside view. Please consider the following hypothetical timeline of events:-
 * 1) An editor sees something they think needs changing in an article, so they boldly change it.
 * 2) A different editor reverts the change, citing policy WP:XYZ.
 * 3) Several editors discuss the matter on the article Talk page.
 * 4) A consensus emerges that, as currently written, WP:XYZ does indeed support the reversion of the original change.
 * 5) Other editors join the discussion, and, amid cries of "zOMG, WP:XYZ says what??!!1" and "Dude, that is so not how we do things, whatever WP:XYZ says,"  consensus is reached that the text of the policy must be updated to again be a widely accepted standard that all editors should follow.
 * WP:XYZ is changed.

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

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


 * Atheism is a fringe view? I would characterise it as a religious position or belief. Anyway, that's neither here nor there. The question is, where are all the editors who've agreed that NPOV is wrong and needs to be updated? If you're not happy with my little timeline, perhaps a quote from the policy template: When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus.   S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 11:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It's a fringe belief. No one here has even said NPOV is wrong.  What are you talking about? —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 22:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Martin, calling Atheism a 'fringe belief' is bound to tick some people off (since Atheists are bound to think that their beliefs are realistic and that religious people are mildly deluded... - it's hard for people to get perspective on these issues). -- Ludwigs 2 23:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I doubt that any atheist is unaware that the belief is not widely shared. Why would an atheist be ticked off to be reminded that the rest of the world is apparently full of misguided, nostalgic, or delusional people?  Every fringe-ist believes that he knows the Truth™.  The fact of general opposition is neither a surprise nor a deterrent to them.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * By the interpretation of WEIGHT held by some here, we should write it from the standpoint of the majority, and that means from the standpoint that God exists, and Athiests are deluded. Those people have to realize that WEIGHT is a two way street, and that interpreting it relative to the subject of the article is the only way to protect all articles- whatever their subject material. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 00:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * in an article about 'religions of the world' Atheism should get at most a passing reference. in an article about 'belief in God' Atheism becomes an important minority position.  in an article about 'Atheism' Atheism is the main show.  I think you and I (and most sensible people) recognize that.  I was just pointing out that calling it 'fringe' was bound to tick some people off.  honestly, I dislike this whole 'fringe/pseudoscience/tiny-minority' attitude that gets pushed unmercifully here.  these labels are not defined to be informative, but merely to be dismissive, and as a general rule the people who push them aren't interested in informing the reader of anything, but rather in framing the debate so that the reader is predisposed to their point of view.  very sad...  -- Ludwigs 2  01:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It's so hard to get participation around here that sometimes I resort to stepping on people's POVs just to get them to say ouch =D
 * I agree with what you say. I sent you an email once and got no response, but would like to be in contact that way sometimes, if you are willing.  Did I say this before?  If you don't want to, tell me I won't be insulted. Otherwise, just contact me. —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ ——

04:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Martin - I mostly use that account for playing chess, so I might have missed you email. let me check.  :-)  -- Ludwigs 2  21:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it must have been 2 or 3 months ago... —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 01:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the differences between presenting a scientific dispute and a religious dispute are self-evident to anyone with any common sense, and do not need to be spelled out in policy (if they do, then Ahura Mazda help us). It's therefore hard to regard an argument conflating the two as anything but a strawman. There is definitely an issue with excess "debunking", but do you guys recognize that there is a major problem with the promotion of fringe ideas on Wikipedia? We need to find a balance. I would submit that excess promotion of fringe ideas is the greater evil - it not only strikes at Wikipedia's fundamental goal to become a serious and respectable reference work, but the promotion of fringe misinformation has the potential to cause real-life harm (I've seen this, on a handful of occasions, in my field, and it was one of my motivations to get involved here). I don't think you're going to get anywhere beating the drum about "dismissiveness" of minoritarian ideas unless there's some coincident acknowledgement of the elephant in the room - namely, that quite a few people come to Wikipedia to promote fringe or downright nutty claims and beliefs, and that this is a major problem. MastCell Talk 16:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * (undent) MastCell - I recognize that the promotion of fringe theories is (and always will be) a problem on wikipedia, but I don't see it as an evil of any sort. I see it as a problem of weeding the garden, and I don't quite get the 'mortal combat' vision that you and several other editors sometimes invoke. it is both possible and useful to express what some 'nutty claim' is and says without being an advocate for or against it (or allowing readers to get drawn into it), and that is an entirely desirable state of affairs.  and frankly, there's a certain extent to which opposition breeds opponents: pushing hard to limit or control fringe viewpoints will simply encourage a more aggressive breed of fringe proponents, where trying to find a balance that satisfies all sides will tend to cool things off over time.


 * and as for the real world... I've heard of people who've tried to kill themselves with an overdose of aspirin, or accidentally killed themselves by using Viagra in strange and unfortunate ways.  Yes, we need to be responsible about what wikipedia says; No, we do not need to be (and couldn't possibly be anyway) mommy and daddy to the world.  people will believe what they choose to believe regardless of what we say, so all that we can do is speak as plainly as possible so as not to be an undue influence in any direction.  -- Ludwigs 2  21:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there is a big problem with the promotion of fringe ideas (not theories) on Wikipedia. That is taken for granted in what I say. If I ever got there first, ahead of the crack troops of the debunker forces, I'd fight it too (: It's extremely unfortunate for what I have to say, of course, because it obscures the legitimacy of my points.

I don't think fringe POV pushing is the biggest problem, however, because we have so many people here willing to fight it. Also, much of the fringe POV pushing would be satisfied with an NPOV article, so what you have is a bit of an exaggeration of the problem. However, it is a problem. You might note, also, that an article biased heavily against a fringe idea actually promotes that idea. If I really wanted to promote fringe views in an unreasoned manner, I would function as a debunker on WP. (Sorry for shouting that.) I would be very successful, as I know the sources better than the current debunkers do.

(I don't want to insult anyone and insist that some do believe that even in religious articles we should "point out" wherever they diverge from science.)

I started this without reading all the above, but I see I made the same point as Ludwigs. Great minds. "pushing hard to limit or control fringe viewpoints will simply encourage a more aggressive breed of fringe proponents." However, I do think that fringe POV pushing is a major problem. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 01:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I agree with the quoted phrase - I think trying too hard to "debunk" things is counterproductive. Any marginally sophisticated reader can quickly intuit it, and will likely respond negatively to an overly condescending or patronizing article that constantly reminds them that psychics are actually "purported" psychics. I also agree that too often a polarized dynamic develops on controversial articles where they see-saw back and forth between overly credulous and overly skeptical versions with no middle ground. I even agree that an article which makes an obvious and ham-handed attempt to "debunk" a fringe claim actually ends up unwittingly promoting the idea. I think we're on the same page there. Ludwigs, people die of aspirin or Tylenol overdoses all the time. Bad things happen. But if someone reads on Wikipedia that taking 20 aspirin a day cures cancer, then I think we have an ethical responsibility that goes somewhat beyond a legal one or a disclaimer. I'm not talking about being "mommy and daddy to the world", but I am talking about a Wikipedia which does not actively encourage people with HIV/AIDS to stop taking antiretrovirals and replace them with Vitamin C, and which does not actively promote harmful claims. MastCell Talk 05:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * MastCell, I'm agreeing with your agreement (-: —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 04:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This is starting to feel very much like a chat board. Is there an actual proposal for improving the NPOV policy, or shall we move this to someone's user talk page, or perhaps the village pump?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yup, guilty. Fair enough. MastCell Talk 05:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Is it not possible to present fringe opinions and fringe information, without promoting it? I do not see how any reader is served by being denied information.  The mainstream view is not necessarily correct; every generation new paradigms arise.  Why this need to weed out the minority pov's altogether?  &mdash; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 14:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * To the first question, of course it is (possible). Many indeed do a fine job of trying, despite others' attempts at promotion.  And if denying information avoids WP:UNDUE, then the reader is served, quite nicely actually (think of the amount of total information in the universe – ignoring the vast majority of it is the only way people can hope to understand anything, so the concept is on firm intellectual footing).  Your second question is a straw man; no reasonable editor would or has suggested such a need, except in the extreme cases per UNDUE.  Your paradigm discussion would be served by heeding WhatamIdoing's advice.  Baccyak4H (Yak!) 15:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * actually, I do think this discussion is relevant, since this is a frequent WEIGHT argument in article space. it's not like we're talking about our dating lives, you know...


 * MastCell, let's be very clear on this. if there is some legitimate, well-sourced guy out there advocating that taking 20 aspirin a day will cure you of cancer, who are you or I (or any other wikipedia editor) to cast aspersions on him.  I'm no doctor, and while I'd be greatly suspicious of a claim like that, for all I know it's absolutely correct.  we shouldn't be using article space to try to convince people that a particular approach is healthy or unhealthy; we should only be reporting what it is, and what reliable experts are saying about it.  and frankly this argument only applies to some small proportion of fringe articles that make medical claims... just as a matter of interest, do you think we could stop all this article infighting if we created a template like the one at right and tagged it into articles where this question arises?  if you and Martin think it might work, I'll try to see if I can make it fly over on a contentious page (like chiropracty).


 * Please sign your talk page comments. And please go read WP:NDA again.
 * This conversation may be relevant to many things. However, this is not the right place for this conversation.  Remember the standard text on talkheader?  "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view" – not "This is a good place to chat about issues that relate to information on the associated page, but have no apparent connection to improving the associated page."
 * I invite you to continue your discussion if you find value in it – but to continue your discussion elsewhere, such as at the Village Pump Policy page, not here. In case you're not familiar with it, the Village Pump is an excellent place to ask questions or to discuss any issue you feel like, without it being related to actually improving any specific page.  (Furthermore, it gets a lot more notice than this page, so you'll get much wider responses.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * thanks for your advice. -- Ludwigs 2  06:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality in religion articles
I suggest adding a rule saying that people who feel hostility against a certain religion shouldn't edit articles about that religion.

For example, I've seen some scandalous articles about Islam. Like the one called Aslim Taslam. This is an Arabic phrase that Muhammad used in letters to kings asking them to convert to Islam. The letters said:

''Become a Muslim and thou shalt be safe (from Hell or God's punishment), and God will double thy reward (as your people will follow along and be saved because of you). Otherwise, thou shalt bear their sins.''

The article interpreted the letter in a way saying that Muhammad was threatening them to convert by force, and then it goes on to relate the letter to September 11 attacks etc. Of course, this is OK from a Christian or Jewish point of view, but it is certainly not acceptable from a Muslim point of view.

The main point is that the phrase Aslim Taslam in the title of the article is really nothing to mention at all. It is barely known in the Islamic culture. It is not found in Islamic teachings. Most Muslims don't know it, and those who do don't understand it in the way the article is explaining. Yet they excavated it and categorized the article under "Arabic words and phrases," wanting to offend Arabs and Muslims by saying that "become a Muslim and you'll be saved" is an Arabic/Islamic phrase. This is like saying that "kill every man, woman and child in Canaan" is a Jewish phrase. Maybe I should make this article soon.

I tried to remove the article but of course I couldn't, as the gang who created it in the first place are the ones who are voting on whether it should be deleted or not. I mean, users that are outspoken fanatics such as User:AnonMoos shouldn't have anything to do with articles about Islam, not to say they shouldn't supervise them.

By the way I'm not Muslim. HD1986 (talk) 17:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I know very little about those specific issues, but I would prefer a weakened version of your suggestion such as people who feel hostility toward a certain religion should exercise great restraint and care when editing articles relevant to about that religion, so as to maintain neutral point of view, or something similar. Perhaps a suggestion that the preferred method would be to propose on a talkpage and get consensus before adding anything, not unlike the advice on WP:COI.  I am uncomfortable with a blanket "shouldn't edit", although certainly recognize the general concern  . Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * it's probably better to avoid taking sides at all. if you want something like this, it should probably be more like ''"Editors and readers alike may have strong beliefs and opinions about matters of faith and religion.  whether these beliefs are favorable or unfavorable, editors should exercise great restraint and care when editing, so as to maintain neutral point of view.  -- Ludwigs 2  22:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I see two problems with this proposal: bias and instruction creep. If you want to restrict anti-religion-X editors from writing about religion-X, what's to stop pro-religion-X editors from turning the article into a whitewash? Having written policy to address specific religions, what about political positions, or nationalist beliefs, or social issues, or a particular sports team? People can be pretty fanatic about all of those, both pro and anti.
 * The more we write instructions, the more complex policies become, the more we risk introducing loopholes and opportunities for wikilawyering. I think the best place for specific case-by-case information is in the NPOV FAQ.  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 22:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I think ading some note to NPOV FAQ would be good. I like the idea though that editing religion related articles should go through the talk pages first. HD1986 (talk) 02:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Why should religion be special here? Why not politics?  Why not alternative medicine?  Do you expect a dedicated volunteer for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals to automatically be more neutral on Fur clothing than a Mormon is when editing Animism?  Do you expect a transwoman to automatically be more neutral on Jerry Falwell than a Jainist is when editing Sikhism?  That a Homeopath will be more more neutral in Influenza than a Baha'ist will on Atheism?
 * While I understand your frustration, the proposal as written is seriously inadequate. Religion is not the only issue that animates people.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Too fast for comfort
Folks, it is great to see the intent to fine-tune policy pages, but this is a core policy and we need to go slow. If editors want to attepmt a full re-write, please consider a sandbox page (maybe Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/New draft) rather than editing directly. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I restored one of mine, which was not a real change, but just made terms clear, copy edits and such, and a small move of a paragraph within a section. Here is the diff between where you reverted to and where I'm putting it . As you see, the only real change was " in proportion to its prominence in the sources," which is just repeating what was said in the previous paragraph, for consistency. —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 04:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, here's what I changed. What don't you like about it?:

Previously (and currently after the revert): "The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly."

Modified version: "The neutral point of view policy requires that when there are conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources within a topic, each must be presented fairly."

I made one other change: I removed the redundant heading The neutral point of view that appears immediately below the section heading Explanation of the neutral point of view; and added a section heading for the WP:YESPOV shortcut to the following paragraph: Different than "no point of view".

Neither of those changes seem to modify the meaning, and they both seem (to me) to improve readability, making the meaning more clear.

I realize there are ongoing concerns about the implications of every point of this policy. These edits were not in regard to any of those discussions and were intended simply to improve clarity. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think jossi's right to the extent that really re-doing the thing in more than one section at a time will cause it all to get reverted. It would be better to re-do one section at a time.  I don't think jossi said anything about having trouble with the changes.  But, if you want them to stick, we should focus on just one section at a time.  Let's get the WEIGHT thing done, then after a day or two, go on to other sections, one at a time. —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 05:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, no worries, I don't want to distract from the more important discussion; and I didn't realize when I was doing those edits that other sections were being updated at the same time. We can come back to this minor point later.  --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This policy is so important that people will revert merely because things are getting confusing, without regard to the content. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 05:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's clear. It was totally accidental that our edits overlapped.  I apologize for distracting.  Let's close out this section and return to the substantive discussion.  --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Your edit is good, Jack. Only that the rapid-fire editing on a core policy page, may not be the best way to do it. One step at a time. Thanks for your consideration. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

hunh?
I had a look over this cooked-palaeolithic diet page, and it certainly seems to have changed, since a year or two ago. Instead of a description plus details, favouring neither side with a small pro- and con-paragraph or two, it seems that there is now a very large, undue weight given to anti-Palaeolithic diet arguments - it just looks unbalanced, IMO, by wikipedia's usual standards. I'll see eventually about suggesting various ways to put forward the pro-cooked palaeolithic diet POV and provide counterpoints to some of the pro-vegan arguments. I noticed that reference number 6 leads to an error-page, should be deleted, IMO.Loki0115 (talk) 12:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, linked to wrong page!!!Loki0115 (talk) 16:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Fringe and minority views
This edit goes too much into mixing minority views and fringe views. I have reverted back to the previous formulation. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Basically Fringe views ≠ minority views. Not all minority views are fringe, and not all fringe views are minority views. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The edit itself doesn't make an equivalence between fringe views and minority views. It, in fact, uses fringe view as a notability guideline which is exactly how it is treated in Wikipedia. It is undeniable that fringe views are minority views by definition. I cannot think of a single example of a fringe view that is not a minority view. If it is not a minority view it must be a majority view (this is simple mathematics). If a fringe view is a majority view, I cannot see how it is fringe! Of course, not all minority views are fringe views, but since that claim isn't being made anywhere in the edit, I think maybe you are having a hard time understanding some of the wording. Can you please revert back? I feel that you didn't give me enough faith in discussion. Moreover, you did not consider carefully the other aspects of the edit. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Is the Resurrection of Jesus a minority view, or a majority view? Is the belief in karma a majority view or a minority one? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Belief in the bodily resurrection of Jesus is certainly a minority view (the vast majority of sources/people do not accept it as literal fact). Belief in the existence of karma is also a minority view as the vast majority of sources/people do not accept it as literal fact. NPOV demands that we do not give undue weight to these subjects on pages about Resurrection or morality. Undue weight says we should both include discussion of these minority opinions in the broader articles and have devoted articles on these topics, though, since they are notable and independent sources acknowledge them as important concepts in the intellectual understanding of the related subjects. How does any of what I added/subtracted affect this situation at all? Why are you changing the subject? ScienceApologist (talk) 23:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * In the US, the majority of people do believe in the resurrection of Jesus. In India, the majority of people do believe in karma. I don't know how you can think differently, with polls showing that at least 70% (down from 90% a decade ago) are Christian in the US. I have not yet met a Christian who does not believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus, and with a Christian background, I know a lot of Christians. II  | (t - c) 00:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not US-centric. 128.59.169.46 (talk) 15:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not changing the subject, only highlighting the narrow interpretation you are forwarding in regard of majority vs minority vs fringe. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * not-minority ≠ majority (see plurality). but really, I think we're getting tangled up in numerical issues here.  me, I think it breaks down like this:
 * main (majoritarian or pluralitarian) view - the view held by the largest concerned group. this may or may not be correct (for instance, the fact that 40% of Americans are evangelical christians does not mean that evangelical Christianity is correct), and in some cases may or may not be meaningful or useful (the majoritarian religious sect in Afghanistan or Iran is a political issue which will simply explode on any page where the matter is pushed)
 * competitive minority view - a view held by another large concerned group. as above, it may or may not be correct, useful or meaningful (Quakers and Athiests would be competitive minority views in the US)
 * main reliable view - the view sourced by experts as the current valid understanding of a topic. this may be different than the main view.  not every topic will have a main reliable view (e.g. there is no main reliable view for which version of Christianity is correct), but most 'closed-ended' topics will (e.g. there is surely a main reliable view for the proper practice of Catholicism).
 * competitive reliable view - a view sourced by experts as an alternative to the main reliable view. usually a respectable minority view.
 * broad fringe views - views held by reasonably large numbers of people that never seriously compete with main or reliable views. often little more than popular beliefs. (UFOs, Bigfoot, low-grade conspiracy theories...)
 * narrow fringe views - views held by small, often insular groups that don't reach the level of competitive, but often cast themselves as competitive reliable views (e.g., cults that claim to have 'special insights' or theories that claim to rewrite or revise reliable views). narrow fringe views are sometimes fanatical reinterpretations of broad fringe views, but the two are really distinct.
 * I think this is a better typology, though I'm not sure how to put it to use. -- Ludwigs 2  01:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There are two kinds of plurality, Ludwigs, minority and majority. That's why there are things called "minority governments" and "majority governments". However, I agree with your rough breakdown in any case. 128.59.169.46 (talk) 15:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Some bold edits
diff

Rationale:


 * 1) Reliable sources linked to verifiability. I think that was simply a piping error.
 * 2) We should make it clear that not every minority opinion deserves its own article. WP:N is jutting against this issue.
 * 3) The suggestion that undue weight "might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute" seems to me to be unnecessarily weasely. It simply misleads the reader.
 * 4) This clause: "since Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia" misses the point. The only reason that minority views should have their own articles is when they are well-sourced. WP:NOT also says Wikipedia is not a collection of random trivia.
 * 5) "The article must neither attempt to rewrite majority-view positions strictly from the perspective of the minority view, nor to rewrite minority view positions from the perspective of the majority." This sentence appears to me to be a throwaway. Nothing should ever be "rewritten" from ANY perspective. This is not the point of this particular part of NPOV. The real issue is that minority views need to be described adequately so the reader can understand what they say, they should be properly framed, and they should include independent sources.
 * 6) I included the sentence: "If there are no independent sources that reference the view, it is likely that the view is too fringe for inclusion in Wikipedia." I think that this captures the essence of how WP:WEIGHT abuts against our fringe guideline.

ScienceApologist (talk) 23:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * If there are no independent sources that reference the view, it is likely that the view is not notable for inclusion in Wikipedia." No need to mention "fringe" at all. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Is it a problem to mention fringe? It seems to me that it is a natural extension to the issue outlined regarding the problems with subjects that have no independent sources. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * We should make it clear that not every minority opinion deserves its own article. WP:N is jutting against this issue. We have WP:NOTABILITY for that, as well as WP:V. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but WP:V is a broader issue. The particular discussion in that paragraph is whether we should have an article devoted to a minority view at all. WP:V applies to much more than just that. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I pretty much support SA's edit. II  | (t - c) 00:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * retweaking
 * tried to get away from the 'tiny minority' language. it isn't really about numbers, and tiny minority sounds odd (remember, a tiny minority of people in the world actually understand the theory of relativity).
 * combined repetitious references to tiny minorities being omitted
 * expanded the Earth example
 * rewrote the last paragraph of the undue section
 * -- Ludwigs 2 01:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That works well. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The trouble with the above definition, presumably to limit fringe views, is that many so-called "fringe" movements have never been satisfactorily debunked by the mainstream in a scientific way. Therefore, it should be acceptable to, at least, mention some of the beliefs of particular fringe groups, along with pro=- and anti-claims. Mind you, even wholly-discredited notions such as the "Flat Earth" theory deserve a mention even if virtually no one believes in them any longer, as there's a hsitorical context.Loki0115 (talk) 16:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

prominence problem
Martin, the issue with this phrase in the UNDUE section: "References to the majority viewpoints should be made in proportion to prominence in the sources" is that I've heard too many people use the following reasoning on fringe articles: with the result that an article that's supposed to be about some fringe topic turns into an abattoir of criticism, with almost no reasoned explanation of the minority viewpoint at all. it's a wonderful example of how an excess of logic can morph into pure idiocy. Either 'prominence' has to be qualified somehow so that it's clear that prominence is relative to the discussion context (i.e., if there were some notable fringe theory that claimed to refute the concept of gravity, the massed voices of sane physicists everywhere would only be a minority voice with respect to the discussion of the fringe theory), or the language has to change to preclude that kind of reasoning. -- Ludwigs 2 05:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) References to the majority viewpoints should be made in proportion to prominence in the sources.
 * 2) only majority viewpoints are reliable sourced, so majority viewpoints are far more prominent.
 * 3) therefore, only majority viewpoints should be presented in fringe articles.

Massive changes
I cannot believe such changes to this core policy went about without discussion. And I don't mean two individuals who agree with each other. The complete removal of the undue weight descriptions were particular bad. This should have been discussed. Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 03:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Jossi, FeloniousMonk and OrangeMarlin are correct. Please take the discussion further and arrive at a clear consensus on any proposed changes before implementing. The undue weight section, and the language of NPOV generally, took a long time w/ discussion among numerous WP participants to arrive at these expressions of core content policy. Thanks. ... Kenosis (talk) 03:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It is well and good to merely object, but that's not really the way it works. You don't just revert and ask for consensus without stating an objection.  Fastness or slowness is not a reason for reverting.  Consensus stands with the latest reasoned discussion, and consensus is indicated by silence.  So we had consensus.  If you would like to register some objections, edit warring is not the way to do it. —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 03:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I concur with Kenosis, Jossi, FeloniousMonk and OrangeMarlin. And that's a first.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * As I said: saying "I don't like it" is not an argument. No offense, but I've never seen this done before: a bunch of people come in after days of edits, revert, and are not willing to say why. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 03:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Orange, Kenosis, Felonious - I count at least five editors who have been working on this page over the last bit, trying to clarify some points. there are parts I agree with and parts I disagree with, and I don't disagree with your comments about slow change, but I am offended that you think you can simply revert it away without discussion.  are you a tag team?  I request (and expect) a discussion about specific problems you see with these edits (so that some kind of change can happen), otherwise I'm going to put your reverts down to groundless personal dislike and edit in the changes again.  is that acceptable?  -- Ludwigs 2  03:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * And the changes were very slow, careful, incremental. They did not even change anything, but rather (if you were to examine them), they made what was there clearer and better written.  Again, change is not a reason for reverting. —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 03:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This sort of thing has happened before in the late Summer. In due course, broader community gets involved again and things become better clarified and more thoroughly discussed. This core content policy has been more or less in its current state for quite some time, and five or six users who find agreements on certain things, with two or three at the center of the discussion (at the helm, so to speak) do not amount to a clear consensus on community-wide issues of the kind being discussed here. ... Kenosis (talk) 12:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm perfectly willing to say why: I've been traveling, have been completely swamped trying to keep up and catch up because of my travel, and have just seen the unacceptable incremental changes to a core policy that most certainly don't enjoy broad consensus. And please think twice before adding me to this tag team allegation; that isn't gonna wash.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sandy - ok, that's cool. as I said, I'm more than willing to take things slow and discuss the matter; I just hate the 'revert and forget' mentality that gets put to such good use by some editors.  please let me know what you think as soon as you get some free time.


 * and don't worry about the tag-team thing; it's a paper tiger, but a useful one. -- Ludwigs 2  04:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Ludwigs, why not wait a while. If they don't bother to explain themselves, we can ask for mediation, which should bring truly wide community exposure, which is what these changes need: they are, after all, good changes, and NPOV editors from anywhere will see that. —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 03:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There has been no where near wide enough participation among editors in general to make such serious changes in core policies. The changes in the undue weight section for example need much wider discussion. RxS (talk) 03:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. But it is the duty of editors to participate, and to have reasons for reverting. Silence equals consensus. —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 03:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The notion that "silence equals consensus" is a bit disturbing. I don't think it's a good principle to employ on a core policy. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Then go take it out of WP:CONSENSUS —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 04:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Martin and Ludwigs, it doesn't work that way. Sorry.  But good try, you were caught, move on to some other policy that we're watching.  But, it's kind of boring doing this.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 04:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * if consensus-editing bores you, Orange, then maybe you should take a wikibreak. -- Ludwigs 2  04:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreeing with the others: it reverses the burden of obligation to make substantial and unilateral changes to longstanding policy, then demand that the majority rejustify the existence of the policy. A variety of people who don't normally agree with each other are objecting. I could provide justifications for the undue weight clause, but hesitate to do so because I don't want to validate the approach (which I trust was unintentional here, but is highly exploitable in the larger picture). If you wish to change consensus, Martin, please present your reasons and persuade the community. Durova Charge! 04:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm agreeing with everyone that it needs more exposure. All I'm saying is that just reverting without giving any reasons is not proper: it's been days.  What, no one at WP watches the NPOV page? —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 04:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Martin, In more trivial cases I'd agree, but when such fundamental changes are being suggested, it's the obligation of those editors pushing the changes to make sure there is broad consensus. When significant changes of this type are made without broad consensus, rolling them back is acceptable. These are core principals, not some peripheral policy that doesn't have such widespread impact. RxS (talk) 04:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * And I spend time getting articles to FA status, so I watch them carefully. Policy is something I watch too, but it wasn't until I noticed a massive number of small changes, that I saw the removal of the meat of NPOV.  Removing the undue weight section was excellent.  And Martin, consensus doesn't work by making massive changes, then expecting everyone to defend the prior consensus.  You know better than that.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 04:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

We did the most careful job we could, we made changes gradually. As you see above, we did that for this very reason. To come in and pretend that we were doing something wrong or trying to foist stuff on the community, when we did what we did over a long period, explaining many of the steps, is just not correct. Reverting without reasons is not correct. Do you think it's a proper principle that people should edit with such care, giving time for input, then have people come in and revert for no given reason? Surely that's another principle you're upholding here. So will you help out in justifying it? —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 04:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

As per OM's post above: he thinks someone removed the WEIGHT section. That proves my point, people didn't even look at the changes. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 04:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

There were no fundamental or even major changes: it was all in the writing, and making things clearer. I mean- read it. I'm talking about the WEIGHT section, which I worked on: no fundamental changes there, just gradually making it easier to understand. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 04:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note of sanity, folks. I think the current edit war is between two equally dubious versions of the text. I would be happier if the article were rolled back to a version which had the broad support of the community.  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 04:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Durova??burden of obligation?? the edits were good faith, and no one is objecting to the fact that more discussion is called for.  I'm only objecting to the patently obnoxious attitude that mere reversion is a substitute for discussion.  if OrangeMarlin, Kenosis, and Felonious (and yourself, apparently) want to explain their reasons for objecting, I may in fact agree, and that would be fine, and we will all come away from the experience happier and more fulfilled.  but if they do not wish to discuss the matter, then they have no business reverting other editor's work, and they should leave the task to people who are willing to participate properly.


 * as a note: the word 'idiot' originally referred to commoners, lay people, and others who were assumed to be incapable of expressing themselves properly in governance. whatever you may think about that, we clearly do not want a system where not expressing yourself (i.e. reverting without discussion) is the best way to win a debate.  if they want to make their case, I'll listen; if they don't, to hell with them. -- Ludwigs 2  04:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Your attitude sucks: face the fact that you acted out-of-process. When you see people who have a history of disagreeing with each other currently agreeing, it's pretty clear that you're quite probably wrong.  Durova was, by the way, one hundred percent correct.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 17:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * An interesting turn of events . Editors work for days/weeks on a policy, working together then suddenly other editors come in and revert the entire thing without citing concerns. I made a lot of copy edit, syntax changes that didn't change meaning but clarified by removing poorly worded language. That's all gone too. I don't find this acceptable in any way . Editors who are interested in this policy should carefully review the hard work of others, and begin to edit what they don't feel is appropriate. If you missed the changes - perfectly understandable, but by reverting you penalize the other editors who have been working here. These reverts in effect control the article. What these reversion say is, I, as an editor can come in at any time, and wholesale revert if I don't like what's going on because I can cite this is a policy page. This sets a dangerous precedent. Many of the changes in last day were mine and they were syntax changes . Did anyone look at that or did you all just knee-jerk the revert button . Very strange and disappointing behaviour, and nothing good faith about it.Unfortunate.(olive (talk) 04:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC))


 * Ludwigs, your continued personal attacks are getting boring. Please stop.  You've been blocked 3 or 4 times for such behavior, and they get progressively longer.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 04:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Orange - you can spend your time whining about perceived slights and trying to make me look bad (good luck on that last one, because I personally don't give a flying f%@k). or you could spend your time explaining your (apparently unfounded) reverts.  your choice, and which you do reflects only on your character. choose.  -- Ludwigs 2  04:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The only justification necessary for reverting edits to a policy page is that the new version doesn't reflect the widely accepted consensus. As I attempted to point out above (apparently resulting in nothing more than confusing Martinphi) changes to policy pages really should be accompanied by a healthy number of editors agreeing that the policy text is inaccurate, or misleading, or simply out of date with the community norms - not that any of those those circumstances are likely, given that NPOV is a foundation issue as well as a core policy.  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 05:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

section break
In fact, the changes all had one theme: They encouraged POV-pushing

These are all the major changes that I found, and every single one supports POV-pushing. The first shifts the focus from over-emphasising minority views to over-emphasising the majority view, hence encouraging fringe POVs to be added. The second changes the rules for articles on minority views strongly in the favour of the minority views. The third... well you deleted that paragraph, as far as I can tell. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 04:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Shoemaker - first, thank you for actually discussing the changes. that's a step in the correct direction.


 * that being said, though, I think I need some clarification. your first two excerpts seem like rewordings rather than changes, and the last (marked as deleted) section is still there, I think - it just got broken up and moved around a bit.  can you be more specific about how these changes are detrimental?  -- Ludwigs 2  04:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Shoemaker's post was specific about how the changes are detrimental. The first and second changes are definite shifts in emphasis. If the third passage was "broken up and moved around", I would be worried that its meaning was changed in the process. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Te third section, as far as I can tell, was deleted - at least, I could find nothing resembling it that did not already appear in the article. I could be wrong, of course, but you'd have to show me. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 05:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * For example, the loss of must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. weakens our policy against POV forks. RxS (talk) 05:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I want to be clear that I made multiple copy edit changes in the last day two. Anyone blaming other editors for hasty changes  might look and see if they were my changes. Those changes were made carefully with attempts top respect the present language of the article, and  for syntax reasons only.(olive (talk) 05:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC))


 * Olive: please take this up with FeloniousMonk, who lacked discretion in his wholesale revert. he should probably restore these for you.  I'll do it myself if he doesn't, but I'd rather discuss things a bit first before I make further changes.


 * Akhilleus: he was specific to the extent that he thought it supported POV pushing, but unfortunately I don't see that. I'm asking for a more detailed explanation, which will help in revising the text in a way that satisfies us both. discussion towards consensus, yah?


 * Shoemaker: here's a link to the version prior to Felonious' revert. note that your 'deleted' paragraph is actually 'distributed'. line 1 is the 3rd line of the first paragraph; line 2 is redundant with line 2 of the first paragraph and the second paragraph; line 4 is line 2 of the second paragraph;line 5 is at the end of the first paragraph.  line 3 (the 'shape of the dispute' line) is deleted, but it's not a particularly well-written line, and it is implied in the rest of the article. part of one of my revisions was eliminating redundancies in the text (because the original version was repetitive).
 * I can see that bits and pieces of it are there, but it really does lose all its impact with the change. The diffs are really confusing, in all honesty, so I may still be getting confused. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 06:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * for the first revision you note (first table line) - I just don't see a difference, except that the revised version reads better
 * The addition of "even the most popular". It changes the emphasis towards favouring minority views. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 06:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Shoemaker, RxS - for the second revision (second table line) - the only major difference is the exclusion of the last line. now I had originally made a change so that that line read "The article must not rewrite majority-view positions from the perspective of the minority view, nor rewrite minority positions from the perspective of the majority", which seemed like a logical addition for NPOV.  ScienceApologist removed the second part, so I removed the first part as biased.  I'd be more than happy to re-add both lines, if that would solve the problem, but I don't think we can have one without the other.
 * Oh, god no. Minority positions should be described from a mahjority view position, at least in part. Otherwise, you're specifically isolating minority views from majority criticism. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 06:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * -- Ludwigs 2 06:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

For goodness sakes. ScienceApologist himself removed "must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view." I mean, he removed the whole thing, if my memory serves, Ludwigs didn't remove it last time. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 06:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Yup- and he said it was off topic for the section. He was right about that, and his edit stayed in by the consensus of no one changing what he'd done. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 06:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Why does it matter who removed it? The point about consensus made above remains. RxS (talk) 06:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

One major problem is that there's no actual discussion of these changes on this page prior to this thread, but yet we have claims of consensus. Where was this consensus discussed? If it wasn't, how is it consensus? Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 06:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You need to read the page. It's there. —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 07:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I've just read the statement about silence meaning consensus. This is simply not true. In a variety of fields, including for instance archaeology, there are a number of fringe claims which have not been challenged (at least in RS) by archaeologists - does that mean there is consensus that these claims are true?  Here we have a core policy with Foundation related issues – does silence mean consensus or just that other editors don't know about the discussion, don't understand the implications, etc? Or that they feel that they have no business/right/are too timid/unsure/etc to intervene in such a high level discussion? I've been vaguely aware of this discussion but felt I might be too inexperienced to participate, but the 'silence means consensus' claim, which I have seen used as an argument for fringe claims before, was just too much for me to stay out of the discussion any longer. I too am concerned that there are some changes being considered that will allow more POV pushing and delete the NPOV policy. Doug Weller (talk) 07:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Silence equals consensus on WP articles, not on science etc. This has nothing to do with fringe. Anyway, I would welcome your participation to examine all the changes actually made, individually, and see if you think they were wrong.  —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 22:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Shoemaker's Holiday well describes the point about the recent changes to WP:NPOV. They weakened the NPOV principle in important ways. In particular, I was disturbed to see the following addition: "Articles may be specifically devoted to Notable minority views. In such articles, the minority view should be described in detail. References to the majority viewpoints should be made in proportion to prominence in the sources." That kind of article is a classic POV fork, which is just the type of thing that WP:NPOV seeks to prevent. Similarly, the changes to "Undue weight" weakened the principle as it applies to representing POVs within a topic "in proportion to the prominence of each". I thus disagree with the overwhelming majority of the recently proposed substantive changes to WP:NPOV.
 * By contrast, the changes implemented here and here are excellent examples of the kind of change that can generally be implemented and resolved without a a whole lot of controversy, and which improve the manner of expression of basic core-policy intent. ... Kenosis (talk) 16:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * That was not an addition, it is in the longstanding version, it's been there for a very long time. The current version of the article, the one  now in place, 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 described in detail, the article should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view.


 * This is what I mean by saying that people did not read the changes. Do you now have any objection?  What's wrong?  Where's the POV?  It is just clearer, and puts it in line with language in the above article, and with the releavant way to determine if articles should be made, NOTABILITY.


 * No, it's not a POV fork to have an article on, say, Creationism or even Time cube. You need to read WP:NOTABILITY.


 * So why not look at the actual changes made, instead of assuming something bad happened? This is the severaleth time people have said stuff about the changes which simply wasn't true.  Come on, work with us instead of assuming that the editors who have spent so much time here have bad intentions, or intended, in any way, to actually change policy.  We didn't. —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 22:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

In specific response to you saying it made fringe POV pushing easier, it had the opposite effect: it made clear that Notability is a requirement first. It made clear that majority views should have weight relative to their prominence (the standard language), not merely where someone thought they are relevant.

Also, that language "wherever relevant" is a new addition: it is not the consensus version. The conseusus version read "though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it must make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint." —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 22:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * got to go with Martin here - wikipedia policy says that there can be articles on notable topics (even notable fringe topics) the language here was not about making POV forks, but about keeping notable topics on track.  really, did you read the changes before you started supporting the reverts, or are you just tag teaming?  -- Ludwigs 2  23:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, the following statement in the "longstanding version", as we've apparently agreed to call it, asserts the limited parameters within which minority views on a topic may be published as a separate WP article. It reads: "But on such pages, though a view may be described in detail, the article should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view." In its place, Ludwigs and Martiphi have suggested: "... the minority view should be described in detail. References to the majority viewpoints should be made in proportion to prominence in the sources." This is, at an absolute minimum, a very substantial watering down of existing constraints on POV forks, and it could quite easily be construed as an intentional watering down of those constraints-- of course I'm assuming good faith, so I won't read anything intentional into it, unless there is clear evidence relating to intentionality of this kind. Either way, particularly when taken together with the other changes described above, it's plainly watering down both "Undue weight" and the concept of what a POV fork has been to date, as I understand it to have been understood by the WP community in general. ... Kenosis (talk) 00:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Which locks in a place for the majority view. What if editors don't think it's "relevant"?  The "prominence" language is THE way WP decides what goes in per WEIGHT: the first part of the paragraph says:


 * 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.


 * "So you're just wrong. It's a stronger passage, and gives specific information about how to treat things. At the very least, it is equal, and better writing, as it carries the prominence language through.


 * You obvioulsy are thinking this was done for POV reasons. Look at what was really done, let me explain it.  There is nothing there which weakens the role of mainstream views.


 * I already dealt with the part about WP:NOTABILITY, which deals with your objection about POV forks: there is no issue here, all we did was make the language specific. Instead of just saying "Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them", we said they can if they are notable, which is yet again a strengthening of the passage.


 * You are arguing for the exact opposite of the truth here. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 02:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but among the numerous things that are not necessarily "equal to consensus" is massive random generation of a "paper-trail" consisting of merely argumentative text. This is certainly among those things that do not necessarily equal consensus. G'day for now. ... Kenosis (talk) 03:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

ScienceApologist comments on the situation
I came to edit this policy in a BOLD fashion because I saw a number of known problem-editors tweaking, revising, and utterly destroying WEIGHT. I was floored that no one came to the rescure of this policy and no one reverted. Since no one reverted, I tried my best to mitigate what seemed to me to be a horrible situation where the foxes were left in charge of the chickens. Now that others have noticed, I'm going to breathe much more easily

I prefer the consensus roll-back to a version of WEIGHT that does not include any of the nonsense that was inserted by the group of problem-editors. My BOLD edits should not indicate an endorsement of changing this policy. Now that the cavalry has arrived, I can sleep more soundly.

With that, I wash my hands of the situation. I'm glad to see that WEIGHT will return to its old true self.

For those angry about the reversions, just remember: edits to policy must have wide consensus. The half-dozen people who were active here do not represnt "wide consensus".

ScienceApologist (talk) 07:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * your accusations of BAD FAITH are noted, and are the only thing that needs to be said about this comment. do you base all of your editing actions on presumptions about the motivations of other editors (rather than on reasoned consideration of the edits)?  -- Ludwigs 2  07:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * As one of the people who failed to come to the rescue: There were something like 50 changes in the space of just three days.  Most of the changes were significant in some fashion.  It was far too much for me to keep up with.  Some of the issues were discussed on this page... but I'm not sure that the discussions actually informed the changes.  The opposite may be more likely, in a few cases.
 * One of the things that has been on my mind is the apparent lack of a corresponding set of guidelines and essays. WP:V has WP:RS, and even WP:RS examples; perhaps WP:NPOV wants a WP:NPOV examples essay.  Most of the reasonable proposals on this page are due to editors [other, POVish editors, not the folks making the reasonable-but-CREEPy proposals (a category that has recently included myself)] that don't understand the policy (including deliberate misinterpretation to reach the "right" outcome), and it might be helpful to have a less important place for collected advice to go. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral point of view/Examples --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * the fact of the matter is, the changes may have been BOLD, but they were in good faith. that means they should be discussed in good faith.  I'm getting fairly sick of listening to people whine and moan about the changes, without discussing them. the changes happened, fine.  they got reverted.  fine (though revision, or some other more thoughtful actions should have been the case).  the reversions now need to be discussed.  if they aren't discussed, that's not fine, and I'll go ahead and reinstate the revisions on the grounds that there's no reasoned opposition. and I don't think I understand how you're distinguishing between 'POVish' editors, and 'reasonable' editors, and can't honestly credit that judgement with any worth until I do know how you're making the distinction.  -- Ludwigs 2  23:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think we need to take a slightly different tack here. Not full scale reversion, but first put back in the copy edits, like what olive did.  Then put things back, one at a time, giving plenty of room for discussion of each.  For example, the Jimbo quotation on WEIGHT got moved.  Say you're going to move it, give time for response, then do it.


 * Now that people are here there is not longer any possibility that this way of editing can be called non-consensus. Anyone who wishes to participate should be alerted by now.  We could also put a notice at Villiage pump or wherever, alerting.


 * As I noted above, the edits actually do not change the way policy is to be applied. Rather, they make things clearer.  So I believe that they will, if individually discussed, meet with the approval of the wider community. I may also ping some editors who are often active in policy.  —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 23:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * that seems like a sound suggestion. I think OrangeMarlin is trying to wrangle getting me blocked (so he says so on my talk page); that might dictate the extent to which I can participate for a bit.  but assuming things work out alright...    -- Ludwigs 2  23:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Your continued personal attacks are getting tiresome. Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 00:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Dude! how is an transmission of your own words a personal attack? look here - is that what you said, or not?  If there's a possibility I'm going to be blocked, I am perfectly entitled to let people know that it might inconvenience them.  what exactly is your problem with that?  -- Ludwigs 2  00:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

As a slightly different suggestion\ possibility. My copy edits can be put in at any time, and in actuality will change dependent on what is now going to be in the policy. If you like, you could start to add back small changes as they are discussed and accepted, and then I can copy edit on top of that once that information has been added back in. Just a suggestion and thought, and not attached in anyway to either the idea or the past copy edits.(olive (talk) 00:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC))


 * It sounds good. I'll let Ludwigs suggest what we put back.  I'll explain it if there are any objections, and also if necessary try and bring in editors over the next few days.  For example, why isn't SandyGeorgia here?  He had objections, but is not part of this discussion.  I might ask him about specific edits. —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 00:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Changes
I suggest that we discuss the changes on by one. Some of course, were just copy edits. Others explained already existing policy. I do not know of any which actually changed the policy. If we need to, we should ask for mediation, because it seems like tempers are running high. I might remind people that although the principle of NPOV is sacred, its wording is not, and there is no reason making it clearer is a bad thing. I should also remind people that the policy is here to be edited, else it should be protected. Editing it is a good thing, especially when done gradually and with respect, as it was. We should of course attempt to get as wide input as possible, and should show the changes side by side, with explanations of each one. I feel confident that with broad participation (as opposed to the narrow participation which we currently enjoy), some of the changes will meet with community approval. The changes themselves should probably be broadly distributed: that is, we should show some of the exact changes when inviting people to participate. Villiage pump etc. etc. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 07:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Removal of comments by Martinphi
Martinphi, you removed my comment here. 

This is completely inappropriate. You are, in fact, under an Arbcom sanction for POV-pushing. This policy is the policy relevant to the sanction. Hence your editing of it to remove clauses you disagree with is inappropriate, and your one-man battle to keep them in is questionable in the extreme. I would encourage you to sit back, and let other people defend the changes, if they choose to do so.

I quote my original post below.

Martinphi, you are under an arbcom sanction about POV-pushing. The solution to this is not to get a few of your friends together and edit policy to allow you to push your POV more effectively. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 04:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Do not remove it again. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 04:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Shoemaker, I'll take you AN/I if you don't remove this personal attack which is an attempt to poison the well. I'm not under any ArbCom sanction for POV pushing. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 04:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

At AN/I we can also talk about the reasons you follow me around the wiki trying to get me, and whether or not that is appropriate behavior, "Shoemaker." —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 04:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * With all respect, MArtin, I have policy pages watchlisted. I have much better things to do than follow you around. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 06:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * If one reads the relevant case literally, Martinphi, I suppose you're right--you're not under sanction for POV-pushing, but for disruptive editing. Regardless of how other users describe this sanction, it might be a good idea for you to tread carefully around WP's core content policies. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed, and since that's the main thing people have tried to prove against me, failing spectacularly, I guess I'll be seeing Shoemaker at AN/I. I'm tired of his doing this kind of thing anyway. —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 04:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * From the Arbcom decision:
 * 2) Martinphi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has engaged in a variety of disruptive behavior ([5]), including, but not limited to, using Wikipedia as a soapbox ([6], [7]), threatening disruption of the project ([8]), and making deliberately provocative edits ([9], [10]). I'm sorry, but soapboxing is POV-pushing by another name, or near enough to make no difference. This is the first diff the arbcom cites as evidence of Martinphi's soapboxing: "I just want to get parapsychology defined as a science on Wikipedia, because I keep getting stuff from people who say, it is not a science, there is absolutely nothing to this. I want to be able to cite it as a science, rather than just something some crazies study." Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 04:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Martinphi warned --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Mischaracterization of what happened on this discussion page
In numerous places, recent discussions mischaracterize what has happened on these pages. I don't care in the least about my own edits being reverted as is suggested above. They were only copy edits. I do care about misjudgments, "railroading", and the lack of good faith misunderstandings/mischaracterizations of what went on here. I could step back and say nothing but that would only support this kind of action and make it more possible in the future. For the record.(olive (talk) 19:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC))

Preparation for policy RFC

 * Given what has happened in the last day or so, what do you think constitutes enough community input and agreement to put back in a change.(olive (talk) 00:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC))


 * As much as we can possibly get. The community needs to see what the edits really were.  The wider community represent the new and wiser heads which are most needed here. Mediation might help, as it is another way of getting more participation.


 * However, if no one chooses to participate once it's on a few public-notice type pages, we really have no choice but to think that silence equals consensus. What are we going to do, break down their doors? —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 02:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * How about setting up a policy-RFC? That's an earlier DR step than mediation, and could encourage wider participation.  Focus would be important though- with clearly defined alternate versions, and not just a link to the talk page ongoing discuussion, so editors seeing it for the first time can get oriented quickly and fairly.  A link to the RFC could also be posted at the Village Pump policy page.  --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 02:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Excellent. I will try to set up tomorrow if you set up an RfC.  Perhaps the form of former text/ new text/ explanation/ comments.  You and the others can set up as much of it as you want.  I've had more time the last couple weeks, and may have less for a few.  —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 02:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I suggest that the RFCpolicy template not be added until there is agreement here on the talk page that the formatting of the RFC is a balanced presentation. RFCs can be quickly derailed by conflict about the wording of the question, or the alternate versions presented. The attention of previously-uninvolved editors is valuable.  There's only one chance to post an RFC for the first time on an issue.  If it's confusing or distracted, the wider attention could lose some of its value - sort of like listing a house for sale and then changing the price later.  On the other hand, if it turns out that agreement can't be reached even on how to present the question, the RFC could be posted anyway and let the chips fall where they may.  My personal view is that the results will be more useful it there is advance agreement on the presentation of the question.  --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * And that's difficult, since what we want is community input on the content of edits. Also, it seems that people don't understand how this works: for example, above they don't understand the meaning that "prominence" has on WP, they don't understand POV forks, they don't understand NOTABILITY.  They didn't get it that I was working against my own purported POV on WP there!  There are people who probably do understand- SlimVirgin comes to mind.  But it seems that WEIGHT has its own sphere of knowledge and most editors don't know a thing about it.  —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 04:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Here's an example of how editors are handling a difficult situation on the Notability guideline: Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:compromise. They've set up a separate page for the RFC, and at the top, they defined the terminology for use in the discussion.  Might be worth taking a look.    --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

What would be necessary is the EXACT changes being proposed, side-by-side with the original, with every change pointed out. The changes are fairly long and confusing, and so I'd say it would have to be broke down into an easier-to-understand series of proposed changes, perhaps by section. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 12:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I presume there should be a difference in the process required to change core policy and that required to change a guideline, but I haven't the foggiest idea what it is. I agree with Martinphi that a lot of users aren't familiar with the terms and concepts and may apply 'common sense' meanings whereas they have their own, often different, WP meanings.  It would certainly have to be carefully broken down.  AND -- we need to agree first on the objective(s) for these changes, a vision of what the outcome should be, or if we can't share that, clear different visions of what we are aiming for. Doug Weller (talk) 13:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's really enough of a sharp difference between guideline and policy - for instance, compare Reliable sources (guideline) with Wikipedia is not a dictionary (policy). One of these is an extremely well-known, pretty much "core" aspect of editing, the other of these... probably very few people know it exists. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 15:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

This is not just a guideline page or essay, this is a cornerstone policy, a nonnegotiable fundamental plank of the entire encyclopedia. Any changes that make any significant deviation from previous understanding of it needs OVERWHELMING consensus of broad Wikipedia community, not just a couple of people making changes here in a stealthy way or a single RFC. Frankly, the kinds of things Jack-A-Roe and MartinPhi are suggesting would gut the whole policy, so I'd think ArbCom or Jimbo himself would have to approve before the changes could actually go through. DreamGuy (talk) 15:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I strongly agree with you. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 15:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I also agree. Thanks for putting it so clearly.  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 15:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Dreamguy. I'm giving you a high-five for saying it clearly.  Certain individuals here think there's a consensus of 3 all patting each other on the back, which leads to changing this fundamental policy.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 15:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Dreamguy well expresses the problem with the recent spate of edits to Undue weight, the general prohibition of POV forks, and indeed NPOV in general. Despite protests by advocates of the changes that the edits were intended to clarify and/or strengthen the policy, quite plainly the edits significantly weakened the policy. Words like "must" were replaced with words like "should", along with various other dilutions of key aspects of the NPOV policy. ... Kenosis (talk) 15:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks DreamGuy. I agree with everyone who replied after me! :-)  Doug Weller (talk) 16:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Shoemaker's comment at 12:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC) is a good explanation of what I was suggesting for the RFC: "the EXACT changes being proposed, side-by-side with the original, with every change pointed out." and "have to be broke down into an easier-to-understand series of proposed changes, perhaps by section."

After that, some other editors diverged into off-topic personal comments about editors, not content. That's unproductive and serves only to increase tension, not move the process forward.

I suggest returning to Shoemaker's comment about how to format the RFC with the exact changes side by side, broken down into specific sections, and continuing from there.--Jack-A-Roe (talk) 17:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You know, this isn't going to work if you're going to claim that strong statements that the version being proposed is completely unacceptable are 2talking about ediors, not content". If every oppose can be summarily dismissed by ignoring the content of it and claiming that it's just about editors, then it's hard to see how any discussion can go forward. This is not what you want: The default result is "no changes" not "changes get readded", so it's to your benefit to at least try to work with the opposers. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 18:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * There was a suggestion that this process be worked out in a sandbox.
 * I think Jack-A-Roe is suggesting that focus be on the editing not on the editors so that this process can move forward without degrading into personal attacks. I think that's a good idea.(olive (talk) 19:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC))
 * Yes, however, he appears to be referring to the thread directly above this, beginning "This is not just a guideline page or essay, this is a cornerstone policy". If that discussion, which I read as being about the problems of presuming consensus, mixed with a discussion of the perceived problematic nature of some of the edits is what Jack means by "focusing on the editors" - well, let's stop there - is that what is being referred to? Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 20:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * To clarify, I was only mentioning that after your comment at 12:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC) (which I agreed with), in the next several paragraphs there was some discussion about editors, not the content of the policy. Edits that someone finds problematic are fine for discussion, I did not mean to imply to the contrary.  There is not consensus on the content here, that's why there is a discussion of asking for wider community attention.  It's clear that there could never be big changes to a core policy done quietly without anyone noticing and I don't get the impression that anyone working on this page thinks that it could.    I was simply trying to return the discussion to the RFC idea.  That's all. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, then I do have a major problem: as I read that section, it was stating that major changes, such as the ones made, were highly problematic, to the point of gutting several policy provisions. You have every right to argue against that, but if you want the changes to go through, you can't claim that clear statements in opposition to specific perceived aspects of the changes that mention the people who made them to identify the changes are not actually talking about the changes. If you're going to claim anyone who opposes you is talking about people, not policy, even when they are talking about policy, then I don't see how any productive dialogue can move forward. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 17:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * What you described is not what I meant. Maybe my writing wasn't clear.  I'm not trying to get the changes to go through,  I'm not even sure at this point what the proposed changes are. That's why I'd like to see a clearly formatted RFC showing the proposed new version.   --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Maybe we're still looking at different sections. Anyway, I'd suggest numbering the changes, then it'll be easier to pull them up and discuss. I suspect that some are going to be considered fine, some unacceptable, so a little care will mean that the non-controversial parts, at least, will pass. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 20:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Is this edit okay?
I would like to reinstate this edit:

Any objections?

ScienceApologist (talk) 07:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You mean, change "...though a view may be spelled out in great detail..." back to "...though a view may be described in some detail..." – seems OK. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I would prefer not. "Great detail" is in fact the original consensus, what SA is describing is not "changing back," it is changing back to the version he perfers, which represents a recent, non-consensus edit.  If we are going to go forward with a broader consensus, we should start from the longstanding version.

Now, Schonken, please wait for consensus before making edits. I of course understand your desire to be BOLD, but one can't have it both ways. here is how it actually used to be. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 07:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I would prefer (if we do anything at all) that we remove the unnecessary qualifier entirely. e.g. - "though a view may be spelled out (or described) in detail"  -- Ludwigs 2  07:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * change made (forgot the edit summary, but it's one word...) -- Ludwigs 2  07:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Great. That will avoid arguments over how much detail NPOV allows people to put in. —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 08:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I've taken out "in detail" since it is a vague and unspecific; I think the amount of coverage to be given to minority views in mainstream articles is a matter for editorial discretion on a case-by-case basis, and the amount of detail will be informed by how much detail is necessary to convey the essential facts in context (some minority views are very simply described, others not). Guy (Help!) 18:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * That's true. Except, the passage is about minority views in articles about themselves, not minority views in mainstream articles. —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 00:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * maybe 'in detail' isn't the best phrase; how about saying 'may be described fully'? -- Ludwigs 2  00:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That might be taken as being a requirement they be described fully. This may not be appropriate if their notability lies only in one aspect - say, in HeadOn's notable ad campaign, or in the debunking of a famous fraud. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 02:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "May be described" seems to me to be entirely sufficient. It allows for editorial discretion on a case-by-case basis, and discourages wikilawyering and weselling ("But that's not described in detail! We may describe it in detail!" or variants thereof). Guy (Help!) 14:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The word "fair"
We tend in general discussions to use the word "fair" as a synonym for "neutral". Normally, this is fine, but in the toss-and-tumble world of Wikipedia, people sometimes think that "fairness" should reign supreme. This is problematic. "Neutrality" does not mean we treat subjects "fairly". I doubt a Nazi would find the coverage of Nazism on Wikipedia "fair" for good reason: neutrality in the sense of Wikipedia doesn't mean fairness. Otherwise we would not have WP:WEIGHT or WP:V or WP:NOR or WP:RS. Those are all aspects of Wikipedia which encourage unfair treatment to certain kinds of contributions. We explicitly do not welcome poor sourcing, scholarship that is not verifiable, or detailed "in-universe" exposition of ideas which are decidedly in the minority. Fairness is not the same thing as "dispassionate writing" or "objectivity". I have replaced two instances of the word "fair" in our policy with the synonyms "objective" and "dispassionate". I think that those synonyms do not carry with them the same baggage that "fair" carries with it. Removing the word "fair" from this policy would go a long way to addressing the concerns of new editors who get confused as to how Wikipedia can have NPOV policy that is distinct from a "sympathetic point-of-view", for example. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I can't really agree with this. you are making the following two problematic moves:
 * you are equating 'being fair' with 'being nice', in order to claim it's not neutral: 'fair' is a moral term, and as such it carries moral weight - A Nazi may not like the coverage of nazism on wikipedia, but s/he would have a much higher burden to demonstrate that the coverage was not 'fair', because that would mean that s/he would have to show that it was inaccurate or unjustified, as opposed to merely unpleasant. we do all sorts of things in our society (jail or execute criminals, allow abortions, impose taxes, punish children) that we consider to be unpleasant but perfectly fair.
 * you are substituting inappropriate and functionless terms for a functional one:'objective' and 'dispassionate' lack any effective standards, and open the door all sorts of abuses. for instance, a modern Nazi (to use your unfortunate example) could easily argue that an objective and dispassionate article about Nazism should explain why Jews, Gays, Gypsies, and other peoples deserve to be eliminated from the human genome; that represents the Nazi position.  The article could easily be objective, dispassionate, and heavily pro-nazi.  in fact, the only way to prevent that kind of bias from creeping into such an article is to object to it on moral grounds, by claiming it is an 'unfair' representation of those peoples.  Fairness (in the sense outlined above, not the straw-man that equates it to niceness) is necessary for maintaining neutrality in the article.
 * Frankly, it is impossible to write an NPOV article without some conception of fairness. I'm open to another (better) term that keeps that same moral component intact, but replacing 'fair' with the paltry terms offered changes the meaning of the policy dramatically.  -- Ludwigs 2  19:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia takes no "moral stance" on how to treat subjects. NPOV is not a morality-based policy. Your claims of "functionality" for the term "fair" is fatuous: there is ambiguity and equivocation with how people use the term and so pretending that there is agreed upon "standards" for what "fair" means is false. You are also mixing descriptions and prescriptions in your hypothetical. It is in fact the "interests of fairness" that would encourage someone to argue for a non-neutral explanation of the final solution. Objectivity and dispassion are beside the point and cannot be blamed for agenda-driven editing. We both agree that neutrality is the key here. The problem is that "fair" is not the same thing as "neutral".
 * Your claim that "it is impossible to write an NPOV article without some conception of fairness" is like a theist claiming "it is impossible to have a basis for morals if you are an atheist". It's a fat-headed proclamation that is not only unprovable: it's on-the-face false due to its narrow proscription.
 * ScienceApologist (talk) 20:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Simply not true in many ways. Just for example: we welcome research which is not verifiable, for example, research on Creationist ideas, when we talk about such. For another, we welcome in-universe sources for articles on that universe, or for sourcing what people in that universe think. Just not so.

Your point was that it's misused. Maybe, but your edit here, merely makes it into a scientific thing: presenting things objectively means presenting them from the scientific standpoint. "Objective," in this instance also means we have to manufacture the objective viewpoint, which may not be in the sources. So you're promoting OR.

This edit is excellent. It is, in fact, what I was doing in the WEIGHT section recently.

However, I do not mean to imply that we have a consensus to edit war that change into the article, so will not participate in doing that. You'll have to create consensus around it if you want it. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 19:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Let me dispatch with some of the major problems with this post:
 * Just for example: we welcome research which is not verifiable, for example, research on Creationist ideas, when we talk about such. -- Research about creationist ideas is verifiable. To say otherwise is simply wrong.
 * For another, we welcome in-universe sources for articles on that universe, -- No we don't. See WP:INUNIVERSE.
 * or for sourcing what people in that universe think. -- Primary sources are written "in universe". WP:V does not permit us to write prose that pretends that someone's fantasy is reality.
 * presenting things objectively means presenting them from the scientific standpoint. Patently false. "Objective" just means attempting to remove the "subject". Please read a dictionary for more.
 * "Objective," in this instance also means we have to manufacture the objective viewpoint, which may not be in the sources. So you're promoting OR. Bullshit. There is no such thing as an "objective veiwpoint". That's an oxymoron. You seem to be under the misapprehension that any synthesis is an original synthesis. This is false. Otherwise we would not allow paraphrasing.
 * ScienceApologist (talk) 20:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Geez. Not even going to respond to this. Except... MOS???? —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 20:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * SA - let me offer a compromise. let's leave the word 'fairly' in, but qualify it with a phrase like the following: "Being fair does not imply that we need to present views in a way that accepts, supports, or approves of those views; it only requires that we present them without judgement, in their proper context to the topic."  would that (or some variation) satisfy your concern?  I can see what you're objecting to; I just don't want to throw out the baby with the bathwater. -- Ludwigs 2  20:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It would come closer. The issue is that the word "fair" is too broad. I would prefer a synonym. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

"Neutrality" does not mean we treat subjects "fairly". Actually, yes, we do. Even with Nazism. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Right, and Ludwigs idea is good. —— Martinphi  ☎ Ψ Φ —— 20:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Not in at least one sense of the word "fair" which is "equal time". The problem is that "fair" as a term is ambiguous... too ambiguous, I argue. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * again, let's find a way to remove this ambiguity without destroying the underlying sense of the policy. 'equal time' is a very long stretch for 'fair' anyway - easy enough to handle on talk pages, with a simple reference to wp:undue.  so how do we modify what we have to preserve the sense of fairness but exclude arguments that it means 'equal time'?  -- Ludwigs 2  20:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Seems fairly simple. We use "fair" to mean "presented with due weight to majority opinion, and with no need for mention of extreme minority views except in articles specifically about these minority views". Seems fair. . dave souza, talk 20:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * But how exactly is that "fair" to the minority? ScienceApologist (talk) 20:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No, "presented with due weight to majority and minority opinions, and with no need for mention of extreme minority views except in articles specifically about these minority views". —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 20:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think that anyone except a crazed Wikiholic would think the phrase between Martin's quotation marks is an adequate definition of "fair". ScienceApologist (talk) 21:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * What is the sense of "fairness" that we need to preserve? Let's take a common usage of the term: Fairness Doctrine. In short, there are three parts to the doctrine: honesty, equality, and balance. I would argue that Wikipedia does not really, in-point-of-fact, follow ANY of those senses of fairness. We have a WP:V policy which scoffs at honesty, a WP:RS guideline which scoffs at equality, and WP:WEIGHT which scoffs at balance. So... how EXACTLY is Wikipedia fair? In what sense of the term? ScienceApologist (talk) 20:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * So I take it you agree to Ludwigs change. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 20:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Only the braves deserve the fair, to quote Lobey Dosser. It's fair to show views proportionately to expert opinion, and minority views can't reasonably expect uncritical coverage. It is fair that their views can be presented as their views, shown in the way that they would wish, provided that they are shown in the immediate context of majority expert views on the subject. All's fair, eh? And yes, objective and dispassionate are clearer terms. . dave souza, talk 21:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Who says that this is "fair"? It doesn't seem fair to most people encountering it for the first time. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Right. And, we can use the minority's writings to source their views.  As long as we can do that, we are not going to have to rely on sources biased against them.  We can then present the majority expert view. Otherwise, you have a source presenting their view from a negative perspective, which may be a more reliable source- but it's not actually a more RS for what they believe.  So there is a certain amount of context which has to be taken into account.  I don't think anyone here argues that criticism should not be presented.  But there is an argument going around that minority sources, being not RS, are not to be used.  They are not to be used except for sourcing the minority's opinion.  —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 21:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This is decidedly off-topic. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * (undent) SA, Dave, I'm unclear what you're after, and this is all starting to seem a little CREEPY to me. in point of fact, we don't need to make an exactingly perfect definition of the word 'fair', and trying to do so is just going to lead to a lot of wikilawyering: from us, and from people who read it later.  'proportionate views' is not sufficient in itself, because it leads to the question 'proportionate with respect to what?'  in just the last few paragraphs there have been about three different answers given to that question, and the only way we can ever decide between them is by choosing the answer that seems most fair.  you cannot get away from the fact that in any discussion like this, sooner or later, you have to agree - together - that this (whatever that happens to be) is the proper (i.e. fair) way to deal with it.


 * let me be even more frank. if you think we can reduce the policy to some 'objective' state such that NPOV can be declared on inspection by one or two editors, rather than discussed and agreed to by many, all you're going to end up doing is trashing the policy thoroughly.  the reason 'fairness' is important is that even though we can't define it well, most of us have a decent intuitive grasp of the concept (so long as we can stand back from it, anyway).  not all of us on every topic, but most of us on most topics.  few of us really understand what it means to be dispassionate, and almost no one is objective, but fair is pretty much part of the fabric of our minds.  that makes it very useful for NPOV discussions.  -- Ludwigs 2  22:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no comment to make on the fabric of your mind, but would point out that fair is foul, and foul is fair. The terms "objective" and "dispassionate" are much clearer and less ambiguous in this context, and provide better aims than the cuddly "fair" that you seem to be thinking of. Kindness to dumb animals and extreme minorities is laudable, but objectivity is the objective of an encyclopedia. Here, we achieve that by giving due weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence amongst expert views. . dave souza, talk 22:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I rather agree with Dave. "Fair" is a very woolly term, it can be made to mean anything. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 23:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

<<< "objective" and "dispassionate", is not the same as "fairly". Fairly: reasonably: to a moderately sufficient extent or degree; That has nothing to do with dis-passion or objectivity ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fairly:
 * 1) In a fair manner; clearly; openly; plainly; fully; distinctly; frankly.
 * 2) Favorably; auspiciously; commodiously; as, a town fairly situated for foreign trade.
 * 3) Honestly; properly.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dispassionate
 * 1) not showing, and not affected by emotion, bias, or prejudice

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Interestingly, I find all three of the definitions you provided for fairly to be more problematic than the definition you provide for dispassionate. In particular, there are many aspects of Wikipedia which are not clear, open, plain, full, distinct, or frank. Certainly Wikipedia does not treat subjects "favorably", "auspiciously", or "commodiously" (which is diametrically opposed to both the spirit and letter of NPOV). And WP:V flat out contradicts honesty and propriety with its exhortation to verifiability and not truth. On the other hand, we do attempt to write prose that is doesn't show emotion, bias, or prejudice. If I didn't know any better, Jossi, I'd swear you agreed with me that "fair", as a term, was problematic for this policy! ScienceApologist (talk) 18:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * you think dispassionate and objective are more unambiguous? how so?  If I were to make this claim: "ScienceApologist - you consistently misrepresent scientific positions in your single-minded pursuit to remove material you personally dislike from wikipedia", would that comment be dispassionate?  would it be objective? I think we can both agree that it's not a fair statement, but if we tried to discuss whether it were objectively true we'd end up mired in a wave of diffs of your past editing; and a discussion of whether it was a dispassionate claim would instantly devolve into personal insults.


 * let me state the obvious. you object to the word 'fair' because you are worried that editors on the pseudoscience articles you so love to hate will complain that the criticisms you want to inject are excessive and produce an unfair treatment of those topics; you want to forestall that kind of thing with the claim that we don't need to treat topics like that fairly.  am I correct?  -- Ludwigs 2  22:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

historical analysis
Is the word "fair" important to the policy? How much is it used? How long has it been part of the policy? I spot-checked the history for the words "fair", "fairness", "fairly", "unfair", or "unfairly".  Appearences of the term in the TOC are included in the counts.

This was fast research, it might not be precise, but I think it's pretty close. Here's what I found:


 * Today: those several fairness-related terms appear in the policy approximately 10 times.
 * mid-2006 through today: I spot-checked a dozen or so historical versions going back to mid-2006.  The versions I checked all had between 10 and 14 uses; and generally, it seemed the more recent versions were closer to the lower number of 10 uses.
 * For earlier years, I checked only one per year, the last edit of each year, and found:
 * December 2007: 13 uses
 * December 2006: 12 uses
 * December 2005: 19 uses
 * December 2004: 27 uses
 * December 2003: 27 uses
 * December 2002: 29 uses.

Until recently, there was a section heading that used the word "Fairness". That heading has been changed this year. Here's a quick check of the history on that:


 * 3 years -- 2002-2005: Fairness and sympathetic tone
 * 2 1/2 years -- 2006-2007: Fairness of tone
 * 2008 - July 20 - Aug 1:
 * Tone
 * Equitable Tone
 * Unbiased Tone
 * Impartial Tone
 * Today: Impartial Tone

It's clear that the idea of "fairness" has been part of NPOV policy since the early times.

Fairness as a principle is less prominent in the policy today than a few months ago, and significantly less than in prior years. Of course, we all know, consensus can change. Is it the new consensus that the idea of "fairness" is less important to this policy today than in was the past? --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think so, on the contrary. Fairness in presenting competing viewpoints is part and parcel of the concept of NPOV. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The thing that bugs me in this discussion is that some editors tend to look at policy pages through the narrow slit of the articles they edit. Policy needs to be encompassing enough to accommodate an article about Jesus, Power Rangers, Sarah Palin, Atropa belladonna, and The Simpsons. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Right, it needs to be clear for all pages. I don't see the problem with the word fair.  However, I thought it would be fine to say "in proportion to their prominence."  That makes that language more consistent through the policy.  But fair, as you note above, is a word which is perfectly consistent with WP. —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 02:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I think Jack-A-Roe's point that "fairness-related" terms are disappearing from this policy as Wikipedia has grown older deserves some consideration. As pointed out above, "fairness" as an idea is ambiguous, meaning different things to different people. This is not to say that "dispassionate" and "objective" are perfect terms, they just aren't so wide-ranging in their meanings. I think the reason that Wikipedia policy has been tending away from using "fairness-related" terms is because the concept of "fairness" is essentially meaningless in a project that aims to develop a reliable, verifiable, mainstream internet encyclopedia. Is it "fair" to demand peer-review from someone who thinks that they've solved all the energy problems of humanity with their perpetual motion machine? Some would say "no". Wikipedia doesn't say "yes" or "no", it says that whether it is "fair" or not is beside the point: aspects of WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR that cause us to marginalize this well-meaning hypothetical inventor rule the day. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * again, you want to throw out the baby with the bathwater. fairness is important in wikipedia articles.  of course it's fair to include peer-reviewed sources about perpetual motion machines, if any of those are notable enough to appear in wikipedia.  if someone says no, all you have to do is call for an RfC and the weight of sensible wikipedia editors will resolve the issue nicely.  removing the terminology does no positive good, and can have a number of negative consequences as editors realize they no longer need to be fair to positions they don't like, and begin to attack them unmercifully. you forget, SA, that the heart of Wikipedia is cooperative editing, and where there is no conception of fairness, there is no conception of cooperation.  -- Ludwigs 2  22:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That seems a bit alarmist, frankly. Do you really think that no other word in the policy but "fair" is standing in the way of utter chaos? Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 23:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * no, but I'm unwilling to keep nipping away at the things that do stand in the way of chaos. I'll reiterate.  changin gthe terminology does no good, and opens the potential for harm.  so why are you pushing for it?  -- Ludwigs 2  23:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I kept my personal view out of the historical analysis, to provide it as a source of information for the discussion. In this separate comment now, I'll say that I have concern about the (as yet unclear) cause, and possible long-term effects, of the recent and seemingly-continuing erosion of the principle of fairness as part of the policy. I'm not sure what this erosion means or how it will change day-to-day application of the policy, but it's a significant change of something that has been part of the policy for more than 6 years. That's a big enough change to call for a bright light discussion and real consideration of the direction the change is moving. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * agreed. -- Ludwigs 2 23:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree too. I think in the context of "representing" viewpoints, with "balance", "due" weight etc, then fairly is a very appropriate term. Not saying other terms aren't also...although the |NPOV FAQ says "The policy says nothing about objectivity, or whether there is such a thing" EverSince (talk) 00:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Good point. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 04:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see how the vague term "fair" is a better word than "objective." I don't have to define the word "objective" because the meaning is clear. "Fair" means different things to different people, and policy should never be multi- interpretive. That's just begging for wikilawyering. Aunt Entropy (talk) 17:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure which term is better. But when a major concept has been solidly established in a core policy since the very first version, it should not be changed without an indication that there is a consensus for the change.   (first version of NPOV I could find:  Dec 2001)


 * Recently, that word has been changed and reverted many times already. Instead, it should be left as it was while we determine if there is concensus for changing it or not.


 * Just because an idea or principle seems "vague", that does not mean it's not effective. The idea of "objective" can equally be considered vague, a personal judgment call on any topic that is not directly based on simple facts or hard scientific data (and, even the objectivity of scientific data is often questioned in debates between sceintists).


 * "Fairness" is a concept that is central to interactions of humans, so while it may be difficult to apply to determining neutrality in statements of facts, as an operative feature of how people interact, it is basic, and as such has a powerful effect on the structure of communities. We're not a social networking site, but we do need to collaborate to build the encyclopedia.  Therefore the core policies must be well-grounded in the principles that foster effective collaboration in a community, as they say in MeatBallWiki, "barnraising".


 * The word "fairness" was central to NPOV from the beginning. It should not be deprecated without solid consensus.--Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It looks to me like consensus is forming that "fair" is inexact. Why include inexact wording in policy that is so stridently referred to? ScienceApologist (talk) 19:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Looking at from the archives section, it seems an original brief version said: "What people believe is a matter of objective fact, and we can present that quite easily from the neutral point of view". While an early expanded version says "The policy doesn't assume that it's possible to write an article from just one point of view, which would be the one neutral (unbiased, "objective") point of view. The Wikipedia policy is that we should fairly represent all sides of a dispute, and not make an article state, imply, or insinuate that any one side is correct". That expanded version uses the term fair many times (and includes a caveat that it doesn't mean that all views are described on a par). EverSince (talk) 23:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Ten instances of "fair"
I removed ten instances of the word fair remaining in this policy:. I do not think that this changes the meaning of the policy in any substantive way. Please comment. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Treating subjects fairly in WP articles is a cornerstone of NPOV and of this project. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I concur with Jossi's stataement here. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Is use of the word "fair" needed?
Do we need to include the word "fair" in NPOV policy? ScienceApologist (talk) 20:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Alternate questions


 * Contested RfC formulation. That formulation of the question is backwards.  The principle of fairness has been a prominent part of the NPOV policy since the earliest version (Dec 2001).  This includes the use of the word in its various derivations: "fair", "fairly", "fairness", "unfairly", etc.   So the question is not, do we need to include the word "fair" - the question is - do we want to remove the word "fair"?


 * Background information: The use of the words related to fairness in the policy over time, is reviewed in the section above at:.


 * Alternate statement of RfC Question: Shall we keep the principle of "fairness" as an integral part of the NPOV policy  (including the use of the words "fair" and related derivations), or, shall that principle (and the associated words) be removed or reduced in prominence in favor of other principles or ideas?  --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC) [re-edited to change "restatement" to "alternate statement" --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)]


 * I believe that your "reformulation" misstates the situation entirely. In particular, the existence of a consistent "principle of 'fairness'" is disputed and the "prominence" first-derivative of words whose root is "fair" is unequivocally negative. Asking about "removal" or "inclusion" are different sides of the same coin. There is no reason to prefer one side over another (just like Wikipedia takes no stand on British or American spelling). I appreciate that you attempted to "restate" the RfC question in your own words. However, I believe this is a slightly different question since there is no consensus that the "principle of fairness" is even found anywhere in Wikipedia. (I contend it is largely an invention of your own, actually.) Since I proposed the RfC and I am of the opinion that it is properly formulated, I relegated your argumentation to a subsection. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You are welcome to disagree, however, you are not welcome to obscure a good-faith contesting of the way in which the RfC is stated.


 * In deference to your comment, I've changed the "restatement" of the question to the addition of an "alternate" question.


 * Both questions address the same issue. Editors responding to the RfC can make up their own minds, when they have all the information.  --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No, both questions do NOT address the same issue. Your question invents a principle that you claim is being "integral" when there is significant disagreement that this is the case. Your question is an interesting counterpoint, but it doesn't address the fundamental issue which is, namely, do we need the words "fair", "fairly", "fairness", etc. in this policy? ScienceApologist (talk) 20:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Your statement is presented as if we are starting from an empty page, deciding whether or not to use the word "fair." That is not the situation.  The page has used that word in various forms, 20-30 times on the page, since 2001 until the last few months when it's been whittled down to a dozen or so.  And today, you removed another 10 instances.


 * You've now refactored my valid contesting of the RfC formulation a couple times, reducing the visibility of what I wrote, to favor your view.


 * I'm not interested in playing that game with you, so I'll leave it at this version for now. I look forward to finding out how other editors see the question of keeping "fairness" as part of NPOV, as it has been since 2001.  --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I looked at the diff above, and I must say that the word "fair" adds a lot. It is important not only to present all major points of view, but to do so in an equitable, aka "fair" manner. For instance, if I write "the free market has significant problems, the problems have led to hoarding, self-ceteredness, and outright war," without qualifying the statement at all, I am not presenting the free-market criticism in a "fair" manner. Ngchen (talk) 21:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe that others may think your hypothetical sentence is, in fact, "fair". To be sure, "fair" is in the eye-of-the-beholder. "Equitable manners" is not quite right either since we have WP:WEIGHT. Please keep brainstorming, though. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Jack-A-Roe's point seems obviously correct here. There is no single word (except maybe "neutral") that absolutely has to be included in this policy, so to frame the question in terms of inclusion rather than exclusion prejudices the outcome completely. The question actually is: is there something so problematic about the word "fair" that it needs to be excluded from the article? And the answer to that question is obviously no. The notion of fairness is no more subjective than that of "neutrality", or "objectivity" or anything else. If that's the best argument for exclusion then it's really no argument at all.216.245.208.61 (talk) 21:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The real issue is not with the "subjectivity" of fairness. The real issue is that there are definitions of "fair" which, when applied to editing at Wikipedia, run directly counter to best practices. This is not the case with "neutral" or "objective" -- though it is true that those terms are subjective. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think there are such... but the word "neutrality" itself could be mis-interpreted in the same way as "fair." Ludwigs2 had a solution to this, which I tried to put in, but it got reverted.  Anyway, as long as we have the prominence principle, and the RS policy, there is no real problem here.  People will always mis-interpret.  —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 23:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No there aren't. Identical arguments to the one you make about "fair" could be made with regard to any other term. What if the only reliable sources we have are not "neutral", for example. Should we not also remove this problematic term.216.245.208.61 (talk) 21:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Your example mirrors none of my arguments. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It mirrors exactly your argument that being fair runs counter to core policy/best practice - an argument you make above. So, to use your wording to make things clearer: we have a WP:RS guideline that scoffs at neutrality.216.245.208.61 (talk) 22:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It mirrors exactly your argument that being fair runs counter to core policy/best practice - an argument you make above. So, to use your wording to make things clearer: we have a WP:RS guideline that scoffs at neutrality.216.245.208.61 (talk) 22:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This seems to be correct: one can make all sorts of arguments about words. Also as I said before, fair is simply fair, but the words presently being edit warred in are prescriptive and may require OR. —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 23:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, fair should remain in the policy, as explained above. Stop trying to edit war the changes in. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 21:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

As argued substantively above, "fairly" is a distinct aspect from "objective" and "neutral". Pick up a dictionary, please. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

According to a dictionary "fair" has up to 31 different meanings, so its use in policy probably isn't the most appropriate. Would recommend it be substituted for the correct use of the word in the context to avoid it being incorrectly utilised. Shot info (talk) 23:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Not "fair", the adjective; but "fairly", the adverb. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * in a fair manner; justly or honestly; impartially.; 2.	moderately; tolerably: a fairly heavy rain.;3.	properly; legitimately: a claim fairly made.; 4.	clearly; distinctly: fairly seen. - Which is exactly how it applies here (wit the obvious exemption of (2). ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * See RfC:Is use of the word "fair" needed Shot info (talk) 01:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Would someone please clarify the effect this would have of some sample questions of inclusion of material? I suppose that's at the core of this rather abstract discussion. It would need to be, for essentially I think the NPOV policy is simply an expansion of what we mean by "fair" in our context. One could of course argue that the inappropriate political use of the word by some journalistic endeavors, and many notable pressure groups,  has degraded it. DGG (talk) 13:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Introducng specific examples would run a severe risk of getting distracted into discussions of the examples themselves, but perhaps some though-experiments would help:


 * Consider
 * the case of two ethnic groups who have a history of conflict: Each considers itself to be a victim of the other. "Fairness" means presenting facts essential to the viewpoints of both sides, so that both those viewpoints become comprehensible, though neither is endorsed as "right". There is often an unevenness in the quality of sources in such cases. Fairness means presenting the two sides in a balanced way, and not allowing WP:RS to be used as an excuse to favour the side that happens to have the better documentation. Even well-sourced, neutrally presented information can be unfair if the selection is biased.
 * a biography of a recently-dead controversial person: Being fair to that person means a presumption of innocence unless proved guilty. Not as strongly, perhaps, as provided by WP:BLP, but not abruptly different. It means a stringent adherence to WP:RS for adverse information, or indeed for strongly positive information.
 * religion: Here fairness means letting the viewpoint of every non-trivial religious group be described in factual terms but as far as possible in terms acceptable to that group. Very small groups, not notable for other reasons, can be omitted altogether.
 * scientific controversies: If a minority view has a negligible number of supporters, it can be omitted altogether. If it has substantial support, fairness demands that the minority view is presented as far as possble in a way that makes it credible. The fact that it is a minority view, and the statement of the majority view, must of course also be given due weight. As with the ethnic conflict scenario, there is often an imbalance of reliable sources in these cases. Sources which favour or assume  one of the viewpoints should not be accepted uncritically, but should be used cautiously if there is nothing better. The majority view should not be assumed to be right. Fairness should dictate the selection and emphasis of the facts. We serve our readers best by giving them full and balanced information, and assuming that they have the intelligence to make their own judgements.
 * There have been, and perhaps still are, some unfair articles in wikipedia. Speaking for myself, I find these totally counter-productive. The unfairnesses, which can be very obvious; do not tend to change my mind in their direction; rather the reverse. They also undermine my faith in wikipedia. Fair articles, on the other hand, because they inspire confidence, are more persuasive. The only consequence of blanket removal of the word "fair" would be to legitimise unfairness, and that can hardly be what we want to do. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 21:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, describing religion in terms "accpetable to the group" or a scientific controversy "in a way that makes it credible" is political correctness, which is decidedly not what the neutral point of view is about. If there truly exists a disparity in positive and negative reliable sources on a dispute, this should be reflected in the relative weight given each viewpoint. Being "fair" to the weaker viewpoint by sugarcoating the article is distinctly POV. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The above illustrations show the difficulty in describing the difference between how the policy would work with or without the words related to "fair" - or the principle/concept of "fairness". That's the reason it's important to keep those words and ideas in the policy. Every "case" of NPOV is different. The idea of "fairness" has been part of the policy from the beginning; and it gets re-interpreted every time there is a debate and consensus on an article that refers to the policy. It's analogous to the way obscenity laws in some countries do not define the meaning of "obscenity"; instead leaving that determination to the jury when there is a trial. The writers of those laws recognized that the meaning of the word could not be boiled down to a simple statement, so they trusted to the judgment of the people who would interpret the law in as applied in individual cases.

We don't know how the process will change if we remove the words related to fairness from the policy. Other words, like "objective" or "impartial" are not the same; all are subject to interpretation in each situation that NPOV is cited, but "fair", "fairly", "fairness" and "unfairly" bring certain dimensions into consideration -- removing those dimensions would change the core of the policy. Would that be best in the long run? I don't believe it would, though I suppose it's possible. For now though, it's such a large and deep change that it should not be made unless it turns out there is a strong and wide consensus for the change. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 02:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Right, and also, words like "objective" require the synthesis of an objective standpoint, rather than simple use of the sources. Nothing easier to misuse.  —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 03:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Why not focus on the core principle (editorial neutrality in presenting information as it appears in reliable sources) and leave "squishy" concepts like fair, objective, balanced and so forth completely out of the equation? Vassyana (talk) 14:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * For two reasons:

SamuelTheGhost (talk) 14:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) The concept "reliable" turns out to be equally squishy. Every author has his point of view, which someone can disagree with.
 * 2) Reliable sources may be very unevenly distributed over aspects of an issue, or incidents in a conflict. Confining oneself to reliable sources without any regard to balance may result in gross unfairness in the presentation as a whole.


 * What do you mean by fair? Remember, the most fundamental policy confines us to what we can find in reliable sources. Parallel to how another policy restricts us from making up entirely new facts, this policy restricts us from making up (or overpresenting) new viewpoints. I would say, to go beyond the sources to find "balance" is being unfair to the sources! Someguy1221 (talk) 16:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, this policy even requires that we match the "unfair presentation" of the "unevenly distributed" sources. Vassyana (talk) 16:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for reminding me about WP:V and WP:OR, but I was already aware of them. They are both essentially negative rules, to prevent editors from inventing things. I am not suggesting any breach of them. WP:V is about verifiability, so that we quote authors accurately. Reliability is the more stringent requirement that the quoted authors are telling the balanced truth. Where there is good coverage of a topic by sources which all editors agree to be reliable, there is no problem. If we insisted strictly on that, probably half the articles in wikipedia, including nearly all the contentious ones, would have to be blanked. There may be editors who'd prefer that, but it isn't going to happen. Your arguments seem to be scarcely different from what I'm saying. Someguy uses the word "overpresenting". What does this mean, if it is not defined in terms of some notion of "balance" or "fairness"? Similarly Vassyana refers me to UNDUE. What is "due" if not a reference to some notion of appropriate level, in other words, what is balanced? Of course we can differ when if comes to applying these ideas in particular cases, but I can't see how you can get away from the fundamental concept.
 * I would like to comment on the policy statement "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources" that Vassyana indicates. Note that this sentence appears in the same article that we're discussing, so we are at equal liberty to discuss it too. I can see the motivation behind it, but on closer examination it falls apart. First of all, discovering the said "proportion" would be an arduous piece of WP:OR. Furthermore any such effort, in contentious cases, would collapse into arguments as to which sources were reliable. And in any case, do we really think it appropriate to decide on wikipedia content by the mere volume of other publication?
 * A final rhetorical question of mine. Are you willing to promise never to appeal to "fairness" or the like, even when the notion would support the case you want to make? SamuelTheGhost (talk) 17:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Ugh - this RfC is turning into a mess. let me try to get it back on track with some structure.


 * Comment - Fact Of Life: Any word you step on hard enough is going to squish. It doesn't matter whether that word is 'fair', 'objective', 'neutral', 'reliable', or whatever; if you try hard enough, you can warp the meaning of a word until turns into mush.  but that doesn't matter: what matters is how we handle the word in general use, using the kind of common sense and innate consensus about the meanings of words that we always use when we talk to each other.  This is what it means to speak English, yah?  with that in mind...


 * Retain 'fair' - Fairness is central to any notion of neutrality (the way wikipedia defines neutrality) because we are always asked to decide whether a particular edit is appropriate (i.e. fair) based on the information present in reliable sources. ScienceApologist et al are basically ignoring the common sense use of the word 'fair', and warping it into a particularly narrow and narrow-minded sense that they happen to find worrisome.  in real conversation, however, 'fair' would never get used successfully the way they are saying it would be used, because no one who speaks English would buy into it.  In a way, this entire effort is attempt at an end-run around consensus: precluding 'fairness' in neutrality discussions eliminates common sense from the debate, and would allow edits that would generally be recognized as irrational and unfair to stand, because no one could challenge them on those grounds.  that's just plain silly. -- Ludwigs 2  05:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Journalistic objectivity
Nothing to se here, just another sock, now blocked. Max S em(Han shot first!) 09:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC) 
 * The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

In looking around, it seems that the traditional and practical term in this area is "journalistic objectivity" and the appropriate WP page is Objectivity (journalism). I tried to mention this in the lead by changing "all significant views that have been published by reliable sources" to "all significant views that have been published by reliable sources in the tradition of journalistic objectivity". It got reverted and the reverter's "I don't think so." comment in his revert seems to me to be an insufficient discussion.

Please talk about this change. I think we should re-apply my change.--Tubesidiom (talk) 07:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Presumably it was reverted for being overly restrictive with regard to cases like self-published information by people about themselves. If we have an article on Joe Bloggs, and Joe Bloggs is involved in some sort of controversy, then while Joe Bloggs' Blog is certainly not written in a "tradition of journalistic objectivity" it's still considered part of NPOV presentation to say what Bloggs has written about his view on the controversy about him. --erachima talk 08:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * But journalists, from time to time, do refer to "this journalist" if they somehow become involved in the story. It is simply that Joe does that much more frequently than professional journalists typically do. My point is that there is a vast corpus of literature already built up within the concept of journalistic objectivity which overlaps quite well with NPOV. Let me recommend this change: "and as far as possible without bias,..." to "and as far as possible without bias and in the tradition of journalistic objectivity,..."? Perhaps that would be less confusing.--Tubesidiom (talk) 08:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I am presently too tired to formulate a sufficiently thought-out reply, so I am afraid you'll have to wait for someone else to respond to you on that. However, I feel that any changes to our core policy pages that may alter the scope or meaning of the page need to be discussed and weighed prior to insertion, so I'm going to revert your addition per WP:BRD. Please do not add it again without agreement from at least several other editors. Thanks and good night. --erachima talk 08:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You reverted energetically, but now you are too tired to discuss the matter. I will exhibit some patience.--Tubesidiom (talk) 09:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll be happy to respond now that it's no longer 2 in the morning. NPOV and journalistic objectivity are different because, where objectivity seeks to lean towards neither extreme on an issue, NPOV seeks to chronicle notable disputes, but to only give each view its correct prominence. A prime example of where this differs would be the issue of evolution vs. intelligent design: journalistic objectivity would say that each side gets on equal say, NPOV would say that, while the debate itself needs to be covered, intelligent design is given little weight in articles related to the process of evolution because it is an extreme minority position scientifically. In other words, reference to journalistic objectivity completely skews the nature of the policy and contradicts with WP:UNDUE. --erachima talk 19:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent and ec) If a journalism model appeals to you, Wikinews welcomes contributors. There's a bit of difference, though, between a journalistic approach and an encyclopedic approach. Durova Charge! 09:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not journalism, but the vast amount of the existing literature about "journalistic objectivity" (JO) is not innately tied strictly to such narrow definitions of journalism such as that which differentiates Wikipedia from Wikinews (the latter of which is journalism). The point of choosing the term JO is to indicate that the other kinds of objectivity on the objectivity disambiguation page are not the the appropriate subjects. JO has to do with getting it right in a general sense and in a timeless sense. JO clearly covers knowledge-sharing far beyond the timely daily or periodic reporting of current events. The relevant and practical kind of objectivity is JO but the traditions of JO applies more generally to "reporting the facts" or "sharing the knowledge" in an appropriate way.--Tubesidiom (talk) 10:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It sounds like a worthy undertaking to to shift the public's understanding of journalistic objectivity toward those connotations. Wikipedia's core policies need to be written toward current layman definitions.  Within that framework your proposal runs into two serious problems.  A common type of edit dispute occurs when an editor tries to disallow citations to a reliable newspaper by claiming that source isn't neutral (usually because that editor disagrees with its op-ed pages).  The other is a problem Wikipedians call recentism--a tendency to give undue weight to recent events.  When a musician releases a new CD, the journalistic approach would be to profile the artist focusing mostly on the new release.  An encyclopedia article shouldn't let that dominate its coverage of a long career.  Both of those problems would become worse rather than better if we adopted this innovative definition into core policy at this time.  Durova Charge! 11:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * My first reaction on seeing this heading was "uh-oh... is someone channeling User:Moulton?" My second reaction is, unfortunately perhaps, "I don't think so." This isn't any old Wikipedia article, where we discuss the best way to represent the reliable sources out there. (In fact, when it comes to NPOV there are no reliable sources, to the best of my knowledge.) This is a page documenting a core policy and Wikimedia foundation issue. There is no need to change it.  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 13:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Durora: The "problems" you present are illusory. The intent was not to shift the public's understanding. Laymen are familiar with the term JO. The emphasis of JO is not about the coverage of entertainment but the coverage of fact. To both Durova and SheffieldSteel: This is not about the sources but about the Wikipedia article. Do either of you assert that NPOV has little to do with JO?--Tubesidiom (talk) 16:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * For now, I assert only that NPOV is not JO, and that this policy document is not in need of changing. S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 18:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This can't pass without comment: an account which was created one day ago calls three years of dispute resolution experience an illusion. Tubesidiom, your idea is surely offered with the best of intentions.  Nothing personal: I approach all new policy and process proposals by shooting holes into them.  Durova Charge! 06:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Sheffield Steel is right. NPOV has philosophical origins that were drawn on to suit what Jimbo and Larry Sanger considered foundational needs for a radically new project, Wikipedia. Wikipedia functions very differently from journalism and has its own history. Even if we grant there are similarities between journalistic objectivity and this policy, the developed independently to suit different institutional needs. We shouldn't cloud the issue by mixing them up. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 18:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I accept your assertions but they might be irrelevant. If there was a concept of the mathematical digit zero invented by Arabics and another in India and another in China, those zeros would have different origins but we would recognize them as the same zero even if they had different spiritual and philosophical implications for each of their inventors. If NPOV and JO have a large amount of overlap (overlap in the sense that you are talking about the same thing) then all you have to do is explain that "NPOV is like JO but with these important differences..." Can anyone pinpoint any of those differences? I am not asserting that NPOV and JO are the same thing, but I am challenging you to delineate the practical differences or else to allow clear mention of the overlap of NPOV and JO early in the text.--Tubesidiom (talk) 19:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You've got it backwards. You prove to us that NPOV and JO are the same - or that there is no significant difference, nothing that could come back and bite us in the future when some hitherto unknown academic article about JO is used to justify a novel and (to Wikipedia regulars) surprising interpretation of NPOV.  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 20:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Tubesidiom, I'd just broadly advise against making a policy depend on an external and potentially fluid definition. Part of the idea of explicitly defining "neutrality," "notability," "original research" and other concepts in the Wikipedia: project space is to make everyone clear as to what we mean by those terms, even if not everyone on the outside would agree with us. And they usually do not, but this largely stems from the unique problems we face as a Wiki trying to be a legitimate encyclopedia. If you feel our definition of neutrality could use a reworking or an expansion, I would advise you to recommend substantive changes to how neutrality is defined here, instead of pointing to an article that is subject to mainstream journalistic views that can change without our knowledge, and whose changes would affect the policy without our consent. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * JO is a well-established concept with many decades if not centuries of tradition so it is silly to suggest that mainstream journalistic views might suddenly or significantly change about what is meant by JO. When Schools of Journalism talk about objectivity, they are talking about a well-defined and stable concept that goes far beyond the narrow definition of journalism. While JO was not invented here at Wikipedia, it clearly has a large overlap with NPOV. Both what NPOV seems to talk about and wha JO clearly embodies have a little dependence on the supposed "unique problems" of wiki. The issue is primarily of NPOV or JO of the content. Again, I am not trying to equate the two, but I have just to hear of significant, practical and compelling way in which NPOV is not solidly within the same subject area as JO.--Tubesidiom (talk) 20:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

It just does not matter. A Wikipedia policy is not an article on a journalistic value or standard. If someone out there wants to write an essay or article on the similarity between scholarly notions of neutrality and journalistic standards, they are welcome to do so. Many professions - encyclopedists, jurists, journalists - have notions of neutrality or objectivity. If this interests you, write about it on your personal blog, or write an article for a peer-reviewed academic journal, or write an article for a magazine, there is nothing stopping you. But this page is for discussion of a Wikipedia policy and is limited to that. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 23:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It does matter. It does matter that you treat your Chinese zero digit as utterly distinct from an Indian zero digit. It is based on ignorance or parochialism. It is a great impediment that the project page guides the reader to the straw man and time sink of Objectivity (philosophy) but ignores Objectivity (journalism). It is a great impairment to communication. It also keeps the dialog at a low level of maturity.--Tubesidiom (talk) 07:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * As the above posters have tried to make clear, they are two different concepts. So your digit analogy is flawed; an appropriate analogy would two different digits.  Criticizing the distinction of identical digits is the straw man here, even if an unintentional one.  Now, in principle we could gain consensus to rewrite NPOV policy to reflect or even mirror JO.  But I suspect that would be astronomically unlikely. What you are advocating is more the standard of Wikinews.  But that is a different project for a reason.  Baccyak4H (Yak!) 13:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

It is kind of sad that Tubesidiom has no interest whatsoever in the views of others. She made her point, we listened, and don't agree. You know, Tubesidiom, you won't get very far here unless you are willing to work with others. As for the example of zeros, of course it is a poor analogy. A better analogy would be, well, Analogy (biology) but the point remains that wikipedia policy, especially th original non-negotiable policy, should stand on its own and not depend on referents external to Wikipedia. The page refers to philosophical objectivity because that was Larry Sanger (a philosopher)'s source. If he were a journalist I suppose it owuld be different. But we aren't going to rewrite history. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 14:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I came to this talk page seeking knowledge and I try to remain sensitive to the views of others and I appreciate when those views provide me with new information. I am aware that Objectivity (philosophy), as it says, is "difficult to pin down" and that Sanger's background in philosophy (and Wales' background in Objectivism? Well, perhaps not.) might predispose him to wander into the time sink of philosophical objectivity. I only chose the zero digit analogy because historically when Arabic numerals with its digit zero was introduction to Europe, which had previously used Roman numerals, it initially met with some resistance but was eventually accepted because of its vast utility. I am willing to listen and to change, but my question remains unanswered: what are the practical, significant differences between NPOV and JO? Come on - there must be something. Is it just that NPOV is ours and JO is theirs? Accepting that as a meaningful difference, is there anything else?--Tubesidiom (talk) 18:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You question remains unanswered? I put it to you that my answer remains unquestioned. S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 18:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, perhaps we could try something like this on the project page: "While NPOV and JO remain distinct, the specific differences between the two that will be enumerated in the following list..." and then we just leave the list to be filled in by the community.--Tubesidiom (talk) 23:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's try this instead: The consensus here (unanimous among the seven editors to respond) is that NPOV is not JO and that there are no grounds for changing the policy. If this seems inadequate or unsatisfactory, you could seek input from a wider range of editors by posting at the Village Pump's policy discussion page.  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 23:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I acknowledge that the consensus is against acknowledging on the project page that JO exists, but I am disappointed that this discussion was not informative about what a list of significant differences between NPOV and JO might look like.--Tubesidiom (talk) 00:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Have you considered bringing this up at metawiki? As the contrast you wish to make is between two integral components of two different wiki projects, perhaps you may have better success there? I don't know that much about that particular (meta)project per se, but as your interest is keen I figured it worth a mention. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 02:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.