Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Archive 38

Redirects and NPOV
This is one of those frustrating issues where everyone has an opinion when it comes to deleting any particular redirect, and everyone is willing to cite NPOV and/or BLP, but there's nothing at NPOV or BLP and nothing in the talk archives of either page going back a year. I'll just throw out some links, and if anyone wants to run with this, great: Wikipedia_talk:REDIR, WT:BLP, and the ongoing DRV, Deletion_review/Log/2009_November_20. - Dank (push to talk) 18:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S. Different people understand "terrorist" to mean different things, so it could be that it would be better to frame the issue as "What do we do about obvious NPOV in a redirect" ... such as a redirect from "Christianity, the greatest religion ever" or "Christianity and stupidity, which is worse?" to Christianity ... both in the case where there are no reliable sources, and in the case where there are a ton of reliable sources that discuss one of those phrases. - Dank (push to talk) 18:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * So, here's my personal-experience based look at the status quo. Jclemens (talk) 20:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * qy about the table: are you saying that with weak sourcing, we deleted if the POV is arguable, but argue if it is absolutely clear? It should be the other way round.   DGG ( talk ) 02:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That may well be wrong, but I'm trying to think of any RfD discussion that falls into that category that raised a lot of contention, and I'm not coming up with any. Jclemens (talk) 04:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thus, to your question, Dank, both those redirects would be undisputably POV and presumably without reliable sourcing. I really wouldn't expect Wikipedia would have any problem at all deleting either redirect. Jclemens (talk) 20:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The lack of "sourcing" is a good point to kill these kinds of redirects on. Realistically speaking, who is going to show up at Wikipedia and type either "Christianity, the best religion ever" or "Christianity is stupid" and expect to go to Christianity?  It strains the imagination.  Redirects are cheap but they also are not indiscriminate; there should be a compelling reason for a redirect to exist, particularly when it is controversial. Shereth 21:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, let's get closer to an NPOV question. Let's say Joe's Bar and Grill is notable and we have an article on it.  Local churches have been preaching against the sin of alcohol, and Joe was losing business, so he printed up and sold 5000 bumper stickers that say "Christianity is stupid", he's given interviews on a few radio talk shows, and there are maybe 20 differents stories in newspapers that make off-hand references to the phrase.  We've decided that the phrase isn't sufficiently notable to have its own article, but someone created a redirect from Christianity is stupid to Joe's Bar and Grill, and the redirect itself has been getting 20,000 hits a month, and it shows up in the Wikipedia search bar whenever someone types "Christianity".  (Maybe someone creates the redirect in good faith that it will be useful, but then people typing "Christianity" into the search box are so curious what "Christianity is stupid" could refer to that they start clicking on it, then Google pushes it up in the search rankings ... it could happen.)  NPOV problem or not? - Dank (push to talk) 21:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see a problem if there's discussion of the campaign in the target article, such that any user who follows the redirect can reasonably see why the redirect points there. Jclemens (talk) 21:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hm. I added a pointer at VPP, but we're not getting a lot of discussion, so I guess I should discuss in terms of the DRV, which isn't suffering from lack of discussion.  How about if Joe's pissed off that people aren't taking the Foot Hood shootings seriously, and the bumper stickers said "What part of 'Fort Hood terrorist attack' don't you understand?"  Same number of bumper stickers, same interviews, same number of hits, although the hits are to "Fort Hood terrorist attack", as a result of his bumper stickers and interviews (pretend no one else mentioned the phrase before Joe did). - Dank (push to talk) 03:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC) tweaked
 * The fact that I also find that a good justification for a redirect should surprise no one. What seems to be the bigger problem is that those with numerical superiority seem disinclined to engage in dialogue.  After all, why should they? Jclemens (talk) 03:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If the policy changes to specifically allow these kinds of redirects, I have a feeling someone will say something. (I know that WP:REDIR allowed it already.  This is exactly the kind of thing that's been discussed at WT:POLICY lately ... changing a guideline doesn't always force discussion, changing a policy does tend to force discussion, for better or worse.) - Dank (push to talk) 03:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * We had discussion years ago where we decided we don't do offensive redirects. It was a redirect to Michael Jackson, I think, can't recall where it was discussed though.  Don't know if that helps any. Hiding T 11:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If you could find it, that would belp. "Offensive" redirects are often useful search terms, and that previous discussion doesn't seem to be reflected in the policies and guidelines as written.  To be blunt, avoiding offensive redirects just because they're offensive redirects violates NOTCENSORED and NPOV, in my appraisal.  Wikipedia is about documenting the world as it is, and people use a lot of offensive terms for things. Jclemens (talk) 20:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, is that how you read my words. Blimey.  I'm not sure I could find the debate, it's probably during the period we used to throw the village pump away every week. My take is that we don't create redirects, offensive or not, without good reason.  To be blunt, we wouldn't use an offensive redirect just because we could, since Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion and we do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints. Out of curiosity, what's your take on Milk snatcher and The Great She-Elephant? Hiding T 23:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry if that came across as failing to assume good faith--I did actually mean that yes, seeing that debate would be helpful. It wouldn't be the first time that what is written in guidelines is divergent from what the people who were around remember as consensus. Between human fallibility and CCC, there's no need to violate Hanlon's Razor. :-) Thanks for providing what you have. Jclemens (talk) 05:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * So, to the substance of your reply. YESPOV is an absolutely vital part of NPOV, in my view.  How do we deal with YESPOV when it's far more common to have negative/offensive nicknames than it is to have positive ones?  My position would be to accept the world as it is and allow any redirect that has demonstrable, even if unreliable, sourcing.  Such has been my position throughout, from Saint Pancake onwards.  While I haven't heard the nicknames underlying those redirects for Baroness Thatcher, assuming that they're actually used (I'm from the US, and her days as UK PM were in my adolescence, so I plead personal ignorance).  The alternative is to try and be the POV police in redirects, which I think leads to pointless bickering.  If we can all accept that redirects are simply navigational aids and mean nothing in and of themselves, then the debate is essentially over.  Unfortunately, I don't think my viewpoint is sufficiently widely shared for that outcome to be likely. Jclemens (talk) 05:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Getting old, my memory is way off base. See Articles for deletion/King of Pop and Articles for deletion/Wacko Jacko. Apologies. Hiding T 23:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "Wacko Jacko" was a commonly used phrase for Michael Jackson ... so, there should be plenty of reliable sources for it. I apologize for harping on this, but I think we should cite some of those sources, and I think the one source that's cited there is particularly good, since Barbara Walters is interviewing him and he's explaining why the name is repugnant to him.  Sending the redirect to the top of the page is going to suggest to a small but significant number of readers that en.wikipedia thinks that's an appropriate name for Michael Jackson (unless it's in the lead, and that's going to be rare, in general). - Dank (push to talk) 23:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * ... and I'm including WP:UNDUE when I'm talking about complying with NPOV, which means the article shouldn't add a new section discussing a derogatory term (or peacock term) if that discussion would give the term undue weight relative to that article. Since there was a huge amount of media attention to the Fort Hood terrorist attack, my feeling was that such a discussion was appropriate.  Wacko Jacko as far as I recall was a widely-used term, but more by tabloids than by respectable papers, so you could make the case that giving people enough information to judge the appropriateness and extent of the term would take up too much room in the article for what it's worth ... if that were the case, then my vote would be to delete the redirect.  Of course, if the term was determined to be notable, we could have a neutral article devoted to it. - Dank (push to talk) 13:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Is 'pseudoscience' the best word to use? Science is surely the key.
Neutral_point_of_view

I think that 'pseudoscience' is an inappropriate word to use in such an important guideline. Ironically it is just too ambiguous a word. I was initially surprised to see it's got in here - but on reflection, maybe not. I do fully understand the need for a section on this general area - but 'Pseudoscience'?

I have a couple of 'side' points I want to say before my suggestions. People who believe in stuff like astrology are still human and thus deserve respect – it does seem the fashion at times to colourfully express the opposite. Why judge them at all? The guidelines should sort us out. Also, regarding 'complementary health', I personally see Wikipedia as being equally vulnerable to the extorting pharmaceuticals that keep most of the world on its knees (one extreme), as it is to the ever-present 'snake oil' salesmen (the other), and of course the desperate and the naive will also make their edits - but such is life. I say all this as I think some ingrained prejudices here can really colour proceedings.

I genuinely believe that Wikipedia's existing editing policies can cover these issues. I do feel, however, that policy is sometimes badly expressed - the first line of Verify is the prime example, which is all that some editors wish to read. The wording of guidelines should be as tight, authoritative, unambiguous and as dispassionate and free from bias as possible – all as a matter of form. (struck out, to avoid people judging me in that Wikipedia-sanctioned NPOV-PSI way people do.. please read on..)

My main suggestion is: why not rename the 'pseudoscience' section to something like "Science related subjects and fringe theories"? It is a logical and positive approach, and the section will offer the same advice and guidelines etc. Advice on what to avoid can be laid out in a similar way.

Also, I think that Psychoanalysis is not a good enough section of Wikipedia to use as an example in here, in any capacity, and especially should not follow the advice “a little more care should be taken...”!!

I also have a suggestion on the used of Intelligent Design. Speaking as an atheist, I do worry that people's religion/spirituality (a human right in my eyes, if not even a genetically inherent one) can too easily be attacked using the 'bogey man' label (or 'slur') of 'pseudoscience'. I've been reading through the Intelligent Design movement articles, and I wonder that listing it as a 'pseudoscience' isn't biased at least to some degree. The theory of ID has always been around, and there are scientists out there who are unwilling to dismiss it completely – so do we need to be so strong? Surely we should put more trust in existing editing policy. Problem encountered in dealing with AGF, cabals, socking etc should certainly not be crowbarred in here. ID seems to me too complex to 'pigeon hole' so simply. ID is clearly also a political matter: ID promoters could be more into centralising the power base of the church and fending off liberal attacks perhaps, than about promoting ID (or creationism) as a genuine science. As for creationism, creating 'fact' based on truth-above-meaning in the Old Testament is unworkable for any 'side' on Wikipedia surely – reading the books at face value simply raise questions of legality. For me, either you believe in a creator (as a significant amount of scientists in fact do) or you are unsure, or you do not. But I'm digressing here a little. My suggestion is: wouldn't Intelligent Design be better as the example of “Questionable science” than psychoanalysis? And, as I suggested above, the whole guideline be structed under 'science' rather than 'pseudoscience'? I just don't see how the realistic practical application of this guideline on Wikipedia can really require the heavy handedness we have now.

Finally, 'Alternative theoretical formulations:'? This phrase seems fundamentally weak to me. Alternative to what? Some fields in science almost entirely consist of contrasting theories. It seems to be based more on 'what is not a pseudoscience' than anything meaningful in its own right. Perhaps under the heading of 'science' this could area be more logically handled too? An explanation of theory in science (and comparing it to fringe theories) could lead the whole section.

It is all related to science in some way, so the science/scientific approach is the key.

I realise that consensus on this section might have been hard won, and that my suggestions could be thus dismissed by regulars, or meet strong opposition. If this wasn't the NPOV policy article I'd be leaving it alone. ID is not an area I have edited in at all, or the others in any great capacity. But for me this part of NPOV seriously needs addressing, or 'honing', if it is better seen that way. Matt Lewis (talk) 12:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * There's probably a long list of arbitration cases that are required reading in this regard. Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience springs to mind. Hiding T 16:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * That case is from Oct 2006 - is there a more recent one you can point to? I didn't spend too long researching the past I admit, partly because I know what those debates/decisions can be like - both the subject and the reader can get lost, lets be honest - even by Arbcom. But when I find something that I can see isn't right, I feel I am entitled to address what is in front of me.


 * Looking through the 2006 Arbcom case I can see it is often about the specific behavior of certain editors, as these cases often are, and blocks resulted on both sides. It is interesting that at least one editor clearly trying to be 'on top' of certain 'pseudoscience' issues/articles have been called "overzealous" in their approach. I don't know how fair that is in the context of the 2006 arbcom case, but I feel the current wording here in NPOV does appear to be over-zealous. Many of the commentators at Arbcom were concerned with the use of the term, and I suspect would agree that changes are needed now. I certainly don't think that the adversarial side of Wikipedia should dictate what is in major editing policy, and I don't it should hinge on 3 year old Arbcom decisions either: when it's got right, it's got right. I don't believe there is so much to 'fear' that policy should be allowed to break its own rules. The section as it stands cannot possibly encourage policy-respect in passing neutral editors. Matt Lewis (talk) 19:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Matt, would you please provide the exact wording you're discussing and provide a link to the section? Thanks. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you mean in the pseudoscience section in the NPOV article, or the 2006 arbcom comments? I've placed a link to the pseudoscience section right at the top of this discussion. If there is anything unclear in my comments directly below it, please say. I'm happy to actually have a go at rewording, but only if I see a chink of interest in change. I've tried working on guidelines/MOS/policy etc before - sometimes it is surprising what you can do, while other times there is no way in at all. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the link. That's the one. I don't see any reason to avoid using such a fundamentally important word as pseudoscience. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You didn't see my reasons as valid then. Or you find the word too important to avoid. My worry is that too much 'fundamental importance' is put into this single word. Other things seem to be avoided in doing so - like some fundamental principles of Wikpiedia. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If you've looked through the arb-com case you'll see there are findings which form the heart of the section you are discussing. You'll also see that arb-com isn't always or even often about the specific behaviour of certain editors. I have to say I too don't see any reason to avoid using the term pseudoscience. I'm not sure I can reconcile the neutral point of view policy with an idea that should avoid terms out of respect. Hiding T 22:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Out of respect? I was commenting there on the 'disrespectful' attitude of some of the more ardent 'anti-pseudoscience' editors out there, not proposing 'respectfulness' as a reason in itself to avoid the word 'pseudoscience'!
 * @Matt. Could you then explain what you meant in your opening statement when you said "People who believe in stuff like astrology are still human and thus deserve respect", please? Hiding T 07:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Look, I began the point by calling it a 'side point', and ended the point by referring to unhelpful 'ingrained prejudices' - ie a lack of basic respect throughout Wikipedia by some towards people who advocate a 'pseudoscience'. I am clearly getting the brunt of this 'bad attitute' now and I'm no advocate of any pseudoscience at all - it really isn't helpful. I've already re-explained myself when you first questioned me above. I feel like you are searching for some kind of 'political correctness' here to go after, but I have sound logical reasoning for my proposals - have you read down to them? I realise I've made the classic mistake of complaining about something (a failing of mine) - but I have a right to assume people will properly digest what I have written. Matt Lewis (talk) 10:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I haven't questioned you above, so I am not sure why you are either accusing me of having a bad attitude or of being unhelpful. Truth be told, I don't understand many of your points at all.  You want to rename the section to something like "Science related subjects and fringe theories" because using the term pseudoscience is illogical and negative, which is something I don't understand, don't agree with and don't feel you've actually explained.  Rather, you've asserted it as a given.  The rest of your post seems to contain what on the face of it appears a valid point about Psychoanalysis, before moving into discussion about the Intelligent Design movement articles and whether the term pseudoscince should be used in those articles.  Given that the usage is sourced to reliable sources, I'd suggest the very letter and spirit of this policy is that we do use such terms if they are widely used about something. Your final point about "Alternative theoretical formulations" seems to my mind to stem from a misunderstanding of what is meant.  Alternative theoretical formulations are scientific theories which are alternatives to the consensual scientific position. Maybe that goes some way to clarifying and returning this section of the discussion to a place where civility and good faith can be respected. Hiding T 15:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * From the arbcoms I've seen, the behavior of individual editors can not only get an arbcom going, but can lead to all kinds of rulings being put forward to move on. Have a look at Ireland right now. The majority of the text over the 3 arbcom pages from the 2006 Arbcom case on pseudoscience deals with editors like Sciencepologist and Iantresman. They are very hard to read through too - arbcoms are clearly always easier to follow at the time.


 * As for the rulings - Jimbo Wales talked in his email of Wikipedia having a more sophisticated approach to balancing opposing factors than most journalism. I don't think the rulings, or the pseudoscience section in NPOV offer actual sophistication at all. I find the section more clumsy than clever, and I think the word 'pseudoscience' on Wikipedia has rather been made into a blunt tool to hit people with.


 * The opening comments on page 1 of the arbcom seem to support the gist my suggestions, and I think the idea of putting actual science first in NPOV is as solid as a rock. It is now 3 years on from the 2006 arbcom too. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The Wiktionary definition of the word "pseudoscience" is: "Any body of knowledge purported to be scientific or supported by science but which fails to comply with the scientific method." - it's not a matter of giving offense or offending people - it's a word with a clear, simple meaning. I have consulted several other dictionaries - and they pretty much agree on that.


 * Astrology (to pick an example at random) does indeed purport to be scientific - and it clearly does not comply with the classical "Hypothesis, experiment, peer review, publish, law/theory" chain of evidence that is "The Scientific Method". Hence "pseudoscience" is the correct word to use.  Astrologers who are offended by this, need to carefully consider whether they are indeed following scientific principles - and whether they are claiming to be a science or supported by science.  If they can provide evidence that they are not claiming that - or that they are indeed following the scientific method then the word is being incorrectly applied and we should withdraw it.  If they cannot do that then the word is being correctly applied and they need not take offense.


 * Continually seeking language that is politically correct is not "neutrality" - it is dilution of meaning - trying to cover distinctions that some people find to be counter to their desires. Dilution of meaning is NOT what an encyclopedia should be doing.


 * If we picked some other word to describe things that purport to be science but are not - then (for example) the intelligent design folks would STILL object to being lumped together with the flat-earthers, homeopathists and perpetual-motion machine inventors and would soon demand that we pick yet another word. The fact of the matter is that each of these groups wishes merely to be accepted as a proper hard science - right up there with evolution, relativity and so forth.  They will repeatedly object to any and all efforts to categorize them as anything other than a legitimate science.
 * If we did that and called any subject that purported to be a science "Science" - then we would merely enrage the mainstream physicists, biologists and so forth because we'd be misusing the word "science" to mean things other than "bodies of knowledge that comply with the scientific method".
 * If we assiduously avoid labeling anything whatever as either science or pseudoscience...then should we stop labelling books as "fiction" and "non-fiction"? Should we avoid any kind of distinction on any topic?  No!  That would result in a very weird (and entirely useless) encyclopedia!


 * So have to accept that there is no way to please everyone...no matter what we do, someone is going to be enraged.


 * What we should do (self-evidently, I would claim) is simply to use the correct English word - as defined in a stack of dictionaries. A word that describes something that claims to be a science but is not so.  The most accurate word for that is "pseudoscience" - it has no common synonyms - and therefore that is without doubt the word we should use regardless of the opinions or offense of pseudo-scientific thinkers.  If they do not wish to be so labeled - they must either drop the pretense of being a science - or begin an aggressive program of applying the scientific method to their sphere of interest.  Sadly, we know they won't do that - the defining feature of a pseudo-scientist is someone who really doesn't want to have their view of the world overturned by mainstream scientific techniques yet craves the societal acceptance that comes with being labelled a "science" - that's why they pretend offense at being labeled with a perfectly cromulant word.


 * SteveBaker (talk) 02:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * This speech above is based on a total misreading of what I have written, now twice re-explained when asked! I'm getting a bit pissed off about this - I didn't come here to be blown away by a righteous band wagon! Ironically, I do think this is rather another example of the 'lack of basic respect' I started my suggestions by complaining about (never ever ever ever start with a complaint!!! When will I learn??).


 * I would add that I don't like the negative assumption that "no matter what we do, someone will always be enraged". It classically narrows horizons - is that ever wise? Also, I've never argued with the definition of pseudoscience, but it is still too fuzzy a label for my scientific mind. NPOV needs to be crystal and untarnished - it doesn't need a lump hammer, lump-all 'super word' be an effective guideline. Also astrology, like wrestling, is frankly camp. And it touches religion in some cultures too. I find the polemics against 'phoney science' often too simplistic in cultural terms, and way too intense at times. We need to simmer down. I'm scrubbing out the supposedly 'politically correct' part of my original post - please read it again. Matt Lewis (talk) 11:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * What is "fuzzy" about the definition I quoted from wiktionary? I read your original post before my initial response - and have now read your revised post.  I don't see where using a word 100% correctly is in any way not 'neutral'.  There might be a loss of neutrality when the reason for using the word are in doubt.  If someone tried to label cold fusion as "pseudoscience" - I'd have to object on the grounds that the scientific method is being pursued - my personal belief is that cold fusion is false - but acting neutrally, I have to use the term "fringe science".  If someone tried to claim that that the protestant church was a pseudoscience - I'd have to object on the grounds that it makes no claims of a scientific nature - despite my personal atheistic beliefs.  However, when you come to Intelligent Design - which demands to be taught on an equal basis with Evolution in a science curriculum - yet which performs no experiments, no measurements, does not seek peer review in mainstream publications - then the term "pseuodscience" most certainly applies because the dictionary definition of that term clearly applies.  It's not a hammer - it's a word that describes a particular approach to knowledge.  There is no lack of neutrality in a concise definition of what is going on in this field of study.  It is unfortunate that the proponents of ID don't like that label - but we can't continually dilute the language just because some people don't like a particular word.  "phony science" might fit the bill as an alternative to "pseudoscience" - but it's not precisely defined - and I think it is pejorative. SteveBaker (talk) 16:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with SteveBaker. Where the advocates of a viewpoint present it as 'scientific' and the scientific consensus is unequivocally of the view that it is without scientific basis or merit, it is misleading for Wikipedia to itself equivocate (or give the impression of equivocating) on this point. Contrary to Matt Lewis, I would state that Intelligent Design is not "questionable science" -- it lacks any scientific basis, merit or purpose whatsoever. It is, to use the words of one of its most prominent advocates (William Dembski), "just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory." HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Well - kinda. I'm reluctant to agree with what you just wrote.  It's not whether scientific consensus is of the view that the concept does or does not have a scientific basis.  That might be a matter of opinion - or there might be valid scientific debate with only a small minority backing it up.


 * For example - in the early days of Cold Fusion research - it was a legitimate scientific enquiry - there were hypotheses about how the catalyst might cause fusion - there were experiments performed to try to demonstrate it - those results were published and other experimenters tried (in good faith) to reproduce them. When they failed (and published their failures) - it became clear to the majority of scientists that it was a failed hypothesis.  But even after it was believed to be false by the majority of experts in the field - it was still "science" because it continued to be pursued using the scientific method.  Only when proponents abandon the scientific method does it stray into the realms of pseudoscience.  If you look at our cold fusion article - you'll notice that it's labelled as a "fringe theory" and not as pseudoscience.  That's a correct application of the terminology.  Those who continue to believe that cold fusion is "real" are still (hopefully) forming hypotheses, using those hypotheses to suggest experiments - collecting the results - attempting to get others to repeat them - attempting to get them peer-reviewed and (ideally) published in a reputable journal.  That's science - but it's on the fringe because very few scientists are convinced by the results.  If this were pseudoscience, then all of that stuff would have fallen by the wayside and people would be out there claiming that their cars are running on cold fusion or something just as unlikely.


 * So you could scientifically approach (say) homeopathy - form a hypothesis that might suggest why it might work - do careful experiments - and abide by the results. However, when those experiments prove that there is nothing behind the idea - or if you simply cease to do those experiments and blindly assert correctness - then you have failed to rigorously apply the scientific method.  When you then go ahead and sell a bunch of distilled water on the shelves of WalMart's pharmacutical counter to the gullible public for $10 a gram - then the practice is well into the realms of pseudoscience and should rightly be labelled as such...because that is what the word means.


 * But we must distinguish fringe theories. Fringe theories may yet (just possibly) have value if scientific methods are pursued until a definite conclusion is obtained one way or the other.  Pseudoscience doesn't to that - it generally proceeds from an assumption that the end result is true and that's not the right approach.  As many pseudoscience proponents are all too happy to point out - sometimes a fringe theory turns out to be true.  Relativity was a fringe theory for a long time.  The "many worlds" interpretation of quantum theory is (arguably) a fringe theory - that may yet turn out to be true.  Pseudoscience is almost always untrue - but that's not the point - it's not about truth or falsehood - it's about the refusal of the proponents to properly test their ideas using "The Scientific Method" that's proven to be so powerful over the 200 or so years that it's been rigorously applied.


 * On the other side of things - most religions cannot be correctly labelled as 'pseudoscience' because although people are not using the scientific method to search for gods - they also don't generally make claims that the existence of gods are scientific fact. They appeal only to faith or other tenants.  Hence religions are not pseudosciences.  Even Intelligent Design would not be a pseudoscience if it did not lay claim to scientific truth...yet, sadly, it most certainly does - and yet fails to follow the scientific method...so we're back labeling it as pseudoscience rather than simply religious faith.


 * SteveBaker (talk) 05:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think there's anything that you just wrote that I'd disagree with SteveBaker, and if I gave appearance of disagreeing with it, then I must have been careless in my wording. I think an article on cold fusion should (and most probably does) state unequivocally that nobody's gotten CF to work, but should not in any way denigrate attempts to try to get it to work as "pseudoscience". It was a legitimate scientific hypothesis, serving clear scholarly and practical objectives. That it remains (to date) a failed hypothesis does not make it "pseudoscientific". Likewise I would argue that many other, older, failed hypotheses are not pseudoscientific, unless and until they are represented with their failure hidden. Perpetual motion would be one good example. Prior to the Laws of Thermodynamics being known, they would have been a legitimate hypothesis -- today they are obvious pseudoscience (but that doesn't appear to stop its continual representation as workable). Believing that the world is only 6000 years old isn't pseudoscience, claiming that there is scientific evidence of a global Genesis Flood, or that radiometric dating revealing ages older than this figure are scientifically inaccurate, clearly is pseudoscientific. The problem is that the former and the latter are often very tightly intertwined. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * No - I'm sure you weren't disagreeing with me - I just wanted to be really sure that we're using this word with precision:
 * Science - studies and claimed knowledge that follow the scientific method.
 * Fringe science - studies and claimed knowledge that, whilst using the scientific method, are widely regarded as false by the majority of practitioners - while a clear minority continue to pursue that line of attack.
 * Pseudoscience - studies and claimed knowledge that makes claims of a scientific nature, without following the scientific method.
 * SteveBaker (talk) 16:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Where would String theory fit in that framework? It has, as yet (and AFAIK), failed to come up with any testable hypotheses, so does not (and cannot) follow the scientific method. However, most would classify it as fringe science, rather than pseudoscience, because it is pursued with the objective of hopefully eventually developing some testable predictions. Also, I think consideration needs to be given of hypotheses that, while they were in keeping with the state of the scientific method of their day, would fail the modern state of it. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * String theory is a tricky one. The proponents are trying their best to come up with experimentally testable hypotheses - but it's tough.  I guess we need another bullet point to add to the list of terms I gave above:
 * Unfalsifiable hypothesis - studies and claimed knowledge that is not testable by the scientific method.
 * Most religious thought falls into that category. String theory is currently on the borderlines of that.  Spme things are both pseudoscience and unfalsifiable...others are just one or just the other.  You can easily prove or disprove homeopathy by experiment, for example - so it's not unfalsifiable.  ID might arguably be said to be unfalsifiable (I don't happen to believe that) - but it's still pseudoscience. SteveBaker (talk) 21:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I would question that. Beyond the core claim that the world is ~6k years old, most of Young Earth creationism consists of restatement of falsified hypotheses as though they were still viable (see Creation science, Flood geology & Creation geophysics). ID's a bit trickier admittedly -- with hypotheses such as irreducible complexity & specified complexity teetering between unfalsifiable, falsified and/or a question of 'are the concepts being put forward meaningful?' (which might arguably be considered a subset of the former), with a generous dose of equivocation in their formulation serving to further muddy the waters. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

A hypothesis is falsifiable if its proponents and opponents can agree that there is a way to disprove it. If proponents cop an attitude like, "No matter what you say, we intend to adhere to our theory", then they are not playing fair: they are refusing to be accountable to independent review. This is more common in mainstream science, I daresay, than the general public is usually aware. (I recall a recent case where a scientist refused to share his data and methods with an opponent of his theory, on the grounds that, "You're just trying to poke holes in it."

Likewise, if opponents of a theory go, "Nothing you say can convince us of your theory", then they also aren't playing fair.

Of course, it's not for us Wikipedia contributors to make these calls: we can't label one side or the other as unfair. We can, however, report that a published verifiable source (A) declared that a particular view (X) or adherent (Y) is pseudoscientific; and better yet, summarize the reasons A gave for why X or Y is out of accord with the scientific method.

Accusations of pseudoscience are rife in fields such as human origins, climate science (see global warming controversy) and the toxicology of various chemicals. It's not up to us to act as referees here, is it? I suggest we simply identify the sides, summarize their evidence and reasoning, and try to ascertain who supports each side. --Uncle Ed (talk) 03:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Denialism of human evolution (the article that 'human origins' redirects to), is rife with falsified hypotheses (such as Flood Geology which was falsified two centuries ago) that are still presented as viable. These are not mere "accusations", but an unequivocal scientific consensus. It is "up to us" to give WP:DUE weight to expert scientific opinion and not give equal validity to the faux-evidence & tendentious reasoning of WP:FRINGE (including pseudoscience) advocates (which generally fails WP:SELFPUB). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, of course. If we can ascertain that the "consensus" supports a side, then we say so. For example, scientists are 95% to 5% in favor of the theory of evolution and if consensus means 85% or more then we can describe that as a scientific consensus. The amazing thing is that among the general public evolution polls show 40% or more oppose one or another aspect of the mainstream view. This makes evolution the most unpopular "consensus" view in science.


 * I agree that the "consensus" needn't be unambiguous, but I'm not sure that's germane to the issue. Incidentally, the public opinion polls should not determine what we present as science.


 * But what about fields or topics where there is a dispute over which theories "lack scientific status by use of an inappropriate methodology or lack of objective evidence"? Is it up to us as contributors to judge such matters? I would hope rather we would stand back and refuse to evaluate the validity of either side, unless such a refusal is automatically considered to grant "equal validity" to both sides.


 * It is not our job to judge, it is our job to reflect the state of reliable literature, which almost exclusively labels said "sciences" pseudoscience.


 * In the early days of Wikipedia, the refusal to judge which side was more right was seen as a virtue of our system. I hope I have not misread current policy, and I hope that we are still allowed to "back off" and say we don't know which side is more right without running the risk of violationg WP:GEVAL.


 * See above remark.


 * I guess it's the difference between seeing science as a work in progress (with suspended judgment seen as useful) rather than as a legal issue (with every big issue requiring that a position be taken). --Uncle Ed (talk) 05:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, see above. It's precisely because we're not passing judgement that we label such subjects "unscientific", or "pseudoscience" - that is what reliable sources say.--Leon (talk) 09:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What SteveBaker said. Also, a number of related ArbCom cases are collected at Fringe theories/Arbitration cases. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Content forking, Splitting articles
I have removed a recent addition to UNDUE which appears to me to contradict Content forking and encourage POV forking. Comments welcome. Crum375 (talk) 22:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It seemed perfectly in keeping with guidance to me so I re-instated it. There's discussion up the page at and a post in the archives regarding the changes, see Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view/Archive_37. Hiding T 23:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that including this language ("to be discussed more fully elsewhere without dominating an article to which they are non-central"), in the UNDUE policy section, encourages editors to split off their POV forks, instead of trying to resolve their differences and achieve a neutral version. This is exactly what Content forking tries to prevent, and runs counter to NPOV and UNDUE, by creating POV forks instead of neutral articles. In those cases where a sub-article is needed (e.g. because one sub-topic has grown too large), the sub-article should be summarized carefully in the parent article, so there is no conflict or overlap. Crum375 (talk) 00:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, and I support removing the added text. I think the opposing feeling is that the new words are to deal with good material that is simply out of place. See above where an example about Tattoo is given. I did not examine the example but it appears to concern an article where good material concerning a minor topic grew so that the section had an "undue weight" in the main article; the matter was resolved by splitting. To me, WP:UNDUE should be focused on its main point: articles must be NPOV, but that does not mean "equal weight to all views", and in fact a mainstream article need not mention a minor fringe view at all (except as done, for example, in Evolution where a link to Creationism is given under a "Social and cultural responses" heading). Johnuniq (talk) 01:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Re Crum375: What you describe as "what Content forking tries to prevent" also happens to be exactly what WP:SPLIT and WP:SUMMARY demand. Summary style, of course, is appropriate for some articles, but not all articles. But where it is appropriate, it really is important to maintain NPOV, and one of the chief impediments to that in real-life editing is an insistence by some editors that their particular pet subtopic "must be mentioned" in the main article (and with all the details they can locate about it). Editorial judgments need to be subtle and contextual, and that's why we need an addition/clarification that at least steers editors in the right direction. Some WP:SPLITs are a good idea, and others indeed promote WP:FRINGE or otherwise unencyclopedic content... but the solution must not be to put every article verifiable and factual bit of information on a topic into just one article, while ignoring WP:BALANCE and WP:WEIGHT! LotLE × talk 02:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone is arguing that you must put every verifiable fact into an article &mdash; this is exactly what UNDUE is trying to prevent. But allowing editors to fork off an article about a sub-topic which is unacceptable in the parent article, can often violate UNDUE. Let's say that we have a BLP article about famous historian John Smith, who was recently in the news because he was caught driving under the influence. The latter event may be verifiable, and possibly notable (if recent), but its inclusion in the main John Smith article, beyond at most a few words, could easily violate UNDUE.
 * So do we want editors to create John Smith's DUI arrest article? Of course not. Wikipedia should be viewed as a whole, and if the DUI incident is too trivial and UNDUE for the main article, it would also be UNDUE if it's tucked away under a different name. So the point is simple: if something is UNDUE, it's undue anywhere, and POV forks should be avoided. Including the new additional language in the UNDUE section would encourage POV forks, and undermine NPOV. Crum375 (talk) 02:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * This seems almost exactly wrong, Crum375. Some material that is WP:UNDUE in one place, can very well be entirely appropriate and notable in a sister or child article (and have appropriate WP:WEIGHT within its own article).  Obviously, not every verifiable incident or subtopic is notable (i.e. by AfD standards), but many of them are.  In fact we can pick an example that is almost exactly the one you mention as hypothetical to show this.  In the article on Ted Kennedy, we have a 4 paragraph discussion of the Chappaquiddick incident: Ted Kennedy.  That's probably a roughly appropriate weight for that article, that is consistent with WP:NPOV.  However, writing 45 paragraph about the matter in the Ted Kennedy article would be decidedly non-neutral! Fortunately, we can and do have a sister article on Chappaquiddick incident, which is indeed around 45 paragraphs, and indeed should be roughly that WP:LENGTH.
 * In the specifics of our hypothetical John X Smith, I obviously cannot say a priori whether his DUI arrest is of sufficient note for an article. But it's certainly possible it might be.  The Ted Kennedy article and siblings presumably evolved a long time ago, and I'm not going to trace through the old history to figure out the exact sequence.  But something akin to the new incident with John Smith--or just the newly-of-interest-to-editors incident--is an editing history I've encountered dozens of times (if not hundreds).  I've given a bunch of actual examples already of just this (the Tattoo and Tattoo ink one really is clear here).  It might well be that John Smith's DUI is independently notable, and is worth writing 20 paragraphs about.  But at the same time, if you put those 20 paragraphs in the main John X. Smith article, they would be massively non-neutral and violate the spirit of WP:WEIGHT (and the letter if we retain the clarification).
 * Or better still, think of an example that doesn't tread close to defamatory or WP:BLP territory. A DUI is straightforwardly a bad thing.  But instead, what if John Smith--who is already notable, either as an author or for some other reason--writes a new book.  Perhaps that book sparks pubic discussion and reporting, perhaps even somewhat more than have Smith's prior activities.  Most likely, discussion of the new book will start out in the main bio, but at a certain point, too much discussion of the book becomes WP:UNDUE, and in fact a violation of WP:NPOV, if contained in the main bio, but perhaps entirely length appropriate for a child article.  This is especially, but not only, true if the book in question is somehow controversial.  LotLE × talk  20:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Crum375 the wording Crum375 removed should be removed for the reason Crum375 gave. -- PBS (talk) 11:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Specific template for ASF
I have included a new template. I have seen a lot of editors add unnecessary attribution against ASF policy. This template will be usfeul for pointing to the specific WP:ASF policy. QuackGuru (talk) 18:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I see no situation where adding a source is bad. If anything, we suffer from lack of sources, not from an oversupply. This could encourage people to remove sources. Crum375 (talk) 22:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not to be used to remove a source. This is used to remove unnecessary attribution. See WP:ASF. QuackGuru (talk) 05:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I have seen cases where there can be too much, such as up to 20 refs per line. (See the past edit wars on glass transition, liquid, solid, and such articles.) Personally, I see value in multiple corroborating sources. As a reader, I may not have known about them otherwise. But, in my opinion, there should be a common sense limit, say, three per line or so. Zaereth (talk) 22:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There are many cases where multiple references can be combined into a single footnote, which would address legibility concerns. Crum375 (talk) 22:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, I did not know that. Thanks for the info. It may come in handy in the rare instance that happens again. Zaereth (talk) 23:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The reason given in the edit summary to delete the useful template is not a valid reason. It is clear the editor supports attribution against ASF. QuackGuru (talk) 05:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

good faith snafu
Hi, I was trying to do a redirect of "peacock words" to avoid peacock words and I ended up making mistakes and redirecting NPOV incorrectly. Sorry. Can someone with technical skills fix this? Thanks!OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 13:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

"Neutral" vs. "editorially neutral" point of view
For some time this policy has contained this phrase in the first section:


 * "Articles must be written from an editorially neutral point of view."

I have just attempted to insert the word "editorially" in the nutshell and second sentence, along with a pretty clear edit summary. I was reverted and wrote a better edit summary, but was again reverted with a comment that it was "unclear". I would contend that it makes things more clear, and I'll explain why here.

There has always existed a misunderstanding that will always exist (unless we improve the language here), that NPOV means No POV, and this is usually interpreted by advocates of certain POV, that the article about their pet idea mustn't contain criticisms, since they aren't "neutral". They also apply this thinking to our RS policy, and claim that a source cannot be used because it isn't "neutral". Well, we all know that this is based on a misunderstanding of NPOV policy.

This was partially fixed by including the now well-established word "editorially" in the first section, but the nutshell and second sentence still lack this word. I believe it makes things clearer, not unclear. We need to remove this misunderstanding, and this is a key way to do it. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The current long-standing version says: "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view." This is clear and simple. We can expand on this in the body of the article, and we do. But the key to good policy is simplicity. You say that some people believe that this means that all sources must be neutral on their own. That misconception of course would reduce our available sources to near-zero, but the way to combat that, as well as any other misunderstanding, is by further amplification of the details in the body of the policy, not by adding confusing language to what is very clear to most people and has been a cornerstone of this site for years. Crum375 (talk) 02:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd like to hear other people's opinions on this. I obviously don't see this as "confusing language". On the contrary. When a word stands alone, it can easily be misinterpreted, and it is all the time. Now that is "confusing". How many people read the body of the article? Obviously not enough. Add ONE word shouldn't be that big an issue. To make this easy for people to understand, I'll justapose the options:


 * "Articles must be written from a neutral point of view." (current nutshell)


 * "Articles must be written from an editorially neutral point of view." (content in first section)


 * We need more eyes on this. I too believe that simplicity is a good thing, but when things are too simple, they create an ambiguous situation. Adding ONE word removes the ambiguity. I believe that when a policy is constantly being misunderstood, in spite of pretty clear language in the body of the article, something needs to be done. This is ONE word we're talking about. The current wording of the nutshell, which you are fighting for, won't do anything to change the unfortunate status quo. We need to do that. This is a simple way to do it. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Honestly, I was tempted to undo the edit myself. I understand the motivation but I fear that editorial neutral point of view, is indeed a tad unclear and also seems to reduce to an oxymoron Viz. Editorially: by means of an editorial; "the paper commented editorially on the scandal" , Editorial: An editorial, also called a leading article, is a piece of writing intended to promote an opinion or perspective.. The edit would have been better if it had retained the emphasis of the body as in: "Articles must be written from an editorially neutral, point of view informed by the weight of reliable sources". Unomi (talk) 04:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I like the current wording (without "editorially"). It is simply not possible to have any document, let alone a nutshell, that people won't misconstrue. The current wording is clear, and adding "editorially" does not assist to resolve the problem mentioned. An important part of NPOV is UNDUE which is the opposite of how today's politically-correct media outlets understand NPOV (a typical TV program would have one person speaking in favor of evolution, and one against, for editorial balance). Johnuniq (talk) 06:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, then what can we do to prevent this very common misunderstanding? Doing nothing, which is what's happening, won't do. We have loads of newbies arriving all the time, and lots of edit wars occur because of this problem. Something still needs to be done. Is anyone willing to improving the wording? (I have to admit I'm still stunned and flabbergasted that one word which we already use can cause such a flap.) -- Brangifer (talk) 06:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the solution would be to direct the users who harbor said misconception to read the whole page? Unomi (talk) 08:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm talking about prevention, not about what we've always done after the misunderstanding has caused lots of disruption. If a sign is ambiguous and people keep interpreting it wrongly, then it needs rewording. The nutshell is the sign, and many people don't get past it. The body of the article is fine, and the policy is great, but the nutshell needs a little tweak. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It just dawned on me that a nice little template that sums up the policy might be usable is such situations. It would have to be a bit larger than the nutshell, which obviously doesn't work. This doesn't act as a preventive, but only as a bandaid. Hmmm... -- Brangifer (talk) 14:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem here is the use of passive voice, which leads to ambiguities in interpretation of the agent. The active voice construction - Editors must write articles from a neutral point of view... - makes it very clear that it is the editors who are required to be neutral, not the article itself. A whole lot of policy pages would benefit from passive to active voice conversions, if you ask me. -- Ludwigs 2 20:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Content forks & Splits
The best time to split an article is when giving the information in detail would lead to the article wandering away from its WP:TOPIC. Any new article should have sufficient notability to sustain a separate article without POV forking.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 19:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I have reverted the revert made by Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters. This talk page does not show consensus for the addition of this material. This is an established policy not an article and there needs to be a consensus for changes such as these. There is no fire on this issue so I do not see why the new text has to be in the policy while it is being discussed. -- PBS (talk) 20:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Above, Crum375 gave an excellent example of what UNDUE is supposed to stop: the excited addition (with subsequent embellishment) of a minor DUI charge to the bio of a famous historian. Can those wanting the proposed wording please engage with that example because LotLE's rebuttal fails as it used a sensationally notable incident (Chappaquiddick) which is nothing to do with UNDUE, whereas Crum375 was talking about the essence of UNDUE where a genuinely minor and undue-weight incident is inserted into an article. WP:NPOV should not be worded so as to encourage the historian's (genuinely trivial) DUI being moved to a POV split article.

I have already acknowledged that the Tattoo example provides good support for those wanting to say that a minor detail (such as the ink used for tattoing) should not be unduly expanded in the main article, but should (if there is sufficient material) be split off to another article. However, WP:UNDUE is the wrong place to make that good point because UNDUE is quoted to POV merchants who would misinterpret mention of WP:UNDUE as a hint that they should make another article devoted to their undue POV (if the new wording were included). Johnuniq (talk) 23:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * That's correct. UNDUE does not allow editors to use a fork as a means of creating their favored POV version away from the scrutiny of the main article and its editors. We are allowed to create related articles in the limited case where there are no UNDUE issues but simply too much material to cover in the main article, which if left there would create clutter, making it less readable, or make the main article too large. Once the excess material is moved out, we maintain in the main article a brief and balanced summary of the sub-article, in summary style, and must keep it up to date. We may not move material into a sub-article to avoid scrutiny, or to expand on one detail excessively to promote one view, which is the goal of many POV pushers. Crum375 (talk) 00:07, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, but "We are allowed to create related articles in the limited case where there are no UNDUE issues but simply too much material to cover in the main article, which if left there would create clutter, making it less readable, or make the main article too large." is not the consensus position nor is it the policy position. The actual position is that we don't give minority positions or views undue weight in an article. We don't give the BNP half the text of the article on British Politics, because that would be undue weight. (For the US read that bloke who ran against Clinton and Bush or that bloke who ran against Gore and Bush). However, since they are a notable party, we certainly give them their own article, which would not be a POV fork. POV forks have next to nothing to do with UNDUE WEIGHT. That's exactly why the text "to be discussed more fully elsewhere without dominating an article to which they are non-central", is almost the very basis of the policy, and people who assert otherwise really don't understand the policy, unless they really are suggesting that people cram as much information about the BNP into the article on British Politics. Oh, and if you seriously want me to engage with the DUI example, it's quite simple: Is the DUI incident notable enough to warrant its own article? That's the question you are asking, so that's the answer you get. Hiding T 17:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that if there is enough notability and material for an article, it may in some cases be separated from the parent article. But we don't do it to avoid UNDUE, because if we did, it could lead to POV forking. We do it to make the parent article more readable, and to be able to give the sub-article deeper coverage. If it's a non-contentious issue, it's obvious &mdash; if we have a parent article on Shakespeare, we can have sub-articles for each of his plays. But if we have an article on the fictitious historian from the above example, and there was a DUI incident reported in a bunch of papers, we don't run off and create a sub-article about it, unless the mainstream media coverage is so large and so persistent that it becomes an important part of his overall notability. Even then, we need to carefully and neutrally summarize the sub-article in a section of the parent article, and keep the summary up to date. I used BLP as example, but the same principle applies for any controversial topic: our goal is to keep information centralized, and avoid removing controversies to separate POV-magnet articles if at all possible. Crum375 (talk) 18:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It is exactly UNDUE WEIGHT that is most usually violated by the growth of a sub-topic within an existing article. It looks like Johnuniq is trying to play games with the DUI hypothetical (it's notable, no it's not, it does/doesn't merit a sub-article, a famous actual case doesn't count because it is notable, etc).  Obviously there is no right answer for the notability of an abstract hypothetical incident in the life of a hypothetical BLP.  Things can be various ways.
 * The core issue however is something I have encountered in dozens or hundreds of articles. I'm not concerned with the relatively straightforward case where purely WP:FRINGE material is introduced, which is simply not worth keeping on the encyclopedia in any article, whether parent or child or sibling.  Rather, I'm concerned with the case where the material is clearly and straightforwardly notable, but it's not as notable to the existing article as the length some editor  has written (in perfectly good faith, and with good writing, proper sources, etc).
 * Along with the Tattoo ink (and even better Tattoo removal) things I have mentioned several times, the above example of the British National Party is a perfect example too. The BNP is a genuinely notable (albeit disturbing) feature of British politics, about which a very large number of encyclopedic words can be written.  But as a matter of weight (and here it really means length, just pure count of words), we should not exaggerate the importance of the BNP Politics of the United Kingdom or British political parties.  If half of those general articles were about the BNP, it would give readers the starkly non-neutral impression that the BNP made up half the topic (in very rough terms, but balance of length creates a huge impression, no matter what the specific words say).  It doesn't help just to start the section with "BNP is a small British party..." (then write 10000 words about it).  Nor to start a section with "A small percentage of people with tattoos have them removed" (then 10000 words on how it is done).  This is true even if every one of those subtopic words is brilliant prose that is cited with the best of sources.  LotLE × talk  21:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Crum, you need to re-read the policy. "Neutrality requires 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 we don't remove information for readability, we remove it where it unbalances the article. Either we are talking at cross purposes or you have a flawed understanding of the policy, as can be seen by your chosen examples. The example of Shakespear and his plays has nothing to do with undue weight. Maybe it is best to stick to the actual example used in the policy, that of the Flat Earth theory.  Perhaps you could describe how your understanding of the policy pertains to that example. That would be appreciated and would help move the debate on. Everything you have raised so far has nothing to do with undue weight and everything to do with other stuff like notability and content forking. Let's debate undue weight. Undue weight is about giving each view and incident its due weight. Content forking is something separate, and can happen regardless of anything to do with due weight. If you had read this policy you would understand that content forking is a good thing, POV forking is the bad thing: "For example, Evolution, Evolution as theory and fact, Creationism, and Creationism-evolution controversy are all in separate articles. This is called a content fork and it helps prevent wasted effort and unnecessary debates: by covering related topics in different articles, we do not have to argue over covering everything in one article." If we can debate all these terms using the consensual definitions found in policy, then we can make sure we are all on the same page and no misunderstandings occur, yes? Hiding T 09:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The issue is this: WP:UNDUE can be read as a directive (1) that fringe material should not be inserted into mainstream articles, or (2) that minor sections within a topic should not be expanded to unbalance the main article. In both (1) and (2) it is ok to split the article if the topic satisfies notability. Point (2) is stuff like lengthy discussion of a play in the Shakespeare article, or the type of ink in the Tattoo article. Point (2) is about "good" material that an overly-enthusiastic editor wants to expand in the main article. By contrast, point (1) is about "bad" material, typically pseudoscience or other nonsense that is unsupported by suitable mainstream references. Splitting is encouraged for (2) (subject to the normal requirements of a decent article). Splitting should not be encouraged for (1), although it is suitable for really notable topics such as creationism.
 * The argument here is that some of us think that WP:UNDUE is intended to discourage (1) (and so should not encourage splitting), while others think that WP:UNDUE is intended to discourage (2) (and so should refer to splitting). I think it is (1) because WP:NPOV says to proportionally mention all points of view, so WP:UNDUE is needed to give an exception: we do not need to refer to flat earth theories in the main Earth article. Johnuniq (talk) 23:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * (1) and (2) are the same thing. UNDUE WEIGHT means fringe material should be given due weight in a main article.  That doesn't mean it should not be inserted, it means it may or may not be inserted.  It's an editorial judgement which needs to be made with reference to the wider consensus in all reliable sources. The policy makes no call as to whether we refer to flat earth theories in the main Earth article, only a call on modern support for the theory. Our article on Earth does mention the Flat Earth hypothesis with the due weight, namely twice. We do need to refer to flat earth theories in the main Earth article with due weight. UNDUE WEIGHT can't encourage or discourage splitting, because that isn't within the remit.  The notion of due weight with regards a topic receiving an article is outlined at WP:NOT and WP:N. I'd suggest people who don't understand the policy go through the history of the page and examine why it was introduced and therefore what it means. Beyond all that, though, in the interests of bridge-building and reaching a consensus, I can live with what we have at present. Hiding T 11:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

(dedent) I think we are making some progress, Johnuniq. I entirely agree with your analysis of directives (1) and (2). We indeed do not want fringe material anywhere on the encyclopedia, per (1). But we also want good material to be not only good in itself, but also well organized among articles. I wouldn't necessarily characterize an editor who adds a large amount of "good" material to an article, hence unbalancing it, as overly-enthusiastic, necessarily. It might simply be that that editor happens to know a lot about that subtopic, or the subtopic engages her interest to a high degree. In any case, adding enough "good" material to an article can, and frequently does, create its own NPOV problem by making the minor subtopic seem more important to the main topic than is reasonable to claim. Please help me find some language that lets us clearly indicate both requirements. The particular words I wrote are not necessarily the best possible, but the general clarification is, in my experience, desperately needed. LotLE × talk 01:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The bulk of this policy describes various subtleties of directive (1), and provides examples of how it plays out.
 * The smaller section WP:WEIGHT within this policy, however, is really about directive (2). However, the UNDUE WEIGHT section is insufficiently clear as currently written, and needs to be tweaked to make its point better.
 * That point needing clarification is: "If the situation at hand is about "good" material, falling within directive (2), then it is good to consider WP:SPLITing and the WP:TOPIC of the existing article.
 * There is no reason why this policy cannot or should not provide general advice about what to do in both situation (1) and in situation (2) (while clearly describing that they are different). In my personal editing experience (which is 6 years long, and over many thousands of articles), the failure of directive (2) causes NPOV problems at least as often as does a failure of directive (1).  Or rather, the problems with (2) tend to linger longer and require more work to address well.  Simply deleting WP:NONSENSE is often much easier (although indeed should be stated in policy).  It may be that as WP has become more mature, we are fortunate enough to encounter (2) more often relative to (1) than we were in the early days.
 * I think the current wording as it stands is misleading. Content forks of all types are inappropriate, such that they represent articles which address the same article topic but have different article titles. There is sufficient guidance in existence to support this view: Naming conventions and WP:AVOIDSPLIT are clear about how related topics should be dealt with. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Article names
Per recent discussions at WT:NAME, I think we need to make a small change/additon to this section... sometimes a non-neutral term (a "term to be avoided") is included in the accepted proper name for an event (consider: Tea Pot Dome scandal and Boston massacre). The way the section is currently worded, it reads like we are never allowed to name articles using non-neutral terms... even in situations where such terms are part of the standard, accepted name of the event. I do realize that we would have to word any hint that there is an exception to neutrality in article titles very clearly and carefully, but sometimes POV names are actually appropriate. Blueboar (talk) 17:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The two examples mentioned by Blueboar are historical events where non-neutral terms are part of the standard terminology used in the historical record. The issue of historical POV names is addressed in Words to avoid, which says:


 * "The words scandal, affair, and -gate are often used in journalism to describe a controversial episode or in politics to discredit opponents. They typically imply wrongdoing or a point of view. The use of one of these words in an article should be qualified by attributing it to the party that uses it. They should not be used in article titles except in historical cases where the term is widely used by reputable historical sources (e.g., Teapot Dome scandal, Dreyfus affair or Watergate scandal)."


 * The question here is what we do with current controversies, particularly where there is partisan disagreement on whether there has been any wrongdoing in the controversy. Wikipedia's practice has generally been to use neutral descriptive names, such as "Dismissal of US attorneys controversy" rather than the nickname "Attorneygate" or the partisan "U.S. Attorneys firing scandal"; "Whitewater controversy" rather than "Whitewater scandal" or "Whitewatergate"; and so on. The non-neutral terms do exist as redirects, though, since redirects are exempt from NPOV (see Redirect).


 * I note that WP:NPOV deprecates "descriptive titles that suggest a viewpoint either "for" or "against" any given issue". This would seem to rule out names that take sides on whether or not the issue involved the wrongdoing implied by terms such as "scandal" and "-gate". The statement that "encyclopedic article titles are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality" would seem to rule out definitively the use of POV names. The "POVness" of historical names such as the "Tea Pot Dome scandal" has, in a sense, been diluted by history - who now disputes the issue? - but where a controversy is still current or recent it would seem inadvisable for Wikipedia to take sides.


 * One more thought - our current approach has been in use for a long time and has worked well in practice, averting needless conflict between editors by clearly ruling some titles off-limits. I'd be inclined to say "if it ain't broke don't fix it". -- ChrisO (talk) 21:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Chris makes a very valid point... and I don't disagree with his point... but the distinction between current and historical events is not clearly made in the policy. It is a distinction that should be made.  Of course, it leads to the next question... at what point does a name shift from "current" to "historical"?  My answer... when the majority of reliable sources all start using the same name for the event. Blueboar (talk) 21:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Good question. I don't think your answer really works, though, because if something is current then it can't be considered "historical" purely by virtue of the terminology used to refer to it. Perhaps one way to consider it is whether the issue is still the subject of ongoing controversy. I don't think there's anyone disputing the essential facts of Tea Pot Dome or the Boston Massacre. If a controversy is ongoing, though, I think we should avoid taking sides on it.


 * There is also the question of which reliable sources we are considering. The press will treat an issue differently to historians (more sensationalised, less depth of coverage, narrower perspective, often overtly partisan). If academics converge on a particular term (as in the two examples you gave) that has rather different implications to the media converging on a term, since the two professions are driven by very different imperatives. Wikipedia's approach is more akin to that of academics, since an encyclopedia is an essentially academic project - Wikipedia is not news, after all. I suggest that we focus on academic works to source historical "POV names". -- ChrisO (talk) 22:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I can mostly agree with that... I think we agree that articles on current events should be named neutrally, and articles on historic events should be named according to how historians name them. So we are really only dealing with events that lie somewhere  between  "current events" and "history".  And the question is how to define that line. (and perhaps the answer to this is: we can not, and should not define it... as it will be at a different point for every event.)
 * I do have a problem with saying that the point comes "when there no on going controversy"... as some very historical events (with settled names) are still controvercial, ... and some events with long settled names are the subject of new controversies. (and let's not forget that people can even disagree as to whether a controversy even exists... According to creationists, evolution is "controversial"... according to Biologists there is no controversy.)  I am also not at all sure about writing off names coined by media sources, although I do understand your point. Blueboar (talk) 23:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You're probably right about there being different points where a current event becomes an historical one. It's probably best to approach that question on a case-by-case basis.


 * On the controversy point, the example you give is an interesting one - creationists have for some time pursued a strategy called "Teach the Controversy", but the controversy on this issue is primarily political/religious, not scientific. There are a number of issues where a consensus exists among scientists but not among the general public. In such cases, we would follow the consensus view of the experts in the field and cover the controversy as a distinct issue, perhaps in a separate article if there is enough material (as with creation-evolution controversy). -- ChrisO (talk) 01:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually... thinking about it more, my example is probably not really relevant to this debate. The point I was tryign to make is that sometimes a name gets settled on something, even though there may be on going controversy surrounding the topic.  I certainly agree that if there is controversy over what to call something, we should opt for a neutral name.  But if and when reliable sources have settled on a name for something, then we should also use that name... even if that name seems POV.  The reason being that the POV is that of the sources, and not our own.  This fits with my understanding of neutral writing... that there is a difference between presenting the POV of the sources and injecting our own POV.  Blueboar (talk) 04:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I changed the language addition slightly to indicate the possibility that a non-neutral name that was in widespread use at some point (or even currently), might still be subject to ongoing or renewed dispute. That is, just because some slanted term was used widely, that doesn't automatically mean it is the best article name now (i.e. if some significant and notable group disputes the prior naming). I think it would be good to use an example, but it is somewhat more difficult than the converse case of non-neutral names that should nonetheless be used. I considered Cherokee removal versus the probably better-known Cherokee trail of tears. Or maybe something with Armenian genocide (the current title). It's hard to find an example that will be clear rather than partisan though. LotLE × talk 08:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree with this... it is not our job to make up names for things that have names... names that are used by reliable sources.  If there is a real dispute over a name, that dispute will be reflected in reliable sources, and when reliable sources disagree over what something is called, then we should either use the most neutral of the names that are used by the reliable sources, or make up a neutral name for ourselves... but we should not reject a widely used name simply because a small minority wants it phrased differently.  In fact, I would argue that doing so interjects our own POV over that of the experts... which would violate NPOV (and could, depending on the name we make up, violate NOR as well). Blueboar (talk) 14:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * As stated in your recent edit, Blueboar (and in your original introduction of the "exception"), the addition looks far too much like a carte blanche "ignore neutral language". This needs to be carefully tempered to limit the scope of cases where non-neutral names are permissible.  I've tried to improve that language, but the alternative to finding consensus precise language is to simply remove your recent addition, and go back to the longstanding version of a few days ago  LotLE × talk  19:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The article name should be NPOV. Other RS'ed names, no matter how POV, should be redirects to sections which document those alternative names.  What's so hard about that? Jclemens (talk) 19:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I do think there is a limited purpose to Blueboar's addition. There are a handful of historical events where a markedly non-neutral term is used by all non-fringe sources in describing it.  If we simply took an a priori rule that words like "massacre", "scandal", or "genocide" cannot be used in article names, that would be too much.  However, we do not want to go so far as saying that a simple majority of (reliable) sources carry the day.  There really are non-neutral terms that are widely used, but are not uniformly used.  In that case, a more neutral term, even if used by a (significant) minority should be chosen as the article name, but discussion of the non-neutral name can be included in the article text.  LotLE × talk  19:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Please undestand that the purpose of my edits is to resolve a conflict between WP:NPOV and WP:NAME, and not due to any desire to weeken NPOV. At the moment WP:NAME gives priority to common names without regard to neutrality while this policy gives priority to neutrality without regard to common names... the two policies need to meet somewhere in the middle.  What we are trying to figure out is where they should meet.
 * I suppose what I am trying to say is that when lots and lots of reliable sources all use the same name for a topic, that name should be seen as being the topic's proper name. We don't change proper names of things, even when there is "controversy".  We have an article entitled "Holocaust" (which Neo-Nazis and Holocaust deniers will say is "controvercial") instead of the more neutrally worded "Mass killings under the Nazi regime" because "Holocaust" is the accepted name for the topic.  On the other hand... we have the more neutrally named article entitled "Mass killings under Communist regimes"... because there isn't a commonly accepted name for the topic.   Blueboar (talk) 21:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * We need to be clear that when there is a widely used neutral term for an historical event, we should prefer that. Even if, e.g. 75% of reliable or academic sources use the more loaded term, Wikipedia should choose the more neutral form that has 25% usage. However, we should clearly not avoid common usage because some extremist WP:FRINGE sources use something different.  It's not the "German-Jewish conflict" or whatever the Holocaust deniers would want; and it's not the "War of Northern Aggression" because of a few KKK types in the American South would rather call the American Civil War that.  This is a judgment call that can only be made case-by-case though.  This is why I mentioned in this discussion Armenian genocide; while that is the current article name, whether it should be so is frequently raised on the article talk page, with various less marked versions often proposed.  Those "pro-Turkish" names are not quite extremist ones, but they are probably just below the level of "substantial use by reliable sources".  This choice is not obvious (but neither am I trying to raise a very long discussion that belongs elsewhere... and that is probably rightly decided now).  The other example of Cherokee removal is one that is close in the balance of usage, but was decided the other way (i.e. the neutral, but less common, alternative to "Trail of tears" is now used).  "Lots and lots" of uses isn't enough to choose the non-neutral name, it has to be something more like "predominant" or "uniform non-fringe".  LotLE × talk  23:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I concur that when there is a widely used neutral name we should use it... but the reason we should use it has more to do with the fact that it is widely used than the fact that it happens to be neutral. This isn't to say that neutrality should never be a factor... Where I think neutrality would be a determining factor is when there either isn't a widely used name (in which case we are free to make up our own name), or where several widely used names are essentially equally common (in which case go with the one that is the most neutral).
 * Actually, I think we are very close to agreement, and just need to figure out the best way to word all this. That said... I am not sure that we should limit this just to historical events.  I have been using these as examples, because they are what I am most familiar with... however, I could easily see this being an issue in other fields as well.  When any topic has a name that meets all of these criteria we have been discussing... that is the name we should use. Blueboar (talk) 00:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that we are advocating very close positions. And also that this isn't really only about historical events per se.  However, I think we will find fewer examples in other areas (but the wording should probably allow such other areas).  In something like a scientific or artistic area, I cannot think of non-neutral names that have become predominant that way.  Maybe there is something called "The greatest sculpture ever" that I don't know about (but not as the simple title of the work, rather as a hypothetical commonplace description), but more likely it would just go by an official title (or perhaps by the place it was found, e.g. for discovered antiquities).  Still, I think the wording I have put in most recently covers these cases all pretty well.  LotLE × talk  00:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Pellian equation, which is not only non-neutral, but wrong; but is nevertheless usage - and which we should keep because it is usage. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I do not think that equations, scientific laws, places, etc. that are named after individuals fall under the same set of concerns being discussed here. There often are disputes about the proper attribution of a discovery to one individual versus another, with all sorts of variations on the merits of different such claims.  But there is nothing inherently WP:POV about a particular proper name, even if it is a misattribution. John Pell may not actually deserve to get those equations named after him, but it's not as if he's a bad guy who's name disparages the math.  If someone proposed calling some mathematical equation the "Nazi equation" or inversely, the "Right and proper equation", there might be some POV (assuming it really was just a bit of mathematics, not the title of a book or rhetorical line having those hypothetical names).
 * ... still, I really wish, just aesthetically, that the computer-science concept Currying could be called "Schönfinkelization". I don't disagree about the praise that Haskell Curry deserves, but that other name would be so much more fun to say. :-)  LotLE × talk  00:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Is that because your ox is not gored? The Pellian comes to mind because we've had an enthusiast, fully as feckless as any Wikipedian nationalist, insisting that we must do the right thing and move it to Fermat equation. It is true that these are rarer than enthusiasts about current politics and the sacred rights of Fooland; but that is because high schools teach far too much about national causes and far too little about number theory, not because of any inherent virtue. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Pinning down addition
This was recently added:

"Neutral titles encourage multiple viewpoints and responsible article writing. Some topics have names used in reliable academic work that include non-neutral terms (e.g. Boston massacre, Tea Pot Dome scandal, Edward the Confessor)."

I am happy with this phrasing, but it misses something important as clarification. Enough so that I am not happy leaving it stand by itself for terribly long. I proposed a second sentence, which in the latest version read:

"Wikipedia article names should use the most neutral term that is widely used in reliable sources and only devise a descriptive name if no common term is available."

An editor expressed concern with the second sentence, so let's discuss in this sub-subsection how to get the best words for the point. LotLE × talk 09:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

This is close to right; but the wording is careless, and renders it unacceptable.
 * This is an absolute command, regarding only two factors; it ignores all the other considerations that go into our naming conventions.
 * We have two principal classes of names, proper names and descriptive names; this mushes them together. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * PMA... The problem is that there is a third class... names that start out as descriptive names but through wide usage become proper names. It is this class that seems to be causing conflict between the two policies, because sometimes the descriptive part of that proper name seems POV. Blueboar (talk) 04:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but that's not resolved by confusing the two clear cases. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I think we have two divisions here: (Each division includes articles which are near or on the line.)
 * The line between cases where there are one or more common English names for the topic, and cases where there aren't any
 * The line between topics with proper names, like all three of the examples, and cases where there is a descriptive title.

WP:NC identifies five qualities of the ideal name: It should be recognizable (usually - common); easy to find and link to; precise (but not overly so); short; and consistent with other articles on similar subjects. These apply to most or all articles; I strongly object to language which suggests that POV considerations (which rarely arise) is the only concern: this will lead to bad titles when no real POV issues arise, because editors will be thinking only about removing any possible trace of POV and not what makes a good title; on the other hand, the "my POV is neutral" school of nationalists will use this to demand that their POV be installed in the article title, when a real POV issue does exist. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 09:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The examples given in the first sentence (Boston massacre, etc) are the kind of thing that Blueboar mentions. They were originally descriptive, albeit in POV ways, but have since become fairly uncontested, even by people recognizing the POV incorporated in them.  The fact they describe "old" things plays into this.  In contrast, other descriptive names (even for old events) can continue to be contested. For example, in an American context, both "The Civil War" and not insignificant use of "War for Southern Independence" or "War of Northern Aggression" continue to circulate.  In this case, American Civil War is the WP article name; that name is more neutral (although the fact it is also more widely used is a conflating consideration in this case).  Nonetheless, the competing POV descriptive names have themselves become partisan proper names that we mention in the body but do not use as title.  Choosing the more neutral name should not be a matter of simple majority usage (and deciding who counts in the right majority is far from unambiguous is such contested cases).


 * I see little concern in Pmanderson's first issue. We obviously cannot reprint the entirety of WP:NC within this policy, and everything in this policy (and all policies) is stated as commands.  That has nothing to do with the fact that editors must keep in mind multiple policies that, by definition, have distinct language.  Trying to imagine some fanciful hypothetical conflict is sophistical.  This policy is about Neutral Point of View, and as such should discuss that concern not other (legitimate) policies. Not everything goes everywhere.


 * On the second issue, I also really do not see a problem. Quite simply, we should always use a proper name for events when one is in widespread use.  To do otherwise is WP:OR or WP:SYNTH, and is impermissible.  "Widespread" is of some importance though: if one or two relatively obscure sources (even ones that count as WP:RS) use a particular phrase, that is not per se binding on us.  The only issue actually open is the one that the second sentence clearly and unambiguously addresses: if more than one name is in widespread use, we should choose the more neutral on over the most popular one.  Nonetheless, there are things that simply lack any widespread common term that we nonetheless wish to have articles on, and in that case (per the second sentence) we should choose a neutral description per WP:NC.  LotLE × talk  09:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Then please let those of us who do see problems work out acceptable language. Our naming conventions have been developing for five years, and there are several of them, because it is not that simple. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 09:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This tone is insulting. I've been here more than five years, and do not find language that contradicts WP:NPOV to be acceptable for this policy (nor just language that is unclear and poorly written). I added the above second sentence as a compromise to your concerns (and as a fix for the very badly written long addition you made), and preaching a "better than me" schtick is unhelpful. LotLE × talk  09:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to insult anybody; can Lulu say the same? But over-simple language here will be a disaster, and may in fact produce more POV in titles. We have too many arguments of the form "You have to name this article my way; anything else is un-neutral, because it's unfair to my group" as it is.


 * POV concerns arise only when we must decide on a name, and often do not arise then. When there is a common English name, it (or some form of it, when a disambiguation problem arises) does not express a POV, even, as with the examples, it did once. On the other hand, the question of whether to use representation of Lie groups or Lie group representations does not raise a POV issue. Therefore any addition should have an If clause, carefully and narrowly written.


 * We do not decide article names solely on the basis of counting occurences in our sources. Disambiguation forbids; so does (often) the convenience of our readers. Please don't write policy just for elegance of expression. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 09:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If editors have a choice among article titles after considering our naming conventions, they should choose among the most neutral available titles? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 09:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * What you state above is false. A common (proper) name may well continue to express a POV, as in the examples proposed (Boston massacre, etc).  However, if such a common name is nonetheless the only non-fringe name in use, we should use it despite the POV, not because we cover our eyes and pretend it is the absence of POV.
 * There are three cases here, although the issue of proper vs. descriptive is confused and does not help (a common name, even an old one, might not be a proper noun).
 * No widespread common name exists for a concept. Your example of representation of Lie groups versus Lie group representations is such a case (although Lie group that it relates to is a widespread common name, of course).  In this case, this policy simply demands that a neutral name is used, which is not a difficult concern to satisfy in most mathematical cases like those you mention.
 * Exactly one widespread common name exists for a concept (although other WP:FRINGE proposals for names might exists, but are not widespread). In this case, we must use this common name even if it implicates a POV (as with Boston massacre).
 * More than one widespread common name exists, although the relative frequency of them might differ, even substantially. In this case, rather than pick "most common" we should pick "most neutral".  Aside from historical events, this might also apply to the math concepts you like: e.g. if something of disputed precedence is called the "Jones Theorem", "Smith Theorem", and sometimes "Jones-Smith Theorem", the last one would stake the least claim in the dispute.  Of course, it takes editors with knowledge of the field to judge whether the various names really are widespread rather than fringe; policy cannot settle the individual facts.
 * Not so hard. LotLE × talk  10:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Please read our naming conventions. Your approach would amount to rewriting and recasting them - without discussion and without consultation. We choose between common names for many reasons (which is shorter; which will be easier to link to; which readers may expect) - often the choice has nothing to do with POV at all. Your approach will lead to innumerable changes in the third case, as people try to argue whether Matawan or Matawan, New Jersey is most neutral, when both are. Any approach which does not acknowledge that POV disputes over article names are rare is unacceptable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 10:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The examples and schema I presented would have no effect whatsoever on Matawan versus Matawan, New Jersey. This "rewriting and recasting" claim seems just silly, moreover.  However, I do agree that the cases covered by case #3 are rare (well, "uncommon" anyway), and have no objection to adding a qualifier to that effect. Actually, I guess we could add another qualifier in that there might be multiple common names, all of them free from POV concerns: in that case indeed choose the most common one.  LotLE × talk  10:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that this page should not have any effect on Matawan and Matawan, New Jersey; and that is why I oppose anything which can be read as an unqualified rule. When writing policy, the most important question often is not "Does this aim in the right direction?", but "how can this be misread?", especially by an editor with a good-faith conviction that he is Fighting for Justice, and therefore all policies really support him, whether anyone else sees it or not. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 10:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Please note that the first sentence above, "Neutral titles encourage multiple viewpoints and responsible article writing", was not recently added and has in fact been present on the NPOV policy page for years. I've restored it, since I don't think it's particularly disputed - it's certainly not been disputed before as far as I'm aware. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As long as we are quoting policy... I will also note that...
 * "Where proper nouns such as names are concerned, disputes may arise over whether a particular name should be used. Wikipedia takes a descriptive rather than prescriptive approach in such cases, by using the common English language name as found in verifiable reliable sources; the most common name used in English-language publications is generally used."
 * ...has also been part of the policy for a long time... perhaps the issue we have been grappling with is whether this statement applies to names that started out as POV descriptive names but have evolved into proper names. Are "Boston Massacre" and "Tea Pot Dome scandal" proper nouns? Blueboar (talk) 14:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The distinction may be that they are not all proper nouns (hence lower case is possible), but are proper names of the events in question. If Tea Pot Dome were to crop up again in American politics, the world would call the new events the second Tea Pot Dome scandal or something else disambiguated. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * By the way, I agree with both of the old passages that Blueboar and Chris quote; insofar as the novel material is not destructive, it is redundant with them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * hmmm... from reading Noun a proper name is the same as a proper noun (or at least a type of proper noun). Perhaps I should have started this off by editing the second paragraph and not the first paragraph... since in that paragraph it would not be worded as an "exception", but rather a clarification. Blueboar (talk) 16:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Use of the term "Murder of" in article name
Hi all, I'm raising a question on the use of the term "Murder of" as part of an article name. Specifically I'm comparing 2 articles, Shaariibuugiin Altantuyaa and Murder of Meredith Kercher. In both cases, the subject of the article are only notable only because of their murders, and in all news sources and other verifiable sources, the deaths have all been described as murders. Also slightly similar in the fact that these affected international relations somewhat. There's an editor that keeps renaming/moving Murder of Shaariibuugiin Altantuyaa to Shaariibuugiin Altantuyaa, quoting ASF. Is there any precedent case that determines whether or not "Murder of" should be used as part of the article name? If I recall Murder of Shaariibuugiin Altantuyaa and Shaariibuugiin Altantuyaa were merged into just one article as when two articles were around, some content within contradicted each other due to editors only updating one of the pages and not another.Zhanzhao (talk) 10:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * There are multiple issues here... 1) First there is the decision on whether to have an article on the person or the event... the guideline that deals with this is: WP:Notability (criminal acts) and specifically the section WP:VICTIM, which says: "a victim of a crime should normally only be the subject of an article where an article that satisfied notability criteria existed, or could have properly been created prior to the crime's commission." In other words... if Shaariibuugiin Altantuyaa was notable enough for an article prior to her death, the article should be under her proper name... if not, then it should be under a descriptive name relating to the event of her death.
 * 2) If the latter, then the question becomes how to appropriately describe the manner of her death. IE, can we and should we use the term "murder" in the title?  This depends on several factors... first, usage in reliable sources use.  If a significant majority of reliable sources routinely refer to this event as "The Murder of Shaariibuugiin Altantyyaa", there is an argument that this has become the accepted proper name for the event (similar to John F. Kennedy assassination)... but we do have to be careful here... the sources have to all use this terminology as a name for the event ... If the sources mearly use the term "murder" to discribe the event, that is not enough.  (To clarify... An example of usage as a name would be a source that reads: "The Shaariibuugiin Altantyyaa murder caused wide spread anti-government protests".  An example of usage as a description would be a source that reads: "Due to the belief that Shaariibuugiin Altantyyaa had been murdered, wide spread anti-government protests errupted")
 * 3)Assuming that we can not clearly establish that reliable sources use the term "murder" as part of a proper name of the event... we are free to name our article according to consensus. Our goal is to devise a name that is both accurate and neutral.  In my opinion, the term "murder" can be both accurate and neutral, but only when someone has actually been convicted in a court of Law for the specific crime of "murder".  Otherwise to use this term is neither accurate nor neutral, and we must use some other term.  The most neutral title would probably be "Death of Shaariibuugiin Altantuyaa".  We can still discuss any allegations and claims that she was murdered in the article text (assuming they come from reliable sources), but the title of our article should not make such claims or accusations. Blueboar (talk) 16:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I generally find Blueboar's clarification to be excellent. However, I think there is some danger around the "conviction in a court of Law" part.  It is unfortunately the case in many notable trials that there is question about the accuracy or fairness of a conviction.  In particular, many cases that would otherwise be of little notability, gain their notability through the dubiousness of the trial process.
 * For example, I saw part of a rather good 1980s TV movie called "The Murder of Mary Phagan" a couple weeks ago. This was about Leo Frank's murder trial, appeal, and subsequent lynching, and is of some significance in American history.  On WP, we name the movie itself by its title "Murder of...", but our own coverage of the facts is in "Leo Frank".  Which seems fine, but it wouldn't be entirely absurd to do it differently.
 * My real point is more that the only thing that makes Leo Frank--or Mary Phagan--notable is a murder conviction that is generally regarded as an injustice. If it was simply a murder of one non-notable person by another non-notable person, with straightforward evidence, it wouldn't be on WP.  The conviction here is the centrally notable thing, not mere evidence that the event underlying it might be described as a "murder" (although it definitely was a murder, just one that probably had a different killer than the one convicted).  LotLE × talk  19:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me clarify: I think we are dealing with two seperate questions that need to be answered in a specific order... First is: what aspect of the topic is notable (the person or an event)? Second is: what we should name the article?  The second question is dependant on the answer to the first.  If the person is notable, then the article should be entitled with the person's name. If an event is notable, then the article should be named after the event.  And if we name it after the event... we then have to ask: what is the best name for the event?  "Murder" is a potentially non-neutral term... so we should be very hesitant to use it. If there is any question over whether the event was or was not a "murder"... use a more neutral term.
 * Remember that using a more neutral term (such as "Death of") includes the possibility that someone was murdered... whereas, using the term "Murder" has a legal meaning and is a very specific accusation that does not include other causes of death (including Manslaughter, Justifiable Homicide, killing someone in combat, etc.). Blueboar (talk) 14:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Its been reported in the news sources (See main article and talk page) that the subject was seem kidnapped in public, and after her death, her body was blown up in an attempt to conceal evidence. All the news sources (of noted verifiability and reliability) refer to the case as a murder. The case itself has also been described as a murder trial, further labelling her death as a murder rather than a natural or accidental death. As noted above, that there WAS a murder is not disputed, and I feel the use of "Murder" is neutral. Its the circumstances behind and around the murder that are being described, that could be subject to POV. Alternatively, would it be better if the article was renamed "Murder Trial of...."? But I would hesitate as that title confuses readers who might accidentally think the subject was the murderer instead of the victim.Zhanzhao (talk) 23:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed addition... second paragraph instead of the first
(addition in bold):


 * Where proper nouns are concerned, disputes may arise over whether a particular name should be used. Wikipedia takes a descriptive rather than prescriptive approach in such cases, by using the common English language name as found in verifiable reliable sources; the most common name used in English-language publications is generally used, even when this name contains non-neutral terms (e.g. Boston massacre or Tea Pot Dome scandal);... 

I think this gets across the point, with minimum change to existing language. Blueboar (talk) 17:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * This is wrong, unfortunately, for the reasons I have given several times above. If there are multiple common names, we need to choose the most neutral not the most common.  For example, "Climategate" is almost certainly the most common, but extremely partisan, name used in (a segment of) the press for the Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident.  The language you propose would demand the partisan name.  LotLE × talk  19:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * What we really need to be entirely clear is a sentence exactly like" Wikipedia article names should use the most neutral term that is widely used in reliable sources and only devise a descriptive name if no common term is available. Unfortunately, for reasons that are entirely difficult to discern, Pmanderson takes this out and raises objections with no obvious relation to it. (Aaggh!)  LotLE × talk  19:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In short, Lulu does not understand or agree with our existing naming conventions, and is unwilling even to recast her favorite sentence, much less read what niow exists. When you meet an objection you don't understand, follow 1RR or 0RR; by hypothesis, you don't understand what will satisfy the objector either. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * What is amusing is that Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident isn't all that neutral (as has been argued infinatum at that article and several related to it). "Climategate" at least has the benefit that the POV is external to Wikipedia, while the other options are internal to Wikipedia.  No, I am not saying we should rename the article to "Climategage"... that name may be common, but I definitely agree that it is not common enough (at least not yet... we might have to revisit the issue if "Climategate" becomes more common).
 * In short, I fully agree that
 * when there isn't an established proper name we should make up a neutral one
 * if we have a choice between two or more equally established proper names (not defined by simple majority), we should choose the most neutral one.
 * But... sometimes there is one solidly established proper name... and sometimes that name is (gasp) partisan. We should use it never the less.
 * So yes... as much as it may be heresy to say this on this talk page... there are situations where we should demand the partisan name. The proper name of the event is the Boston massacre... not the Incident in Boston on March 5, 1770. Blueboar (talk) 20:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I 100% agree with your characterization of the situation, Blueboar. LotLE × talk  21:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it is wrongly cast. Boston Massacre was orginally a partisan name; but it is now the common, unmarked, name of the event, which everybody uses, British or American, even in the process of explaining that it wasn't a massacre. Thus using Boston Massacre is not an exception to neutrality, it's an exercise of neutrality; inventing a new name would be  point-scoring (and so non-neutral) and OR. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This comment, along with your unilateral additions to the policy, suggest a tin ear in the nuance of words. Perhaps you should "leave writing this" to us professional writers. (yes, snarky... but I'm getting a bit pissed off by the tone of your comments and unconstructiveness of your editing).  LotLE × talk  22:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Every one of Lulu's edits here has been uncivil, either in edit summary (this one had tin ear) or in content. Really, this is quite enough.


 * Does anyone else agree with Lulu here, or is this mere ownership? Such names are acceptable, because they have come to be neutral; if they were not neutral, they would indeed be unacceptable.
 * I should also like a citation for the view expressed in this edit, that A or B or C is somehow not parallellism. Those who undertake to emend English - especially churlishly - should be able to document their whims. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Whatever my criticism of the tenor of some comments, I find Pmanderson's phrase above absolutely lovely: undertake to emend; especially churlishly. Quite apart from the underlying discussion, it really and genuinely brings a smile to my face to see words put together so nicely.  LotLE × talk  18:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Much obliged. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Please... let's try to avoid commenting on behavior and focus on edits. PMA, I think your last edit (here) is perfect.  It makes it clear that we are only talking about cases where the topic has a well established proper name.
 * I think we have reached a workable ballance between WP:NPOV and WP:NAME from the neutrality side of the issue... does any one disagree? Blueboar (talk) 01:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Can someone think of a better word than acceptable? If the Boston Massacre is only an "acceptable" title, some day some good soul will argue that 1770 Boston snowball incident must be preferable, even if he did just make it up. (I suppose this can wait till it happens, but if we can close this loophole now, so much the better.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * How about: ...are the proper article titles, because they are used in a consensus of sources. Zaereth (talk) 17:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * "Acceptable" is much better. "Proper" stakes too broad a claim.  The "snowball incident" example doesn't make any apparent sense.  But it is easy to imagine a case where the two words distinguish differently (and "acceptable" correctly).  Someone added "Jack the Ripper" into the list of examples: suppose that this year, someone finds definitive proof that he really was so-and-so (i.e. a named person; I realize this matter has been subject of great speculation for a century, so such deciding evidence is exceedingly unlikely, but just stipulate).  At that point, we may decide that the WP article name is better moved to that proper name (especially if the person is independently notable, as some candidate identities have been).  Most likely a consensus of even new sources (and definitely of old sources) would still use "Jack the Ripper", but we might decide to use the birth name. The old descriptive title would not be the only proper choice, but it still would be acceptable to continue using.  LotLE × talk  18:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You make a very good point. I was just throwing that out there. I think that the primary deciding factor should always be notability in secondary sources. When renaming the xenon flash lamp article to a less xenon specific name, flashlamp was ruled out because there other types. Several names were suggested, like Rare gas flashlamp or Rare gas electric glow gas discharge flashlamp. However accurate, these are more made-up than found in reliable sources. We decided therefore to go with another common, simple, and very specific name, flashtube. While I agree with you all for the most part, I think the examples of the Boston massacre above are good examples of unsourced, (made-up), names that would be unacceptable. Zaereth (talk) 19:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * how about "are allowable as article titles..." or "are legitimate article titles..."? seems more to the actual sense of the passage. -- Ludwigs 2 19:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * "Legitimate" is fine by me. I do not prefer 'legitimate' to 'allowable', but I don't mind it either.  LotLE × talk  21:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Legitimate seems better to me. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Signpost Policy Report
A summary of your comments on our Neutral point of view policy will be featured in one of the upcoming Policy Reports in the Signpost. If it helps, monthly changes to this page are available at WP:Update/1/Content policy changes, July 2009 to December 2009. Any question you want to tackle would be fine, including: Can you summarize the page? How has the page changed over the last few months? Did the changes involve some compromising or negotiation? Would the page work better if it were shorter (or longer)? Is this page "enforced" in some useful and consistent way? Was this page shaped more by people's reactions to day-to-day issues or by exceptional cases, for instance at ArbCom? Does the policy document reality, or present ideal goals for content, or something in between? Does this page contradict or overlap other policies or guidelines?

A paradox of modern democracies is that voters generally have a low opinion of national politicians, but tend to trust and re-elect their own representatives. I think the same thing goes on with policy pages ... some people distrust policy pages in general but like the pages that they keep up with. The weekly Policy Report aims to let people look at policy pages through the eyes of the people who work on the page. - Dank (push to talk) 15:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Peacocks & weasels
I use that heading and the following text when I encounter someone saying that an article subject is the greatest, best, worst or some other superlative just because some third party sources do so. I'd appreciate any feedback on making it clearer:

Wikipedia cannot, even with sources, state that any article subject is "the greatest" at anything, as this is a violation of WP:NPOV. About the best we can get away with is a more neutral statement such as the most successful whatever, if that is supported by sources, and then if someone really notable in his/her own right, in a relevant context can be reliably sourced as stating that the subject is "the greatest" we can quote that luminary saying so, by name, later in the article. If this doesn't make sense to you, try inverting the situation: If we find some reliably published articles claiming that George W. Bush is an "idiot", we cannot call him an idiot in the lead, or even say that he's "widely considered" an idiot. We can note that his competency has been challenged by various parties. After the lead, like in a criticism section, if someone particularly notable for political commentary like Larry King can be reliably quoted as referring to Bush as "an idiot" the we can quote that and attribute those words to their speaker/writer.

—  SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 19:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * How about: Avoid using superlative or insulting descriptions. Zaereth (talk) 21:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Possibly add to that: Avoid creating sections devoted to criticism or praise. Zaereth (talk) 22:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Second what Zaereth says. Maybe especially the second part.  LotLE × talk  23:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Important parts of this policy are so ethereal that they never get enforced
If you look through Wikipedia, you will find that practically every article covering a controversial topic is an unstable POV mess, built in accordance with the more granular Wikipedia rules. This is due to 5 or 6 factors, or possibly that such shouldn't even be in Wikipedia. But I digress. (By "controversial" I do not include where factual matters are still being discovered (e.g. leading edge science) where Wikipedia does fine.)

But with respect to this section, only the more granular rules (such as NPOV wording of individual sentences) are actually enforced. But the important concepts in this standard/article here that apply on a broader scale ( I would cite some,starting with "undue weight" except that 3/4 of this article/standard falls under that category) are so general and ethereal that they are never enforced / unenforcable particularly in the warfare atmosphere on controversial articles. I don't know if it possible, but I would suggest trying making these more explicit which might make the great but ethereal concepts in this article/standard more specific so that they would get used more. North8000 (talk) 13:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Can the US government position on legal-political issues ever be WP:FRINGE?
Discussion currently taking place at Fringe_theories/Noticeboard. THF (talk) 05:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Content Forks: The Good, the Bad & the Irrelevant
The idea that one type of content fork is good if it is well intentioned, and bad if it is not, is a matter of subjective opinion. The following statement is, therefore, a matter of opinion, not truth: It is critical to understand the difference between point of view forks and content forks; the former are forbidden, while the latter are often necessary and encouraged. Underlying this statement is an assumption that content forks can be good or bad, depending on the intention of the article creators. The statement that "a point of view fork is an attempt to evade the neutrality policy" cannot be validated. Whether editors act in good or bad faith should not be the basis by which we define content forks. What is critical to understand is that an editor's intentions are not externally verifiable, and therefore irrelevant. The defintion of what a content fork is must be defined in terms of sourcing, not intent. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Gavin, we bumped into each other at wp:content fork and I'm glad you're still pursuing this topic. I'm on a wikibreak so I can't participate much in this discussion, but I think you're totally right about this. So far as I can tell, there are two entirely different uses of "fork" on wikipedia.  The notion of a "POV Fork" is based off the notion of Fork (software development), where people get into a fight and decide to take the project elsewhere; the notion of a "content fork" is based off the notion of Fork (operating system); it has nothing to do with POV.  Conflating the two has been the source of much bane.
 * I am sorry that I can't help you develop this conversation here; immediately after I started this thread at the village pump, school has been too pressing, and I've been postponing this project. However I wish you luck in restoring some sense to this morass; I'm in total support of your work.  Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 14:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * PS by the way, I realize that our positions look like total opposites. But I'm sure they share a large grain of agreement, as they always do :) Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 14:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Your opinions would be helpful
Consider this a localized RfC... we are currently having some discussion at WP:Article titles (formerly "WP:Naming conventions") over how this policy intersects with that policy and how it impacts what we title our articles (especially when the article title is something as potentially sensitive and controvercial as a name). We could use some input from those who know this policy well. Please comment at WT:Article titles... thanks. Blueboar (talk) 19:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Dispute tag without a dispute?
An editor has added NPOV tags to Moses as symbol in American history without stating why. I removed the tag after pointing out that the tag implies, if not requires, a statement of what is disputed. They deny that, and have made it apparent that all that anyone has to do if they disagree with something is add a tag.
 * The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.

Please see more related tag discussion at Ten_Commandments. The question is simple: how does one get a tag removed when the tagger states they have no intention of supporting or explaining the "dispute" and refuse to remove the tag? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 09:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The one thing you should not do is edit war over the tag. Some of our best articles have had issue tags at one point or another in their history.  These tags are part of the process of how we improve our articles.
 * Now to specifics... while the POV tag has not been explicitly raised on the talk page, I note that the article has been tagged as having multiple issues... a discussion had been started on the talk page to address these issues. Granted, the discussion at this point is rather vague as to what the problems actually are, but at least there was an attempt.  I think it safe to say that the POV tag was part of that more general complaint.
 * I agree that the POV tag needs further explanation of where the problem lies (indeed this is true for all the tags), but the way to resolve this lack of explanation is to ask for it. Instead of immediately objecting to the tag and removing it, you should have gone to the talk page and requested clarification (I have done so on your behalf).  Assume Good Faith, and give others time to respond.  Blueboar (talk) 14:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah ha... Fringe theories/Noticeboard gives some insite into why the article was tagged. Blueboar (talk) 14:51, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Additional comments and explanation have been added to the talk page. See... all it took was asking nicely. Blueboar (talk) 16:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Note that after User_talk:Kwamikagami added two tags on two different articles, both without clearly explaining the dispute, I tried to talk to the user. I clearly stated the problem and why I felt the tag was erroneously placed. Coincidentally, seconds after I removed the tag, another user added another, more all-inclusive tag, also without detailing any issues.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Clarification needed in WP:FRINGE for political views
FRINGE is relatively easy to define in scientific subjects, where there's a mainstream scientific view, and a literal fringe of pseudoscience around it. But what is FRINGE in issues of political dispute? It would seem to me that the analogy in U.S. politics to "FRINGE" would be extremist political parties or conspiracy theorists/theories with little or no base of support: David Duke, Leonard Peltier, Walt Brown, John Buchanan, birther claims, Clinton-murdered-Vince-Foster, Bush-blew-up-the-World-Trade-Center, etc. There might be an argument to extend fringe as far inward as Ralph Nader (who has never gotten 4% of the presidential vote despite multiple runs), though I personally wouldn't.

But there is a repeated problem on Wikipedia is the abuse of WP:FRINGE in political subjects as an excuse to exclude notable points of view in violation of WP:NPOV: I have seen editors insist that L. Brent Bozell III, who has published op-eds in mainstream sources such as the New York Times, is "fringe," or that The Weekly Standard (the second-most notable conservative magazine in the US) is "fringe," or even that the Wall Street Journal editorial page is "fringe." This is clearly an unacceptable attempt to evade the WP:NPOV policy by excluding notable points of view. In my eyes, the problem seems to be one-sided: no one claims that Bill Moyers is fringe, though he said that Bush was planning a coup in 2004, but respectable writers on the center-right get tarred with this brush repeatedly. (I've seen talk-page claims that William Kristol, a New York Times columnist, was on the far right, which is self-evidently tendentious.)

How can we craft language in WP:NPOV or WP:FRINGE to help nip these disputes in the bud? Further discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Fringe_theories. THF (talk) 19:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * There are two problems here... The first problem is that people don't actualy read what WP:FRINGE actually says. They assume it says "we don't discuss fringe theories"... when in fact it does not.  The policy explicitly says that we should discuss some fringe theories but should not discuss others (the determining factor being how notable the fringe theory is).  The second problem is that people point to WP:FRINGE when they should be pointing to WP:UNDUE.
 * Your example of a non-mainstream political stance outlined by a notable person or in a mainstream paper is apt. A political stance can be considered fringe, even if it is held by a notable person (if the person is notable for something other than their politics). However, if the stance is discussed by mainstream sources (and the discussion can be disparaging) it passes the bar as far as WP:FRINGE goes.  However, even if the theory passes WP:FRINGE, it may not pass the bar as far as WP:UNDUE goes.  That depends on context (where we want to discuss it and how we discuss it) and not notability. Blueboar (talk) 19:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. User:THF has started this conversation in 2 other places, here's what I had to say there.
 * Looking at the arguments that User:Postdlf linked to, it would seem that the reason that nobody claimed Bill Moyers was "fringe" is because it was in the article Bill Moyers. If you had tried to include his opinions in Politics of the United States, then he would be fringe there.
 * It's meaningless to say that "Leonard Peltier is fringe". If you tried to include WP:Fringe can only say that a particular thing that Peltier said is fringe in relation to the particular article you're trying to include it in. There is no need to change anything in WP:NPOV or WP:FRINGE to "fix" anything, since nothing is broken
 * 146.187.151.207 (talk) 02:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Bill Moyers is extensively cited for his opinions on Karl Rove's religious beliefs in Karl Rove. See also discussion at Village_pump_(policy). THF (talk) 05:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * See WP:PROMINENCE, WP:Reliable sources, and WP:Verifiability. The thing to watch for is coverage in reliable sources, and opinion pieces from even reliable newspapers do not count. If a "finge point of view" is notable then there will be an actual article out there somewhere on it. If it becomes particularly notable, then you'll easily be able to find multiple sources. However, although we give the facts that back up the point of view, no point of view should ever be portrayed as fact. Balance in any article is achieved by writing in a dispassionate tone, and by weighing the prominence of opinions.


 * In other words, you can't always look for a simple solution to a complex problem. In each case there are a variety of factors that must be taken into account, and all of the various rules need to be considered as a whole. Zaereth (talk) 19:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * A simple test for WP-includability per WP:UNDUE of a small-minority viewpoint, is whether a high quality mainstream secondary source has included that viewpoint along with the other views when writing about the main subject. And as others above have noted, a small minority viewpoint published by a reliable source can still be mentioned in its own article, or when otherwise writing about that minority source itself. Crum375 (talk) 13:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

A request for consistent application of NPOV and BLP
Discussion at Village_pump_(policy). THF (talk) 05:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

compacting the 'undue weight' section
I think the undue weight section has a significant amount of redundancy; I suggest compacting it as follows: Neutrality requires 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. In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, the views may receive more attention and space, but such pages should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite conventional viewpoints strictly from the perspective of the minority view. The majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader may understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding parts of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained. How much detail is required depends on the subject: For instance, articles on historical views such as flat earth, with few or no modern proponents, may be able to briefly state the modern position, and then go on to discuss the history of the idea in great detail, neutrally presenting the history of a now-discredited belief. Other minority views may require much more extensive description of the majority view in order to avoid misleading the reader. Wikipedia articles should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as the majority view, and views that are held by very tiny minorities might not be represented at all except in articles devoted explicitly to those views. In general, readers should not be misled into thinking that any viewpoint has more credulity, validity, truth, acceptance, or weight than that given to it by reliable sources. This applies to article text, article images, internal and external links, or any other material that might be used to promote a given idea or viewpoint. Articles should strive to treat each aspect or viewpoint of a topic with a weight appropriate to its significance to the topic. In particular, isolated events, breaking news, individual criticisms, singular news reports, offbeat research, or other idiosyncratic sources about a subject can easily be presented in a way disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. Excessive depth of detail or quantity of text, inappropriate prominence of placement in the article, juxtaposition of statements that make the sources seem more significant, or other rhetorical techniques can exaggerate particular points. Further. there is no need to validate every conceivable viewpoint on a topic by including it in the article; articles should cover prominent sourced viewpoints, but leave eccentric viewpoints (if they are sufficiently notable) to articles of their own. Keep in mind that Wikipedia determines proper weight in relation to a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources. The opinions of Wikipedia editors are significant only to the extent that they reflect reliable sources, and opinions held by in the general public are useful only to the extent that they are presented by reliable sources. Wikipedia is not the place to fabricate new viewpoints: see Wikipedia's policy on synthesis I'm not trying to change the meaning, just to remove some of the repetitiveness and odd phrasing. comments? -- Ludwigs 2 08:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I have no problems with this... it seems to capture all the key points from the current version. Blueboar (talk) 23:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The original is somewhat clumsy, and the proposal above is fine (some grammar issues can be sorted out later). Even if an improvement, I'm not sure there is a need to significantly rewrite NPOV because such changes can unnecessarily cause confusion to those who have previously read the policy. If included, the This applies to sentence in the proposal should mention categories since editors sometimes add misguided categories to either promote or denigrate a topic (for example, by implying a fringe view has some scientific acceptance, or that a main-stream view has some negative association). The text should also mention WP:Fringe theories since even if peer-reviewed articles by experts in the theory of earth flatness existed, there still would not be a need to include their (non scientific) research in Earth. Also, WP:NOR should be briefly mentioned. A couple of links are not sufficient: a brief statement similar to what is currently in the policy is very helpful to give a new reader a good understanding of what is acceptable. Johnuniq (talk) 01:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I would definitely remove the "If you are able to prove something that few or none currently believe" paragraph, as that seems far better suited for WP:OR than NPOV, and losing that distraction may help us better organize the rest of the section. PSWG1920 (talk) 03:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It's very good, Ludwig, and if this were a project where nobody fought with anyone, I'd say let's add it to the policy. However, it will be used by people in disputes to exclude material they don't like. I think we should therefore try to imagine a few examples&mdash;real ones&mdash;and try to see which of the new words and phrases you added would be used in what way. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 05:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, as I said, I wasn't really trying to change the content of the section, but this might be useful for refinements. Undue Weight, as far as I understand the history of the section, was primarily designed as a balancing tool, but it has been largely co-opted by fringe topic disputes (if I remember correctly, even the section title was morphed - it used to be simply 'weight', but became 'undue weight' around the same time as the 'we can exclude tiny minority opinions' clause was added).  with that in mind, maybe we should consider three cases: a pseudoscience topic, a non-pseudoscience but non-mainstream topic, and a mainstream topic with clear majority and minority opinions.  the only question in my mind is how specific we want to get; do we want to pick actual dispute examples, or keep the discussions more abstract?  -- Ludwigs 2  17:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Minority and majority
I rewrote the section on undue weight, hoping to clarify (not to change policy). But, alas, if I am a "bigot" who is handicapped by unconscious bias, I would by definition be oblivious to any POV-pushing I might accidentally do. But I ask you to assume good faith, at least on your initial reading.

I left one sentence untouched, because I still have questions about it:


 * Other minority views may require much more extensive description of the majority view in order to avoid misleading the reader.

I wonder what "misleading the reader" means. The policy already says that when describing majority and minority viewpoints, we make clear that the majority is the majority. For example, when describing the point of view of scientific bodies about controversial matters such as homosexuality or global warming, our articles clearly and correctly indicated that the overwhelming majority of them say that homosexuality is normal and global warming is real.

But we also have articles about minority views which oppose the mainstream, such as Conversion therapy (which currently has a merge proposal re: Sexual orientation change efforts). The gist of these articles is that there is no scientific controversy over the matter, but only a political one. We mention how the Stonewall riots sparked a campaign of political activism which caused the American Psychological Association to change its scientific position.

To avoid misleading the reader, I wonder if we could try to ascertain how much the decision to change the APA's stance was political (i.e., a response to activism), and how much was scientific.

We also want to avoid misleading our readers about the "scientific consensus" regarding human-caused global warming. I stopped contributing here, after dozens of my attempts to describe the opposing viewpoint were removed, and the current state of this article series gives the impression that there is no scientific controversy at all, but only a political one. I find it virtually impossible to determine the scientific basis for accepting the AGW hypothesis, although it is clear that the UN IPCC is "90% percent certain" that the hypothesis is true.

I wonder whether we can step back from the issue enough to describe the various scientific theories in terms of cause and effect, and in particular the scientific method's idea of comparing hypotheses with observations. From our series of articles on global warming, I have only learned that the idea of natural warming cycles is in disrepute, but I have not found out anything about how the "mainstream" theory of emissions being a more important cause than, say, solar variation and cloud formation. We say only that evidence for such a relationship is inconclusive: no footnote, let alone a internal link to an article.

Does it mislead our readers if we tell them that there are scientists who disagree with popular, "consensus" theories? No, it is possible to describe minority views in two ways that avoid doing this:
 * 1) Point out that the view is a minority one.
 * 2) Remind readers of what the majority view is.

Having done so, there is no risk that adding more detail about a minority view would make a reader think it was a mainstream one. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Neutrality on WP requires presentation of all major and minor views, excluding the tiny or fringe minorities. The latter can still be described in their own article, if they are notable enough to be included. The WP presentation of the major and minor views when discussing the main topic should include material roughly in proportion to their prevalence, as evidenced by the combination of the highest quality reliable mainstream sources. The best way to gauge how and whether to present a given view is to find its description when it is included by a reliable secondary (or tertiary) source focused on the main topic. In other words, esp. in contentious situations, we should rely on high quality top-level reliable sources not only for the description of the individual views, but also for an indication of their relative weights and importance. Crum375 (talk) 16:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree with that answer, although to be fair it was somewhat hard for me to get the "executive summary" gist of what the OP's concern was. In no particular order I have these additional comments:


 * The GW articles right now are a hornet's nest of everything that is wrong with the project, so do not take any content there right now at face value. For example, if the pages state that the idea of natural warming cycles is in disrepute (I interpret that to mean there is minimal if any consensus that such cycles exist), then we know there's trouble because of course such cycles exist.  So caveat emptor.
 * What "Misleading the reader" means in the source probably is topic-dependent. For example, a lot of minority views have a very large cultural component of the ascribers to that view, which would be quite notable and deserving of significant coverage. But in doing so, the article would take on, perhaps necessarily for editorial quality, an "in-universe" tone which might give the causal reader the impression that the view has more widespread acceptance than it really does.  NPOV would require this effect (if any) to be balanced somehow, and even then there are different ways of doing that.
 * The whole issue of the process that certain views came to be prevalent is of course always relevant, be it scientific, political/advocatory, both, or some other process or processes. Although different topics will have different nuances to be addressed, so I doubt there is a one-size-fits-all description of how such a description should be achieved.  But without a doubt that should be the goal of the relevant articles.


 * Hope that helps. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

A concern
This policy needs a serious rewrite. I hesitate to start it because this isn't a policy I've been much involved in. But the writing is really very unclear in places, and it's not even clear that it's correct e.g. the bit about stating facts but not opinions about facts. The reverse is true. We are always stating opinions about facts; that's basically all we do. SlimVirgin TALK  contribs 06:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I will give it a try (as you can see I started a bit below), but I'm not sure how far I can get with it. The reason that the writing is unclear (IMO) is that this policy is at the center of some very contentious disputes, and different factions have made protracted efforts to 'queer' it to give themselves some sort of editorial advantage.  The result is a muddle of conflicting, half-formed ideas.  I suspect it will actually be harder to revise the worst-written sections, because those are the ones that have been most-heavily fought over.


 * plus, I have an academic perspective on these matters that no one seems to like at all...   In truth, we don't state 'facts' or 'opinions'; we state ideas presented in reliable sources, and we ought to take care not to elevate them to the status of facts or reduce them to the status of (mere) opinions.  but I don't think that perspective is going to meet with a lot of kindness here.  -- Ludwigs 2  17:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with everything you say. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 04:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it is a shame that this was removed after an RFC as it helps to explain the current wording. -- PBS (talk) 05:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps they mean Paraphrase the source and fit it into the article without injecting assumptions from yourself; where the source is trying to make a point, this is when you may post an opinion so long as it is clearly attributable to the source. From what I've seen: newer users post their own opinions (finding citations later) and have disputes about it; a bit older users post what they think the source says is and have disputes over it; really senior users (very few) post only the citation info or spend most of their time fixing simple content errors and resolving disputes. 99.236.221.124 (talk) 18:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

As I see it, this page should be trimmed as much as possible without losing anything essential to the concept of a Neutral Point of View. Considering this principle's importance to the project, we don't want TLDR to be the typical reaction to the page which documents it, yet it's a safe bet that it is at present. There are sections which appear to be candidates for trimming, condensing, and merging, but I realize that any bold removals will almost certainly be reverted. PSWG1920 (talk) 01:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The first obvious example of a section which could be condensed, possibly without controversy, is WP:NPOV. Could we reduce that to a couple of sentences and say "See Article titles for more information"? PSWG1920 (talk) 18:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree WP:AT relies on this for text. It could only be removed if it were added to WP:AT. In the past the consensus was to keep it here, but I suggest that if you want to trim it you raise the issue on the talk page of WP:AT -- PBS (talk) 04:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

mainsteam POV
Would it not remove much of the controversy about the "neutral" point of view policy if it was renamed mainstream point of view rather than neutral point of view? This may also ease Wikipedia's discrimination against non-establishment subjects. This seems to be especially true when dealing with emerging areas of knowledge such as alternative medicine where wikipedia can often become an attack site. Most people will accept that something is the mainstream POV, but find it affronting when it is masqueraded as a neutral POV. Just a thought. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 08:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It's called "neutral" instead of "mainstream" because they don't equate as far as Wikipedia is concerned (although I suppose you could twist the meaning of words to satisfy any interpretation you'd prefer). The neutral point of view is not necessarily a single point of view, but the weighted and fair compilation of all significant points of view, which necessarily includes the mainstream, if there is one. In a sense, what I'm saying is that we don't call it the "mainstream" point of view because we aren't intent on discarding all other points of view. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

It would be nice if Wikipedia did indeed operate in the manner you describe. It's a work in progress I suppose. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 08:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

RfC argumentum ex silentio - Policy/guideline or not?
Recently I and some other editors have been deliberating over whether or not Argumentum ex silentio has any place or justification on WP when editing articles, under any circumstance. Personally, I am one to give a resounding no. However, my knowledge of WP Policy/Guidelines is poor at best. (20040302 (talk) 11:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC))

''There's certainly such a thing as necessary implication without explicit statement. If 25% of the reliable sources on a subject spend 20% of their time on a particular topic within that subject, & 75% don't mention it at all, then it should have 5% of the space in the article, ceteris paribus. That variety of a.e s. is a necessary implication of WP:DUE.''

''I could not accept a strong argument (that omission implies a disbelief) but I can certainly accept a weak argument (that there was nothing to be said on such an issue) or a mere absence of belief (an unknowning). I expect scholars to be explicit in their disbelief.''

''Argument from silence is only a proper fallacy in the context of pure logic; it is too reductive to call it a fallacy here, and can be a part of valid (abductive) reasoning. The distinction to be made (and Peter seems to have addressed this several times) is whether one can reasonably expect a source to have included the lacking information if it ahd been important to that source. The speculation necessary here is not on the same order as WP:OR, although it still rests on consensus. Reference to WP:UNDUE and WP:N has validity because those policies essentially rest on an argumentum ex silentio, although (again) of a slightly different order – i.e., if reliable sources don't raise something, we must assume as editors (even if it's not so) that it isn't important, until we've found an RS that states otherwise.''

We cannot make or infer the argumentum ex silentio as that would constitute original research

If a textbook on a subject fails to mention something alleged to be a basic fact, I think that, in common sense terms, is clear proof that that author doesn't believe it to be a basic fact.

''Argumentum ex silentio is a fallacy, and we don't use them here. And, to create one based on something a source doesn't say constitutes original research. I encourage you to bring this up on the original research policy page if you think it's a loophole. It can't be done here, and any occurrence of it in the article should be removed immediately.''

''What about the argumentum e silentio I've been mentioning a number of times in these discussions? The fact that sources say little or nothing about something can be strong evidence, but it's not verifiable in a lot of cases (how do you give the page number where a book doesn't say something?''

Importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources" is to be established by, among other things, noting how much space they spend on things. If they say little or nothing about something then that's a prima facie case for saying they don't think it important. That particular kind of argumentum e silentio is clearly supported by the above guideline & WP:DUE: Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies not only to article text, but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, and all other material as well. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. 

''More relevantly to the context of most of these discussions, if a source says little or nothing about something, that clearly implies they don't think it's important in their context. Policy says that things should be given prominence according to their prominence in reliable sources.''

This last statement is of real concern to me. All I believe that we can read from a source that does not say anything about something is that they have nothing to say about it, without prejudice. However it appears that others believe that silence indicates prejudice. I feel particularly uneasy about such an assertion. Moreover, I would have thought that often sources will NOT say something which is considered an obvious or required axiom within that area; ie on the assumption that everyone (within a restricted audience) accepts it already.

I am seriously interested in some sort of consensus regarding the issue and boundaries of Argumentum ex silentio on WP. Likewise I am loathe to cross-post, but maybe this extended question should be on the WP:OR, or WP:DUE policy pages instead of this one.

For those who are interested in context, this discussion is largely placed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Buddhism (20040302 (talk) 10:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC))

"Moreover, I would have thought that often sources will NOT say something which is considered an obvious or required axiom within that area; ie on the assumption that everyone (within a restricted audience) accepts it already."


 * Sometimes. You have to look at the particular case to see what makes sense in the context. Peter jackson (talk) 10:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * As 2004 suggests above that a. e s. has no place on WP, I'll quote here one particular type explicitly given in policy (WP:REDFLAG):


 * "Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim:
 * surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources;


 * Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources"


 * I'm afraid I don't know how to blockquote lists. Peter jackson (talk) 11:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Some of the types I've been suggesting are less extreme examples of the same thing:


 * if some sources say explicitly that something is important, but others have little or nothing to say about it, then the prominence it's to be given in WP should take into account not only the former but also the latter; of course, this depends on considering whether one could reasonably have expected them to do so in the context; this seems to me to be a sensible reading of WP:DUE
 * if some sources say something, but others don't, in a context where one could reasonably have expected them to do so, then the statement should be "According to" & have correspondingly reduced prominence; the latter is WP:DUE again, the former seems to me like just common sense (WP:IAR if you like)


 * Peter jackson (talk) 11:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The other type I've suggested is that, if no RS seems to have bothered to review a book or include it in their recommended booklists, then maybe the weight given to it should be somewhat reduced. Peter jackson (talk) 11:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Peter, is argumentum ex silentio a form of WP:SYN? Yes or no?  If not, why not? Viriditas (talk) 01:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * If anyone were proposing adding statements to articles saying something isn't mentioned, or drawing conclusions therefrom, without citing RSs doing just that, I imagine that would count as synthesis. But I'm not aware that anyone's suggesting that. I've mentioned 4 types of a. e s. above. One is explicitly authorized by policy, one and a half seem to me to be implied by policy, a half seems to me to be common sense & the last is a more tentative suggestion. None of them involve adding any statements to articles. Peter jackson (talk) 11:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Here's another example, not quite so explicit, which was in the policy page until a few weeks ago. It was deleted by Kendrick, & nobody seems to have discussed it here before or after:




 * If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
 * If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;


 * " This is logically equivalent to the contrapositive: "If you can't substantiate/name, then it isn't" Another a. e s. Peter jackson (talk) 12:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The silence is underwhelming. Just the same three four(!) of us. I wonder if anyone would even notice if we changed the policy. (20040302 (talk))


 * For what it's worth, I'm watching, too... so just the same four of us :-) /ninly(talk) 13:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Typical of RfCs, in my experience of both posting & replying. Peter jackson (talk) 14:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * To draw conclusions from the fact that people aren't saying anything here would be, er, argumentum e silentio. Peter jackson (talk) 15:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * lol (20040302 (talk))


 * 1) I'm not sure a rule should be made. 2) Possibly you would get more response if you put a nutshell version at the top. Maurreen (talk) 15:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Problem is, we're not quite sure what the quesion is ourselves. Everyone agrees that some argumenta e silentio are against policy. Nobody seems to have proposed changing the policy, though of course if anyone wants to this would be a good place for it. I've pointed out an example of such an argument actually in a policy page. I don't know whether anyone is actually proposing deleting it. Provisionally, the question is which sorts are OK & which aren't? Peter jackson (talk) 16:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I've read this a bunch of times, trying to see what the difference between argumentum ex silentio and WP:SYN is. I don't see the difference. Angryapathy (talk) 18:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I've read this a bunch of time too, and I'm really having trouble understanding exactly what it is that you want. If you're saying that information not included in a reliable source is evidence of its verity, then I must disagree, as that would be drawing your own conclusion, (synthesis). If you're saying that verities exist that aren't included in reliable sources, then I would agree, but would suggest looking into more sources. If you're saying that because someone doesn't speak up on talk that they must agree with you, I'd say that if you're the only one talking, then that might be a fair assumption, but if others are debating the point, then we should probably not assume. Zaereth (talk) 19:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * In substance, I think AES may in fact apply many times. However, AES is without a doubt an interpretation (an interpretation of the silence); this is obvious, since other interpretations are conceivable.  And it is not for a Wikipedian to forward his or her own interpretations into an article.  If AES is the dominant interpretation of experts in the field, there will be SOME source - a history of the science, a memoire, what have you, that attests to this i.e. that points out to its readership that the reason no one debates "it" anymore is because most people agree.  I strongly believe that if AES holds, one can find such a reliable source if one looks in the right places.  The key here is doing good research and as suggested above I think this is one more case where an appeal to logic is really SYNTH and just a way to avoid doing more research. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 20:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Note... Careful... this has an impact on our ability to label fringe theories as being such. Few mainstream sources bother to discuss fringe theories.  That very silence on the part of the mainstream is a key part of what makes a fringe theory "fringe" in the first place. Blueboar (talk) 23:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Alfred Wegener's continental drift hypothesis was proposed in 1912, but for five decades was considered "lunatic fringe". Without good evidence supporting his ideas, Wegener was attacked on all sides by the scientific establishment, but eventually prevailed in the end.  In hindsight, was the scientific community correct in labeling Wegener's ideas as fringe?  We now know his ideas as plate tectonics, the "unifying theory of modern geology".  If Wegener's uphill battle is any indication, it isn't silence that makes a theory fringe, but rather a lack of evidence and the unwillingness to accept its plausibility. Viriditas (talk) 03:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * precisely why we should not attribute to it meaning unless that attribution itself come from a significant view in a reliable source. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 23:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * To me, prominence is a relative concept. In an article such as gravity, there are a lot of sources about the various theories out there, but two major ones really stand out. Alternative theroies aren't nearly as prominent, so there's no need to detail them there. Alternative theories certainly are of value to anyone interested, so a link to the various articles is provided. On the Brans-Dicke theory article, the measure for prominence becomes a whole different story. (An article, which I might add, has insufficient inline sources.) Zaereth (talk) 23:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, now we have a number of other people here, but most of them complain they don't understand what it's about. Let me have another go at summarizing.


 * 1) If a. e s. were used as the basis for adding statements to articles, that would be WP:SYN & against policy. Everyone agrees that's so, & nobody seems to be proposing to change it. (AA)
 * 2) WP:REDFLAG explicitly uses a. e s. I'm not clear whether anyone's proposing to change this.
 * 3) Closely related to that is the question of fringe theories. BB mentions this above.
 * 4) More generally, I don't personally see how you could apply WP:DUE without some form of a. e s. My suggestion is that this is proper, when done with caution.
 * 5) (Viriditas) Everyone agrees that what's a fringe theory now may turn out to be correct in the future (but probably won't). However, Wikipedia is supposed to be based on the state of scholarship now.
 * 6) (SLR) Maybe you can find such sources, but at any moment WP has to be written on the basis of the sources its editors have found so far. Peter jackson (talk) 11:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The point is, Peter, we don't need to use AES to identify a fringe theory; WP:FRINGE covers this in detail. There might be some confusion on this point by other editors.  Why don't you get down to brass tacks, Peter, and explain why you raised this issue in the first place.  REDFLAG and UNDUE have nothing to do with AES. Viriditas (talk) 11:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Here once again is what WP:REDFLAG says:


 * "Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim:
 * surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources;


 * Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources"


 * "not covered by mainstream sources": silentium
 * "should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim": argumentum


 * What part of that don't you understand? Peter jackson (talk) 12:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * From WP:FRINGE:


 * "Fringe theories may be excluded from articles about scientific topics when the scientific community has ignored the ideas."


 * Another a. e s. Peter jackson (talk) 12:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Brass tacks: The only reason you brought this subject up, Peter, is because you've been arguing for a novel interpretation of using reliable sources on Wikipedia to introduce OR. You've repeatedly said:
 * "The fact that sources say little or nothing about something can be strong evidence, but it's not verifiable in a lot of cases (how do you give the page number where a book doesn't say something?)...If they [the sources] say little or nothing about something then that's a prima facie case for saying they don't think it important. That particular kind of argumentum e silentio is clearly supported...if a textbook on a subject fails to mention something alleged to be a basic fact, I think that, in common sense terms, is clear proof that that author doesn't believe it to be a basic fact. So it makes sense in such a case for the claim that it is a basic fact to be presented as 'according to', even if no source has yet been found explicitly disagreeing with it.... If a textbook doesn't mention an alleged basic fact on the subject, that implies the author doesn't believe it's a basic fact. I agree it doesn't necessarily imply they disbelieve it...It's the job of a textbook to tell the reader the basic facts about the subject, don't you think? If they don't mention something then they don't think it's a basic fact...And let me repeat what I said about argumentum e silentio. If a source fails to mention an alleged basic fact, it's reasonable to conclude that it doesn't believe in it..."
 * What you are talking about is not related to FRINGE or REDFLAG, or even UNDUE.  What you are talking about is using AES to make claims that are not found in the original sources.  You're trying desperately to open a loophole to OR so that you can attribute claims to authors about something they never said in the first place.  Even if a source fails to mention something, we cannot conclude an opinion about that source or depict it in an article. Viriditas (talk) 13:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:REDFLAG. IMO WP:REDFLAG's "surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources" is a bad policy, or poorly written.  It invites WP:SYN at some level or another.  I do not believe that WP:V needs that clause at all.  In fact, novel discoveries made by good WP:RS could be unnecessarily subjected to it.
 * WP:DUE. Unless I have completely missed something, I disagree that WP:DUE depends upon AeS.
 * WP:RS I agree(?) with SLR above that if AeS is an implicit view among ]WP:RS, then there will be WP:RS who will assert that view explicitly.
 * WP:FRINGE I consider the quote above ...when the scientific community has ignored the ideas... deeply unsound. Far better to use existing policy based on WP:DUE. Of course I am assuming here that fringe beliefs are held by a tiny minority. When there is a significant minority, then fringe beliefs probably should be addressed on the article under normal WP:DUE guidelines.

It is because of the fact that, as PJ summarises, current WP policy implicitly allows for AeS in both WP:FRINGE and WP:REDFLAG that there is a question for editors to comment on. I believe that the implicit inclusion of AeS in these policies is flawed, mistaken and obscures, rejects or ignores WP:V, WP:SYN, WP:DUE and WP:NPOV. I believe that no WP policy should depend upon, or allow for, AeS.

So to rephrase the question, What is the justification for keeping AeS in existing WP:Policy? (20040302 (talk) 13:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC))


 * Viriditas, I've already told you at least 4 times that I'm not suggesting adding statements to articles on the basis of a. e s.:


 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Peter jackson (talk) 16:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * 2004, thanks for clearing something up. You're definitely proposing changes to the existing policy pages. Let me just suggest what occurs to me right now. It seems to me that NOR can only be fully applicable to the direct writing of articles, but not to the process behind that. Examples:


 * 1) WP is supposed to be based on reliable sources. What's a reliable source? One with a reputation for fact checking. How do you find out about that reputation? Original research. Ultimately, at least. You may well find an RS saying a source is reliable, but then how do you tell that source is reliable? ...
 * 2) WP:DUE: How do you tell what's the appropriate prominence for something? Original research.
 * &c

Peter jackson (talk) 16:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

As you're proposing changes in those pages, I've posted notices on their talk pages. Peter jackson (talk) 16:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

What is being proposed?
I am at a total loss to understand what exactly is being proposed here (and by whom). What specific section of this policy is under discussion and what specific language change is being proposed? Blueboar (talk) 17:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * At least one experienced editor reads sentence from WP:FRINGE and WP:REDFLAG as supporting AeS. 20040302 proposes (after aforementioned thoughts):
 * Changes to both WP:FRINGE and WP:REDFLAG which eliminate AeS from being either used as a part of either policy and eliminates any reading of AeS being allowable within them
 * That AeS is explicitly disallowed within WP:Policy
 * (20040302 (talk))
 * Comment Can you list the sentence that supposedly supports AeS so we can discuss whther it is ambiguous, or an editor trying to Wikilawyer the language of a policy/guideline? Angryapathy (talk) 19:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's sentences. Peter? (20040302 (talk))
 * 20040302... why are you asking Peter? If you are proposing that we change the policy, surely you know what part of the policy needs to be changed.  Or do I have it wrong and Peter is the one requesting a change? Blueboar (talk) 19:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think addressing Peter's specific arguments would risk bringing the whole contextual discussion here, where it doesn't belong. The comments above (italic, original RfC post) were stripped of their signatures, but mine involved both WP:UNDUE and WP:N, and I believe that forms of abductive reasoning involving argumentum ex silentio necessarily underpin both policy and the editorial process on WP as a whole. Particularly because we cannot say that xyz should receive nth share of coverage without agreeing that the RSes do not treat abc to the same degree. That argument is weak as stated here, but I think it bears out. A couple points about the discussion at hand:
 * I think there's some confusion about what argumentum ex silentio really means in practice. It's largely been discussed as if it's a blatant piece of OR, drawing/implying an unstated conclusion more or less directly from an existing source. That leaves out a whole more subtle aspect of the concept, which involves the nominal forms of discourse in the source, and a reader's reasonable expectations of what it might discuss. Yes, there's some OR involved in that, but we can't read effectively without formalism and expectation.
 * I also think a.e.s. has itself taken on some undue weight in the specific context of earlier discussions. Properly used, a.e.s. is a small point, demonstrable and clear to others in the discussion. Viz. Prominent Expert A says X, Y, and Z are very important to the Topic At Hand, while Prominent Expert B only mentions X and Y in her treatise. That leaves us, reasonably, to discuss whether Z was at all important to B, and the degree to which it should be treated in our article. That's it – there's no novel interpretation to make, only questions to ask.
 * Finally, there seems to be confusion about the authority of policy. For example, Peter asks above "WP is supposed to be based on reliable sources. What's a reliable source? One with a reputation for fact checking. How do you...". Sure enough, ad infinitum. But ultimately, on WP, a reliable source is one that people agree is reliable (for a given purpose, and with policy/guidelines to inform the agreement, of course). Are there problems with this? Yes, but it's precisely what we have to work with.
 * My impression so far is that, while this discussion has raised some interesting questions about how to reach consensus, WP policy is probably OK as is. Argumentum ex silentio is not a loophole, it's a tool; if the argument doesn't convince you, that's OK. /ninly(talk) 05:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

AA, BB, the passages in question were quoted in the above discussion. Here again is the one from WP:REDFLAG:

"Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim:
 * surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources;

Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources"

Peter jackson (talk) 10:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

From WP:FRINGE:

"Fringe theories may be excluded from articles about scientific topics when the scientific community has ignored the ideas." I'd add now that AfD is also a. e s. If a topic isn't mentioned in RSs then the article is to be deleted. Does 2004 advocate abolishing notability?

I think OR in general, including a. e s., is banned only for direct addition of statements to articles. For work behind the scenes, such as WP:DUE, it can't be avoided.

I'm inclined to agree with Ninly to the extent that first-order policy is OK. The problem lies in its application. If a particular faction dominates an article, they can "interpret" policy to suit their POV, & then impose it by "consensus". In many cases there's no effective procedure for dealing with this. Peter jackson (talk) 11:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Peter asks: Does 2004 advocate abolishing notability? - No of course not. I am not advocating the presence of content for where there is no presence found. I am advocating exactly the opposite. I am proposing that we should never depend upon the absence of something for us to make an interpretation regarding it's meaning.  In fact, if you think about it, WP:N is in exact accordance with this also.  The absence of an idea in a RS is not in itself notable, so we certainly cannot imply some notability due to it's absence. Moreover, If the absent idea is notable (due to eg some bias of the author or editor), then other RS will remark upon it soon enough. Of course, WP:N is concerned only with articles, not of topics- so it is out of scope here.
 * Regarding the boundaries of logic, Peter suggests (AfD is also AeS: If a topic isn't mentioned in RSs then the article is to be deleted.) that something is an AeS when it's non-presence indicates a need for it's absence. AFAIK, such an interpretation of AeS would lead to it's identification as a tautology, which is absurd. My interpretation of AeS is $$(\lnot A \to B)$$, not$$ (\lnot A \to \lnot A)$$, which is how I read AfD. (20040302 (talk) 10:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC))
 * I'm afraid I don't understand the last para (not the symbolic logic notation, which I know), & I suspect you haven't understood what I was saying. AfD is saying, if RSs don't mention it, it should be deleted. That's a. e s. As mentioned in the actual article, the term covers a variety of things. What we're trying to sort out here is the boundaries between acceptable & unacceptable. Peter jackson (talk) 16:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * How is "if RSs don't mention it, it should be deleted" a conclusion based on silence?  My understanding of AeS in this case would be more like "It is notable because RSs don't mention it.", which is more or less the polar opposite. For me,  the phrase AfD  "if RSs don't mention it, it should be deleted" is basically a reformulation of (in positive terms) WP content must meet WP policy (WP:V)., which is a far stronger statement than AeS.  I would be quite happy with rewriting any AeS statements within WP:Policy in such terms. Or "WP content that does not meet WP policy may be freely deleted".  This is not AeS either. breaking policy is not silence. A policy (WP:V) that states that RS are necessary for acceptable WP content is not AeS. stating the effect of deviating from that policy is likewise not AeS. (20040302 (talk))


 * RSs not mentioning something is silence. Peter jackson (talk) 10:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * AeS is, at best, weak. WP:Policy doesn't need to depend upon weak arguments. Ever. I don't see why anyone would think that it should. Instead, it is confusing and invites lengthy debate, and trouble. Peter, I know that you do not suggest allowing AeS within the editorial process. Why should be be using it within policy either? There are far stronger, more clearcut ways of delineating policy. (20040302 (talk) 17:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC))

I am of the opinion that this is an example of WP policies having the possibility of quite improper consequences. While "majority" and "minority" opinions are of some value when determining what is "fact", the concept in regard to what are matters of opinion (including all religious, political, and economic topics "broadly construed") is flawed. Collect (talk) 13:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * This is all well and good to discuss all this in the abstract... but is anyone proposing a change to the language of this policy (and if not, why are we discussing it here)? If so, please post some initial suggested language so we have something concrete to discuss.
 * Otherwise, I would suggest that if you want to change WP:REDFLAG and WP:FRINGE, the place to discuss such changes is at WT:Verifiability (the policy that contains REDFLAG) and at WT:FRINGE. After all, even if you get a general consensus on AES here, you would still need to gain a seperate consensus from editors at those pages before such changes could be implimented.  That said, it is my opinion that the two policy statements in question have very broad consensus in the context of those two policies... so I think you will have an up-hill battle trying to convince others to change them.  But you always are welcome to try.  Blueboar (talk) 15:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * If you split up the discussion of related issues you're liable to get inconsistent policies. Maybe this has happened already.


 * I'm not sure what Collect is getting at, though it looks interesting. Peter jackson (talk) 11:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I substantially agreed with your prior statement, and made it a tad more general. A.e.s. is, to me, a very weak argument which might be used by the "majority" to grossly underweigh legitimate "minority" views (which might in fact be representative of a large number of sources).  And specifically noted the areas where I would suggest it is most weak as an argument. Collect (talk) 13:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hear Collect. Blueboar, sometimes we need to centralise, not decentralise, decision-making.  If you believe that the editors of WP:REDFLAG and WP:FRINGE should be involved, then invite them.  Moving the problem around doesn't get rid of it, though it can definitely push it back under the rug. Maybe this isn't the right place for discussing combined policy issues - my bad.  But this is where it's currently happening. If it needs to be moved, it can be moved. (20040302 (talk) 09:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC))


 * I did in fact post notices on both those pages. Peter jackson (talk) 11:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * And I'm afraid I still don't understand what Collect is saying. Peter jackson (talk) 17:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The real issue here
The issue here seems to be diverging from the main point: Are editors allowed to draw conclusions and edit based on the fact that a source doesn't mention a topic? Peter has been looking for a way to add this information for awhile now. Originally he tried to do so by arguing that syllogisms would allow such editing to occur. (See ) Currently, he is trying to interpret policies in order to support his view. Here's the key: policies are not written to be interpreted. They state the consensus of the community in a very straight-forward manner. I do not see the select passages having anything to do with argumentum ex silencio. I do see that WP:OR (specifically WP:SYN) more than adaquately cover that if a source doesn't specifically say something, we are not allowed to draw conclusions from it. Angryapathy (talk) 15:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * A quibble... There is one occasion when we can draw a conclusion from the fact that sources do not say something. I am thinking specifically of situations where no reliable sources bother to discuss an idea, because it is completely dismissed by the relevant accademic community.  We can reach the conclusion that the idea is rejected as being fringe or pseudoscience (and label it as such) even though none of the sources specifically use the word "fringe" or "pseudoscience". Blueboar (talk) 15:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * An omission may be WP:N, however I do not feel we can safely interpolate from an omission without violating WP:OR. --Salimfadhley (talk) 16:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, the only conclusion we can draw from the apparent non-coverage of a topic is that it doesn't appear to be notable. Anything else would be WP:OR. Crum375 (talk) 16:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I also disagree with Blueboar here. We should not depend upon the absence of something as a demonstration of it's opposition. In general, where an idea is completely dismissed there are existing policies: Firstly, if the view is held by a significant minority (eg creationism) there will be plenty of RS that have responded to it.  When the idea is held by a tiny minority, the view is already not relevant to WP. Therefore we do not need to depend upon the absence of an idea.


 * Moreover, one can easily construct an exactly diametric opposite argument to Blueboar's: - in some cases no reliable sources bother to discuss an idea, because it is completely accepted by the relevant academic community. Therefore, we cannot come to any conclusion based upon an absence. Instead, we should look to sources elsewhere. I guess I maybe missing something here, but to me it is quite apparent that if a RS has said nothing about it, all we can surmise from that is that the RS has said nothing about it. (20040302 (talk) 09:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC))


 * 2004, it's certainly possible to construct such examples. But equally it's possible to construct examples going the other way. A textbook should tell you all the basic facts about its subject. If something isn't mentioned the author(s) can't think it's a basic fact about the subject. Peter jackson (talk) 11:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I only have to find a single example of where a basic fact is considered universal by the author and the intended audience to prove you wrong here. Take "An introduction to the Sun and Stars (ISBN 9780521546225) - (disclosure: I'm doing an astronomy course) - The text does not state that the Sun can be observed by looking in a clear sky during daylight hours. I doubt that we can conclude that the authors don't think it's a basic fact about the subject. (20040302 (talk) 11:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC))


 * Interesting point. However, I did say in the earlier discussion that each case has to be looked at on its merits, to see what common sense suggests. In the case of a textbook such as the one you're talking of, It's a basic fact about the subject well known even among people who haven't studied the subject. So let me modify what I said before. If a textbook on a subject fails to mention a basic fact about the subject that readers couldn't be expected to know already, either from general knowledge or from previous studies presupposed by the textbook in its context, then it can be assumed the author(s) don't believe it to be a basic fact about the subject (if they mistakenly thought everyone knew it already they'd be incompetent textbook writer(s)). Peter jackson (talk) 12:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * AA, you misunderstand what I was suggesting in the link you quote. All I was suggesting there, and all I've been suggesting all along in these discussions, is that a. e s. can be applied for purposes of WP:DUE. I don't know how you understand the term a. e s., as your understanding seems to differ from mine. In my understanding of the term, I don't see how that could be worked without it. Peter jackson (talk) 11:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, looking back on that link, I don't think it's anything to do with a. e s. Peter jackson (talk) 12:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Back to 2004. You mention creationism, which is an interesting example. The fact is that it's not a significant minority view among scientists. It's a fringe view. But it's certainly a significant view among the wider population. I'm not clear what policy is about things like that. Peter jackson (talk) 11:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And my point is made - scientists (see eg Dawkins) explicitly address it. We don't need to depend upon absences to come to conclusions. (20040302 (talk) 11:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC))


 * That's too vague. Let me return to the main point. It's impossible to operate RS & DUE without OR of some sort. The question is, then, just what sorts of OR can be used in just what ways for just what purposes? Peter jackson (talk) 16:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Procedural aside. We may be getting something like the well-known cocktail party phenomenon: people talk louder in order to be heard over the noise of everyone else. Feedback. Here, the longer the discussion gets, the less people are inclined to read it all. They therefore keep asking questions that have already been answered, & those questions & the answers to them take up even more space. Peter jackson (talk) 16:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Peter, it is ok to "do OR" outside of articles... we are allowed to raise and discuss OR points on the talk page, and to make decisions as to whether something should be discussed (and if so how) based upon our own research. Blueboar (talk) 17:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I am aware that OR in meta-editorial activity is necessary. However, I remain very concerned with WP:Policy depending upon AeS as core policy as used in the places you have highlighted. I am also concerned that AeS is still used in the editorial process where and when it has no place there. (20040302 (talk))


 * Re. the Procedural aside, if you are willing to synopsise maybe we can fold away some of the content? (20040302 (talk))


 * Some notes towards a possible summary of discussion:


 * We seem to have different ideas of what a. e s. means.
 * None of us has defined it.
 * It doesn't really matter anyway. The question is, what's allowable & what's not. What you call it isn't important.


 * Peter jackson (talk) 10:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Funding for lobby / interest groups.
Would it be fair to say that funding for such groups is inherently significant? Unomi (talk) 00:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. For example, sometimes lobby / interest groups receive funds from a variety of grants. Sometimes funding comes with no strings attached. It all depends. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Away from the political agenda, interest groups can be grant funded or have a role in delivering commissioned services (I'm thinking Age Concern SCOPE MIND Shelter type groups here. That wouldn't be particularly notable.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Apology
I apologize for my rudeness. I often forget that when writing in a bad mood that the tone is often conveyed to the reader. I have taken quite a bit of time to study these policy pages, and to compare what I've seen with my own research and experiences. I usually feel a sense of cooperation around here if someone offers up a bandaid to fix a problem, but utter revoltion if a change is offered up for discussion in the hopes of solving the problem. Nobody wants to hear it.

What puzzles me is, has anyone else researched how other media outlets and reference sources solve these problems? This is what I mean when I say "reality-based solutions." In the interest of reliable sourcing, to show that I'm not making this stuff up, and in hopes to see Wikipedia improve itself, here are some good books on the matter:


 * On writing well, the classical guide to writing non-fiction by William Zinnsser.
 * Stein on writing by Sol Stein
 * McGraw Hill concise guide to writing research papers by Carol Ellison
 * A journalistic approach to good writing: the craft of clarity By Robert M. Knight

From the last one: We journalists often take ourselves too seriously and, when we do, we talk about our mission to communicate truth and our duty to report with objectivity. Truth, however, is elusive. Because truth deals with conclusions and values, each of us have a different idea of what truth is and what it isn't.

It is journalism's job to provide facts, concepts, ideas and emotions --as we sense them-- but not conclusions. Conclusions are what the reader, listener or viewer comes to. 

Objectivity, which is supposed to be the soul of journalism, simply does not exist. The moment a reporter uses his or her sense of newsworthiness to decide what to keep in his story and what to leave out, objectivity has vanished. What passes for objectivity becomes the reporter taking the job of a tape recorder, methodically taking down what was said and making no effort to check its veracity. Nor does such a "reporter" make any effort to get another point of view.

Better that we, as journalists, pursue attainable goals; accuracy, balance and fairness without bias. That we can do. Not only can we; we must.

Anyhow, since I have finished my study of these policy pages, I am simply going to leave with my own conclusions. I hope these references help, and I'll be happy to provide many others if anyone is interested. Again, I apologize for my outburst, and will leave these pages to you all. Zaereth (talk) 00:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Pseudo-NPOV by proxy
Here is a situation that I encounter with some regularity. There are two opposing points of view, say one holds that a frog spell can be countered by the kiss of a full-blood princess, while the other point of view dismisses this as superstition, and holds that only reconstructive plastic surgery supplemented by speech therapy will be effective. Jacob Ludwig Carl Grimm is a main proponent of the frog-kissing camp, while Heinrich von Pfolspeundt has written an oft-cited treatise criticizing the frog-kissing remedy as superstition. All of this is duly noted in our article on frog spells, with proper NPOV attributions supported by reliable citations. So far, so good.

Now as it happens, Emil Fröschels has written a publication in which he states: "In his magnum opus Sinn und Wahnsinn in der Therapeutik des Frosch-Zaubers Prof. Heinrich von Pfolspeundt proves conclusively that Grimm's tales are just fairy tales". So now an editor adds the following to the frog-spell article: "Prof. Heinrich von Pfolspeundt has proved conclusively that Grimm's tales are just fairy tales. ".

Now on the face of it this seems to satisfy the NPOV requirements; after all, the statement is properly cited. But this is only appearance; it is essentially just another shot fired from one of the two camps, and should not be presented as a fact but as an additional opinion that supports one point of view. And, unless the cited author adds something to the discussion beyond stating their agreement, this support is only worth mentioning at all if the author is truly notable, or a recognized expert in the area.

Question. Should we somehow describe this situation and make clear that adding such opinions as if they are facts – even when properly cited – still violates the NPOV policy? (It would help if there is some authoritative text to refer to when reverting such pseudo-NPOV additions.) And if so, what is the proper spot? --Lambiam 07:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The very next section has a bit about this; Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. Dmcq (talk) 12:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Dmcq is quite correct. Prof. Froschels has stated an opinion that Pfolspeundt has proven a thing conclusively. That's a judgment, and should be attributed to the judge, Prof. Froschels. How this would all be presented depends on the overall context. In this case, Jacob Grimm died a long time ago and did not pretend to be making anything other than fairy tales, there is no source evincing belief in "frog spells," and Prof. Pfolspeundt is a stuffy pedant for even claiming to prove the obvious. Probably, both Pfolspeundt and Froschels are pulling your (frog) leg. --Abd (talk) 02:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Numbering of the four guidelines
Note that this proposal includes a test and self-revert. I would like to add numbering to the four guidelines found in this section. It was reverted as part of a larger revert because of refs to the Psi ArbCom. Apparently ArbComs are deprecated as sources on policy pages, even if only for historical purposes. I don't see how only adding the numbers is a policy change since they are only a minor formatting change. I'll also bold the relevant words per the original version of this content, since those words get lost in the mass of text. They should stand out.

The reasoning is this. Those four guidelines are often referred to in discussions regarding the editing of pseudoscience subjects, but there is no official numbering, so confusion can occur. Numbering them will help to avoid confusion.

To understand this one has to see it, so I'll make a trial edit so editors can see the real effect. Then I'll self-revert and add the link here. Compare it to the existing version. Which is easier to read?

What think ye of that edit? Is it disruptive? Does it "change policy"? I think not and obviously think it improves the readability and usability or I wouldn't propose it. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Since no one has commented, I'll make the edit and let's see if people think it's an improvement. It makes absolutely no change in the meaning. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * That seems fine to me. -- Ludwigs 2  03:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Not only seems fine... I think it is helpful. Blueboar (talk) 03:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Using the National Science Foundation as a reference
I'm closing this as National Science Foundation is a reliable source. Editors should keep in mind, reliable sources may not be true and often may be lacking, but en.Wikipedia is not about truth, it's about verifiability. Reliably published outlooks on a topic not held by the NSF (religious ones might be among these) could and likely should be cited in articles, but only following WP:UNDUE. Lastly, WP:FRINGE is not policy and does not mean wrongheaded or false but rather, it can mean sundry things about an outlook, all of which have to do with published consensus. This is already handled in the written policies and arbcom has straightforwardly dealt with it, too. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Please weigh in on whether a statement by the National Science Foundation is a reliable source to use as an illustration for a portion of an ArbCom statement used in the NPOV policy. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

NOTE: Before proceeding, please read the short RfC which preceeded this one and layed the groundwork for it. (I wouldn't start an RfC if I didn't feel there was some chance of succeeding ;-) -- Brangifer (talk) 08:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I would like to add an example as a reference in the Pseudoscience and related fringe theories section. This section contains wording from the ArbCom ruling on the treatment of pseudoscience.

In December of 2006 the Arbitration Committee created guidelines for how to present pseudoscientific topics in Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience:
 * Neutral point of view as applied to science: Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience.
 * Serious encyclopedias: Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Wikipedia aspires to be such a respected work.

The ArbCom ruling created four groupings which are found in the section mentioned at the start of this thread:
 * 1) Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more.
 * 2) Generally considered pseudoscience:  Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.
 * 3) Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized.
 * 4) Alternative theoretical formulations:  Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.

I'd like to add the following reference as it is very specifically relevant to number two -- "Generally considered pseudoscience". In fact, I can hardly think of a better or more authoritative example:

What think ye? -- Brangifer (talk) 05:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

To get an idea of how this would look, I'm placing it in its proper place, but leaving out the other groupings: 2. Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.

And way down at the bottom of the page comes the reference:


 * References

That's all that is proposed. There is no change in the existing wording of the NPOV policy anywhere. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * As an aid to understanding the source, I'll reproduce the exact quote, right after introducing it:

In their yearly Science and Engineering Indicators, the National Science Foundation always includes a section entitled "Belief in Pseudoscience". In it they wrote:


 * "Nevertheless, about three-fourths of Americans hold at least one pseudoscientific belief; i.e., they believed in at least 1 of the 10 survey items (similar to the percentage recorded in 2001).[29]" Reference 29 lists the "10 survey items": "Those 10 items were extrasensory perception (ESP), that houses can be haunted, ghosts/that spirits of dead people can come back in certain places/situations, telepathy/communication between minds without using traditional senses, clairvoyance/the power of the mind to know the past and predict the future, astrology/that the position of the stars and planets can affect people's lives, that people can communicate mentally with someone who has died, witches, reincarnation/the rebirth of the soul in a new body after death, and channeling/allowing a "spirit-being" to temporarily assume control of a body."

Comments (RfC)

 * Please remember to clearly label your comment as support, disagree (or a synonym), or comment.


 * Need an admin to sort this out: Apparently this is also an RfC on Talk:Ghost (Talk:Ghost) but it is dealing with a different topic there than the RfC here is dealing with. I don't imagine that RfC's should be handling double-duty like that, and I have no idea how to sort out which issue is actually being addressed, where.  can someone please look it over and fix the issue so that the debate doesn't end up as a morass of confusion later?  thanks. -- Ludwigs 2  18:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * actually, should I post this over at ANI? I'm not sure if that's a better venue for the problem? -- Ludwigs 2  19:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No. That is an announcement for this RfC. Read it again. I'm putting a hat on this as it is a distraction in the wrong place. Comments go below. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Geez, deja vu. weren't we just having this discussion elsewhere?  oh wait, sorry; is deja vu considered pseudoscience?  at any rate, Oppose as unnecessary CREEP. Not only is it uncommon to have outside references on policy pages, the reference itself - taken out of context of its minor and off-hand use in the original primary source - will cause more confusion than clarification, and will undoubtably be used in efforts to change the meaning and import of the ArbCom ruling.  There's no need to fix what aint broke, particularly not if the fix is likely to break things on its own.  -- Ludwigs 2  06:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. Nothing is getting "fixed", since nothing is broken. It isn't unheard of to use illustrations and examples in policies and guidelines. Since this one is so fundamental, and this particular section has the backing of a whole ArbCom proceeding, it would be a shame not to use the most preeminent source we have to illustrate this point when they are speaking to exactly this point. This is exactly the type of situation the ArbCom wording refers to. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

It should be noted that Ludwigs2 has just been involved in a long and disruptive stonewalling attempt at Talk:Ghost. There he opposed the very clear results of an RfC which unanimously, except for him, concluded that this particular statement and source was being used properly. All the participants stated that the National Science Foundation preeminently qualified to speak as the voice of the existing scientific consensus, and that their statement was very clear when they named belief in ten subjects as pseudoscientific beliefs. The RfC participants all agreed that the statement was not taken out of context, and that there was no OR or SYNTH violation occurring. Ludwigs2 then proceeded to tag the content in a retaliatory and very pointy manner with tags, in spite of the RfC's clear consensus to the contrary. He started an edit war by violating WP:BRD at that time (one which didn't get any response), and then proceeded to carry on a long stonewalling attempt to justify his OR interpretation of why the NSF was wrong and the statement was being used improperly. The RfC participants found no evidence of OR or SYNTH violations. None of them agreed with him. This is just more disruption. He didn't get his way there, so he's trying to disrupt these proceedings. Appropriate sanctions may need to be applied to his case to stop the disruption, since he has vowed to continue this campaign. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * looks like consensus is leaning towards in favor, so I'll bow to that, even though I think it's flawed. no need to get personal, otherwise.  -- Ludwigs 2  16:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * There was no personal attack in the hidden section above. Ludwigs2 apparently wishes conceal the substance of Brangifer's complaint. I feel this use of the hide feature is unwarranted and grossly misrepresents the nature of BullRangifer's comments. --Salimfadhley (talk) 16:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Excuse, me, the entire two paragraphs was about me and my actions, not about any relevant issue. if Brangifer would like to revise the section to talk about issues rather than editors, I have no problem with unarchiving it.  however, I see no reason to allow a pure smear campaign to be waged on a policy page. -- Ludwigs 2  17:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Rather than allowing this misuse of the hatting option to sidetrack this RfC, I'll just retitle the description so anyone who wants to read it will know what's really hidden there. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Support Seems entirely reasonable. Verbal chat  08:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Support Why are we even having this discussion? That NSF is a reliable source for mainstream scientific thought would appear to me to qualify for the Blindingly Obvious Fact Of The Year prize. Obstructive holdouts should not change policy, though to be fair we have not yet found an effective way to deliver an official "STFU" to people who persist in circular discussion. Guy (Help!) 10:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know the exact context here, but I may as well point out that the above are pseudoscientific only when they claim to be scientific. That doesn't apply otherwise. Some of them are religious beliefs, for example. This is something that perhaps needs to be made clear in the appropriate context. Peter jackson (talk) 10:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. Note that this matter has no real relevance on the RfC at hand, but is an interesting side discussion. Peter, I understand what you're saying, because we normally define pseudoscience in that manner, and that's not wrong, but the NSF is more thorough in this case. Note that the statement is about beliefs, not claims, although claims are also part of all standard definitions of pseudoscience. The context of the NSF statements about pseudoscience, IOW the whole source page, would seem to indicate that they consider any false belief arrived at through a lack of understanding of the scientific method as a pseudoscientific belief. They are basically extending the simplistic definition we often use ("claims") so that it includes the very basis for pseudoscientific beliefs, which is a failure to understand the scientific method. They are using a more inclusive definition, rather than a superficial one. The whole page examines why people end up believing in pseudoscience. Terminology is important in this connection. While it is proper to label anyone who holds false beliefs, and then engages in scientific research in attempts to promote and prove those beliefs, as a pseudoscientist, it would not be proper to label ordinary, naive believers as such. They are simply people who hold pseudoscientific beliefs. If they have been presented with the evidence against their belief and persist in it, then they become true believers. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Further to Brangifer's coments I might add that there is a category of ghost-believers who employ sham-scientific methods. Given that these ghost-hunters believe that ghosts have been a subject of legitimate scientific inquiry the NSF's statement provides a clear corrective --Salimfadhley (talk) 16:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, Ghost Hunters are pseudoscientists, because they use poor scientific practices to justify non-scientific claims. This has nothing to do with the belief in ghosts, however; it has to do with bad science.  do you see that distinction?  -- Ludwigs 2  17:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Here is an excellent article on the pseudoscientific nature of ghost hunting: "The Shady Science of Ghost Hunting". -- Brangifer (talk) 03:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Support Example are nice. A very good source.  NSF lists 10 but we must make it clear that other reliable sources may list more.  Agree with Peter however.  However all it takes is a small group saying it is scientific for it to become pseudoscience.  The major religions say their beliefs are based on faith and only fringe groups claim they are based on science so the term "pseudoscience" would not apply to them. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 11:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * look at the dispute, not the misrepresentation of the dispute by BullRangifer. He isn't trying to use the NSF as a source, he is trying to twist the sense of the an NSF publication by excessively literal interpretation of casual wording. The point under discussion is the distinction between ghosts and "theories" relating to ghosts. The latter are pseudoscientific. The NSF has shortened this somewhat by listing "ghosts", understanding the "theories of" because the context was clear. BullRangifer is now trying to twist this into "ghosts are pseudoscience", which is patent nonsense, because a ghost isn't a theory to begin with and thus doesn't fit any of the four categories above. You might as well propose that "unicorns are pseudoscience", "hobbits are pseudoscience", "sadness is pseudoscience", or, for that matter, "pineapples are pseudosciecne". The question of "pseudoscience" arises with any "theory" or "theoretical formulation", as is made explicit by the Arbcom quote given by BullRangifer himself. If an entity isn't a "theoretical formulation" to begin with, there can be no discussion on its possible nature of "pseudoscience". What is happening here is that some people are trying to have this discussion regardless. --dab (𒁳) 11:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * What makes you think that the cited NSF paper contains 'casual' wording? The NSF do not need to be specific when distinguishing "ghosts" in general to "theories about ghosts" since it is the unambiguous opinion of the NSF that all notions pertaining to ghosts are scientifically vacuous. Your argument that NSF have made a category error mis-classifiying ghosts as pseudoscience and not mythical-beings is irrelevant since the citation is there to show what what the NSF have stated about ghosts and not what you think they should have said or may have meant. --Salimfadhley (talk) 12:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No official statement of an organization such as the NSF is going to have "casual wording" in it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Dbachmann, this isn't about "ghosts", but about a clear statement by the NSF, taken in context, in which they state that "belief" in ten subjects can accurately be termed "pseudoscientific beliefs". Ghosts, per se, aren't pseudoscience (they don't exist!), but belief in them is. Considering your background in the events leading up to the previous RfC, I would also label your struggle against the NSF's view on this matter as a display of pseudoscientific stonewalling. You and Ludwigs2 were allies in that unfortunate affair, and now you are both bringing your disruption here. Your arguments are vacuous. You're welcome to disagree, but do it in a sober manner. Disagreeing with the NSF only places you in a bad light, and as an admin, makes one question your qualifications. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * this is idiotic, and a blatant attempt to impose idiocy by wikilawyering. Of course the NSF is a relevant source, support to that. That is, for any topic viewed within a context of the USA, as the "National" means "US national". There is no reason whatsoever to cite a United States government agency, a Ukrainian government agency, or any other government agency in a topic that does not have a scope specific to any given country. For general topics, we cite good old academia, not government agencies. The NSF is good for any section dedicated to "in the US". An explanation of what a "pseudoscientific belief" may be is not in any of the four points listed above, so this "proposal" really bears no relation whatsoever to the case at hand. Your sources can be ever so reliable, there is no remedy against confused or irrational editors abusing these sources. oppose to the WP:CREEP designed to give leverage to Brangifer in a specific unreasonable edit war of his. --dab (𒁳) 16:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with the NSF being identified as a USA organization speaking for the American scientific community. I'm sure some simple formulation using 2-5 words could do it. Problem solved. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Support The NSF are a notable and reliable source wrt to orthodox scientific opinion. Arguments that they are not qualified to speak out on matters which have a spiritual or explicitly non-scientific component are simply wrong. This organization has long been involved with science advocacy and the conflict between scientific and non-scientific thought. Finally, it's obvious that BullRangifier's citation of NSF is an accurate representation of their opinion on the matter. --Salimfadhley (talk) 12:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Support per JzG. NSF is notable, reliable, authoritative. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Support Statements by the NSF are reliable and notable, and the one cited supports the statement in this RfC; in addition, the cited statement has been updated multiple times (2000 2002 2004 2006), underscoring that this is not an accidental or casual assessment. -- Scray (talk) 14:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Support The NSF Science and Engineering Indicators report being cited is mandated by US statute and delivered to the president and Congress bi-annually, so I must disagree with those who feel it's a casually-worded document. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Support Seems to me they are RS (or as RS as a sciencentific body can be). Moreover they clearly say that belief in ghosts is Pseudoscience. If the belief in something is Pseudoscience then its existance is Pseudoscience.Slatersteven (talk) 14:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Support; this "short list" of 10 is, indeed, indisputably considered as pseudoscience by the vast majority of the scientific community and the NSA NSF is a reliable source to speak for "the general scientific community" which they are held to represent at large. &mdash; Coren (talk) 15:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I thought the NSA tried to keep mum in public. ;-) -- Scray (talk) 15:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You are mistaken. No reference to the NSA has been made.  The NSA is not involved.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 17:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Support The NSF is about as reliable as it gets though I do have issues with the conclusion as it is presented in some of the reports is a little misleading. Believing that haunted houses exist as hallucinations, over active imaginations, misinterpretation of natural events, and yes even out right trickery is way different from believing that they due to the results of spirits or demons.--BruceGrubb (talk) 15:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - be careful! That wording (did it originate with NSF or with BRangifer?) is sloppy. It should be very clear that to be pseudoscience, the theory has to purport in some way to be science, claim science supports its existence, attempt to use scientific methods to explain the phenomena etc.  ESP/telepathy, modern mediumship/channeling and astrology clearly fall into this category, clairvoyance less so, because it also falls into the category of 'folk belief' which is non scientific. The big two failures are  reincarnation and 'witches' (did the NSF really say witches?). Reincarnation is in most cases a religious belief.  Most of the millions of the world's population who believe in reincarnation do so on a metaphysical, not a pseudoscientific basis, and it should only be described as pseudoscience in those cases where a scientific apparatus is being used to explore, capture or explain the process.  Witches and witchcraft are even worse as an example.  Both witches and witchcraft actually exist (bear with me here), forming both an expression of a modern or traditional religious practice, and a metaphysical or superstitious belief in the efficacy of magic.  I imagine that what NSF meant is that a belief in the efficacy of magic is pseudoscience, but - as with reincarnation - this is only true of a subset of believers. For most believers, including 'folk believers', science is seen as opposed to magic, and magic exists 'out there', not 'in here' and subject to scientific inspection.  This doesn't make it any more likely that I can turn Brangifer into a toad, but it does make my belief that perhaps someone could a metaphysical belief, and not a pseudoscientific one.Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Forget about definitions, because that is not the subject of this RfC. Focus on grouping two above and note how the statement and source perfectly addresses the subject of the ArbCom's wording there. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:28, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Support - as the NSF clearly is reliable as a scientific source. (The same would be true for any of the United States National Academies or major research institutes, such as the NIH). (Although Elen makes a valid point about not confusing metaphysics and pseudoscience). -- B figura  (talk) 16:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Support - Well, duh.   Reliable source, clear reference.    Guyonthesubway (talk) 16:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose Firstly the list of 10 pseudo-scientific topic is not an "official" NSF list; it is a list created for a Gallup Survey, which the NSF report is simply citing! Secondly, this is a matter suitable to be discussed and weighed on individual articles, and not imposed by policy, which is supposed to help determine how we treat sources, POVs etc, not decree on the subject matter itself. Abecedare (talk) 16:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - Are you seriously suggesting that this quote mis-represents document's meaning? Or are you suggesting that the NSF included this list in their document without actually intending to suggest that the NSF took any position at all on these topics? The mind boggles! --Salimfadhley (talk) 17:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Shall we look at the document itself to answer that question? pseudoscience is mentioned in two sections of one chapter dealing with 'Public Attitudes and Understanding' towards science and technology.  it is clear from context that the authors mean belief in pseudoscientific claims made in public not pseudoscientific beliefs, particularly since the latter phrase has no real meaning or sense.  I suggest anyone interested please read the linked source starting here - the misrepresentation of the NSF position being promoted here should be evident fairly quickly. -- Ludwigs 2  17:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course the statement "The scientific consensus, as expressed by the National Science Foundation, has identified belief in ten subjects to be pseudoscientific beliefs." misattributes views to NSF. The document says nothing about "scientific consensus", and NSF has not identified the 10 beliefs (Gallup has). FWIW, I think it is true that attempts to treat the 10 listed phenomenon as material facts are pseudoscientific (and it shouldn't be difficult to document the scientific consensus on this) - but it is academically dishonest to use just about any citation for this, and put words in NSF's mouth simply because it suits our purpose. Abecedare (talk) 17:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I may be missing something, but the use of the phrase "pseudoscientific beliefs" does not appear to be an ill-considered or novel invention of the NSF. Under the heading "Belief in Pseudoscience", the NSF writes that "a recent study of 20 years of survey data collected by NSF concluded that "many Americans accept pseudoscientific beliefs"". The 'recent study' cited is "Losh SC, Tavani CM, Njoroge R, Wilke R, Mcauley M. 2003. What does education really do? Skeptical Inquirer 27(5):30-35" reprinted here, where the phrase "pseudoscientific belief" is used several times. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * LuckyLoouie, I don't disagree with anything you say. Could we be talking past each other here ?
 * Let me try to clarify my objection with an analogy: The NSF document says
 * "Pseudoscience has been defined as 'claims presented so that they appear [to be] scientific even though they lack supporting evidence and plausibility' (Shermer 1997, p. 33).[28]"
 * My point is that it would be wrong to represent this as "NSF defines pseudoscience as 'claims presented .....plausibility'" even though the document cites the definition (approvingly). Similarly it is wrong to attribute the definitions used in a Gallup survey that NSF cites to NSF itself. Does that make it clearer ? Abecedare (talk) 17:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, Shermer cites ghosts as claims that fall under the heading of pseudoscience in his book, WHY PEOPLE BELIEVE WEIRD THINGS, which only strengthens the notion that the NSF's position isn't misrepresented by the wording of BullRangifer's proposal. I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It's interesting to note that the NSF "makes the Gallup report their own" by (1) quoting them favorably and (2) substituting Gallup's "paranormal" with "pseudoscience", thus equating the two. That's very interesting. We have the supreme scientific body in the USA essentially saying that paranormal = pseudoscience. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment, just for clarity: This dispute originated on Talk:Ghost over the use of this cite to claim that the NSF is opposed to all pseudoscientific beliefs. This is (IMO) clearly not true in the broad sense in which it was being used.  The NSF has demonstrated opposition to pseudoscientific claims - i.e. claims that ideas have valid scientific support when they do not - but there is no sourced evidence that the NSF extends this to beliefs more generally, except for this one minor passage.  In fact, the NSF and the scientific community have always been circumspect about beliefs - even in the creationism debate they were uniformly careful to criticize creationists for practicing bad science and to refrain from criticizing Christian beliefs.  I argued that this was a violation of synthesis - using primary sources to generate a new claim that is not itself supportable - that discussion is still not resolved; this is (again, IMO) an effort to bootstrap past it.  I'd rather not see this quote included here (because I don't think it's appropriate), but even if it is it has little bearing on the substantive debate over at ghost.  it's just going to create undreamed of avenues for wikilawyering.  -- Ludwigs 2  16:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Remember, that particular argument failed because you failed to demonstrate that the cited document was indeed a primary source. As has been noted here, it was actually a summary of other studies commissioned by NSF or it's members, and hence could not possibly be considered a primary source. --Salimfadhley (talk) 17:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Failed how? no one ever disputed the point.  in point of fact, the document is social scientific research commissioned by the NSF to establish current trends in science and technology - it's practically the definition of primary research.  or do you have some reason to disagree with that?  -- Ludwigs 2  18:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The cited paper on pseudoscience is obviously secondary source since it overwhelmingly relies on information which has been published elsewhere. --Salimfadhley (talk) 18:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * you're talking about Shermer? Shermer is quoted as saying that pseudoscience isclaims presented so that they appear [to be] scientific even though they lack supporting evidence and plausibility" whereas science is "a set of methods designed to describe and interpret observed and inferred phenomena, past or present, and aimed at building a testable body of knowledge open to rejection or confirmation".  where does this talk about people's beliefs, except that he happened to use the word 'belief' in the article title?  -- Ludwigs 2  19:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose. It's now apparent that the list didn't originate with the NSF.  It originated with Gallup, which explains the sloppy wording and the 'witches'.Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually Gallup are just the operators of the survey, from what I can tell they were comissioned by [Newport & Strausberg] whose research is being cited by the NSF. Incidentally, the origin of the list of pseudoscientific is immaterial since the cited document is not a primary source, but intended as a summary of pseudoscience in America. --Salimfadhley (talk) 18:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Here is the link to the exact Gallup News Service report about the 2001 Gallup Poll. Gallup has been conducting these polls periodically since 1990 and here is the report on the 2005 survey. And none of these surveys were commissioned by Frank Newport and Maura Strausberg, who both are Gallup pollsters themselves. By the way, the quality of these polls in assessing attitudes and beliefs in US is not in doubt; the problem is with misattributing their questionnaire to NSF and scientific consensus. I do agree with you that the NSF report is a secondary source and a reliable one at that - it just needs to be cited accurately. Abecedare (talk) 18:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It would definitely be best to mention the Gallup Poll's role in this. That doesn't detract from the statement in any manner. The NSF is using the Gallup Poll as one of its many primary sources and arriving at its own statement. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * @Salimfadhley: the set of wording that you are trying to use originates with Gallup. I'm sure NSF would not be nearly so sloppy.  It is useless as a set of examples - "I believe in witches" is not pseudoscience.  I know any number of witches, and they practice what they call witchcraft.  I can take you to meet them, they might even show you what they do.  'Witches' is such a vastly different concept from 'the efficacy of magic' (a belief in which may in some instances fall into the definition of pseudoscience - beliefs such as the doctrine of signatures, kabbalic correspondences or the effects of the phases of the moon do have a science-y look to them) that I entirely fail to see how it could be even remotely useful as an example. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose. This RfC is an attempt to obfuscate and nullify the consensus reached here. The view of the Wikipedia community is that a ghost or a belief in ghosts is not pseudoscience. Rather, a ghost or a belief in ghosts is non-science, which is better known as nonsense. The statement attributed to the National Science Foundation confuses the topics of pseudoscience and non-science in the same way that some people confuse astronomy and astrology. Characterizing Ghost as pseudoscience is inappropriate. Attempting to circumvent the consensus is inappropriate. PYRRHON  talk   17:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * [This] is most definitely pseudoscience! --Salimfadhley (talk) 18:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Question - :::* We've established beyond doubt that the origin of the list of pseudoscientific topics was Gallup and not NSF. The question remains, what (if any) is the NSF's position of the topics in the list. Is it safe to assume that this list was cited because NSF accept that these are indeed scientifically vacuous topics, or did they have some other reason? My previously stated position is that the NSF are using this list as an illustration of some of the topics which they consider to be pseudoscientific. --Salimfadhley (talk) 19:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I doubt that NSF would take an institutional position on what exact topics fall under pseudoscience (in the US, the National Academy of Science is much more likely to produce such consensus statements). NSF's citation does help establish credibility for the Gallup survey (since its cited approvingly by a reliable source) and we are free to cite the Gallup survey itself as an indicator of public belief in the US. But we shouldn't read it as an NSF position. For example the 2002 version of the same NSF report says (pg 7-37),
 * "According to one group studying such phenomena, pseudoscience topics include yogi flying, therapeutic touch, astrology, fire walking, voodoo magical thinking, Uri Gellar, alternative medicine, channeling, Carlos hoax, psychic hotlines and detectives, near death experiences, Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs), the Bermuda Triangle, homeopathy, faith healing, and reincarnation (Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal )."
 * But again it would be wrong to attribute these views to NSF itself... especially given that its sister agency for health research, funds homeopathic research. The best example of NSF listing topics covered under pseudoscience in its own voice is the relatively brief discussion in the 2010 report where it says,
 * "The pseudoscience section focuses on astrology because of the availability of long-term national trend indicators on this subject. Other examples of pseudoscience include the belief in lucky numbers, the existence of unidentified flying objects (UFOs), extrasensory perception (ESP), or magnetic therapy."
 * As one can see the NSF reports handle the issue differently from year to year, and the proper way to cite them would be along the lines of, "The 2010 NSF Science and Engineering Indicators report listed belief in lucky numbers, the existence of unidentified flying objects (UFOs), extrasensory perception (ESP), or magnetic therapy as pseudosciences" or "The 2006 NSF Science and Engineering Indicators report cited a Gallup survey which found ...". This content and discussion thus belongs on the concerned article(s) talk pages, and not as part of NPOV policy. Abecedare (talk) 20:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Everybody should be able to agree to this compromise. Can we put it to a vote? Furthermore, I agree that this discussion is no longer relevant to NPOV. The only disputed issue of any merit was the one which you seem to have addressed quite conclusively. --Salimfadhley (talk) 21:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe. But I'm looking at the Gallup Survey here and can't find the word pseudoscience in it. Looks like NSF decided to use that word to characterize the subjects in the poll. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Wow - LuckyLouie, you are absolutely correct! Gallup simply refer to the topics as "paranormal". They do not comment on scientific content. The pseudoscience label is clearly NSF's addition to the list. Therefore BullRangifer's position is vindicated. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No one was actually ever concerned about the NSF position on pseudoscience itself - the question was over whether the term could be reasonably extended to mere 'beliefs' or whether it should be restricted to claims purporting to be scientific. I saw (and still see) no evidence that the NSF means the former.  however, I could reasonably accept something along Abecedare's line, since it's much more sensitive to what the NSF is actually doing than the rather ham-handed treatment the citation has been getting to date.  -- Ludwigs 2  00:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Interestingly, the author also presents evidence that the majority of believers in astrology and fortune telling do not consider it scientific, thereby negating the contention that it is in fact pseudoscience according to his own definition of pseudoscience. More sloppy writing - I make no suggestion as to how one squares that circle. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Refer to para 2 of the section "Belief in Pseudoscience", I think the document makes it explicitly clear that they are indeed referring to "pseudoscientific beliefs". NSF clearly do believe that a belief can be pseudo-scientific even if Ludwigs2 does not. Quote:"Nevertheless, about three-fourths of Americans hold at least one pseudoscientific belief; i.e., they believed in at least 1 of the 10 survey items" --Salimfadhley (talk) 01:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Here's the exact quote, right after my introductory wording (attribution):


 * In their yearly Science and Engineering Indicators, the National Science Foundation always includes a section entitled "Belief in Pseudoscience". In it they wrote: "Nevertheless, about three-fourths of Americans hold at least one pseudoscientific belief; i.e., they believed in at least 1 of the 10 survey items (similar to the percentage recorded in 2001).[29]" Reference 29 lists the "10 survey items": "Those 10 items were extrasensory perception (ESP), that houses can be haunted, ghosts/that spirits of dead people can come back in certain places/situations, telepathy/communication between minds without using traditional senses, clairvoyance/the power of the mind to know the past and predict the future, astrology/that the position of the stars and planets can affect people's lives, that people can communicate mentally with someone who has died, witches, reincarnation/the rebirth of the soul in a new body after death, and channeling/allowing a "spirit-being" to temporarily assume control of a body."


 * I hope that makes it clear what they really wrote, which is exactly what Salimfadhley states. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Support although the wording needs tweaking to avoid a claim that because some other item is not in the NSF list that therefore the item is not pseudoscience. Naturally there will be very few reliable sources that bother to make a declaration similar to the cited NSF statement, so the reference is useful. Someone declaring "I believe in ghosts" may be indulging in nonsense and not pseudoscience, but that distinction, while properly explained at Pseudoscience, is not important in WP:NPOV (Ghosts should be talking about serious beliefs, not whimsical statements made during lunch, and serious beliefs in ghosts are pseudoscience). I do not support wording such as that proposed a few lines above: "The 2010 NSF Science and Engineering Indicators report listed belief in..." because the NSF is clearly just picking some beliefs in one year and others in another year – there should be no suggestion that if ghosts are not mentioned in a particular year that therefore belief in ghosts ceased to be a pseudoscience. Johnuniq (talk) 00:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose pseudoscience is an attempt to portray a theory or belief as a science, while not following the establised scientific method. Beliefs in a deity, a witch, a devil, a holy spirit, an angel, a tooth fairy, or a ghost, are all non-scientific, but only become pseudoscience when they are claimed to be science. We don't characterize religion as pseudoscience on WP, because generally religious adherents do not portray it as a science. Neutrality requires us to treat all other non-scientific beliefs the same, unless scientific claims are made. Crum375 (talk) 04:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * This is not about how "we" define pseudoscience, but about what a major scientific body (NSF) considers to be pseudoscience. Now do three things: (1) Note the original proposition above; (2) forget about definitions, because that is not the subject of this RfC; (3) focus ONLY on grouping number TWO. That is the subject to which the proposed statement and source (in some slightly tweaked form) is to be attached as a reference, not as part of the text. The text of grouping two will remain unchanged. The statement and source are about as perfectly suited for that statement, and the intentions of the ArbCom when they formulated that statement, as anything can be. It's simply perfect for this purpose. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:NPOV is a core foundation policy. If we call belief in ghosts "pseudoscience", we must also include beliefs in deities, holy ghosts, holy spirits, heaven, hell, and religion in general. We may not pick out certain non-scientific beliefs and call them pseudoscience, while implying others are not, as this would violate NPOV. Crum375 (talk) 04:27, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * This is about how we are to describe pseudoscience. The ArbCom made clear how we are to do this. This doesn't alter that in any manner. You are focusing on definitions, but that's another subject. Religions don't claim their beliefs are scientific, although certain aspects may be claimed to be pseudoscientific because those religions make scientific claims about them, for example Dianetics. In this RfC it's best to stay away from this subject as it only sidetracks the RfC. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * If we use the word "pseudoscience", we need to define it. The definition of pseudoscience is an attempt to portray a belief as a science, while not following the scientific method. We can call a belief in ghosts a pseudoscience only if there is an attempt to portray it as a science. Otherwise, if we don't make this distinction very clear, religion would also become pseudoscience. Crum375 (talk) 04:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I know what you're saying and agree in part, but that's not the subject here. Definitions are taken care of elsewhere. Imposing them here would be to impose OR on the NSF source. The normal definition (claims of "scientificness") do apply, but the NSF (when one looks at the whole page at the source) seems to be including any belief arrived at through a lack of critical thinking or understanding of the scientific method in their understanding of what is "a pseudoscientific belief". Note that only those who make overt claims of scientific support for their beliefs can be termed "pseudoscientists", while any believer in such ideas can be called a believer in a pseudoscientific idea. But again, we are getting off-track here. Focus on grouping two and how this statement and source fit like pieces of a puzzle. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I think this is just sowing confusion. Any article or policy have to start with a well defined premise, supported by reliable sources as applicable. In this case, if we mention the word "pseudoscience", it must be well-defined. It generally does not apply to ghosts, holy ghosts, or religion. To specify "ghosts" as an example of pseudoscience would be wrong, is not supported by a careful reading of the NSF source, and would violate WP:NPOV &mdash; a core foundation policy &mdash; if it is implied that religious beliefs are somehow different than a belief in ghosts or witches. Crum375 (talk) 04:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not as bad as you think. This is about a ref, not an article or statement in an article. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * We include refs to support statements we make in the text. If the text says or implies that a belief in ghosts is "pseudoscience", it must also include all religious beliefs along with it, or it would violate NPOV. The NSF source, on careful reading, does not support such a distinction between religion and ghosts. Crum375 (talk) 05:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * [Refactored] At Wikipedia we don't force our personal ideas of how things should be onto sources, text, or references. We are to use text that is backed up by references, without forcing the text to say something that is not in the text, and we can't make it say something which isn't in the text, just because our worldview includes lots more than the reference mentions. "Follow the sources" isn't just a catchphrase, it's a safeguard against OR. This little diversion seems to have run its course and has long since diverged from the topic of this RfC. End of off-topic discussion. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Bangifer, please focus on the message, not the messenger. Personally attacking someone you disagree with, is not at all helpful. Now to the point: on WP we use our own words to summarize the best available sources, presenting them in a balanced fashion, per WP:NPOV. If we find that all sources agree that a belief in ghosts is considered "pseudoscience", while a belief in deities, holy ghosts, and religion is not, then we should say so. But at the moment, the most reliable sources generally agree that pseudoscience is an attempt to portray non-scientific beliefs as science. It is not just any non-scientific belief. If we were to say or imply that a belief in ghosts or witches is considered pseudoscience, while a belief in holy ghosts, holy spirits, or religion in general is not, we'd be violating NPOV, and not following what the best sources say. This is not WP:OR, it's WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPOV, and the latter is a core foundation policy which may not be violated. Crum375 (talk) 13:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * NOTE THAT I HAVE DUPLICATED THE ORIGINAL NSF QUOTE ABOVE. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The NSF reference is flawed because the Gallup poll question asks whether the participant believes that witches exist when the intent of the question is probably asking whether the participant thinks witchcraft is effective or whether they can fly on brooms or boil babies or whatever. Like Elen of the Roads, I can take the NSF and Gallup principals to have tea with a number of self-proclaimed witches. We as Wikipedians can take or leave references—this one cries out to be left behind as poorly formed. Binksternet (talk) 04:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * That last argument does not hold; for example, we could also invite a few self-proclaimed Santa Clauses. That does not mean that "belief in Santa Claus" (as most readers would understand that phrase) is well-justified.  That some people describe themselves as witches (or reincarnated) does not provide strong evidence for "belief in witches" (or "belief in reincarnation"), as most people would understand such phrases.  -- Scray (talk) 06:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Support - It's a reliable source (if this isn't consensus in the U.S. then nothing is), and it is exactly what AbCom is talking about. It doesn't matter that there's a Gallup poll referenced, the point is the NSF considers the list illustrative. Even if that mattered, Gallup is reliable too. Finally, this all a bit too much trouble for what is in the end probably a meaningless change. But now that we're here, I have no problem with the edit. Shadowjams (talk) 07:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Support The NSF is a reliable secondary source. It has chosen to cite a primary source (the Gallup poll) as a relevant example for the topic. We use secondary sources because us choosing the primary sources would be original research. The NSF report is probably the best source available about what the scientific consensus considers to be pseudoscience, so I don't see the problem in using it as an example. In particular, it's a good example for point 2 ("Generally considered pseudoscience"). --Enric Naval (talk) 11:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose if the intent is to put the weight of the NSF behind a statement which was not made in a peer-reviewed journal or the like, as appears to be the case. The NSF is reliable on matters of statements made in such journals, but is not reasonably given equivalent weight for other statements, any more than any other organization is.   I am, as a result of the colloquy above, now of the opinion that "pseudoscience" is not a well-contrued term, and likely should be excised from WP instead.    Collect (talk) 13:27, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Exactly! Binksternet (talk) 16:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Truly bizarre! Collect appers to be arguing that the NSF is no more authoritative on matters of science than any other organization. If the NSF cannot be truted to speak with reliable authority on matters of science then who? --Salimfadhley (talk) 21:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The answer is obvious....Binky and Collect! They'd even be able to do it without using the word "pseudoscience", since it's apparently a defective term that doesn't exist in the real world, isn't used by any scientists, skeptics, or national scientific bodies, isn't used in university courses, isn't used by a single V & RS, and therefore Wikipedia shouldn't use it. I think I can hear the sound of an owl echoing among the trees. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * no, what Collect is pointing out is that the NSF statement here is a primary source document that hasn't gone through peer review itself. I am simply amazed by your capacity to misunderstand plain english. it's a talent - have you applied to the GOP?   -- Ludwigs 2  21:13, March 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for realizing what I wrote.  Seems some find it more instructive to simply make fun of other editors  rather than read what they wrote.  Material which has been peer-reviewed is to be distinguished from "Gallup polls."  Collect (talk) 00:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course there's a difference. That isn't questioned. The question is whether it's relevant in this instance (this RfC). You seem to have trouble staying on-track. This RfC isn't about scientific research, which does involve peer-review. This RfC is about whether the National Science Foundation is qualified to make statements that represent the scientific consensus in the USA on scientific subjects, which obviously would include their opinions on what are pseudoscience (IOW non-science = nonsense). They seem unequivocal in their view, especially since they chose (not an accident) to cite a Gallup Poll which never used the word pseudoscience, but instead consistently used the word paranormal, and then, of their own volition (also not an accident) labelled those beliefs "pseudoscientific beliefs". They equate the paranormal with pseudoscience, a very interesting insight into the scientific consensus on those subjects. This RfC isn't about scientific research, or a WP:MEDRS matter, or a matter of definitions, so peer-review isn't an issue here. Statements of this kind are never peer-reviewed. That's like demanding that a website be peer-reviewed before we can accept it as a V & RS. (That may sound absurd, but that's actually been attempted here at Wikipedia!) While those are all very legitimate subjects which are related to many questions about science and pseudoscience, for the purposes of this RfC those are all off-topic diversions that only sidetrack this RfC from its purpose, and continuing to dwell on them is disruptive. This is about sourcing, and more specifically if the NSF statement, like a uniquely shaped puzzle piece, should be used as a ref in a specific spot, which happens to be another puzzle piece that very uniquely exactly fits the NSF statement. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * We're not talking about rocket science or a MEDRS situation here. Even a child should know that these things are obvious pseudoscience and peer review isn't necessary. You have been told again and again that it's not a primary source. They base their conclusions on numerous other sources and on another very important thing, they happen to know what science is all about and possess critical thinking skills, in contrast to present company. "I am simply amazed by your capacity to misunderstand plain english. it's a talent" -- Brangifer (talk) 21:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The fact that you don't understand what a primary source is, BR, doesn't really give a lot of credit to your argument. this is a document written to argue for a conclusion about science education.  primary sources can and do draw on other materials to make their points; that doesn't affect their nature as primary sources.  -- Ludwigs 2  21:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Whether or not it's a primary source isn't really the primary issue here, it's your continued insistance that this is an improper use of a primary source. Upon which policy are you basing this suppostion, which nobody in the RfC at Talk:Ghost or here is seeing? Somehow you are right, and practically everyone else is wrong? I think not. So far, your interpretation would seem to prevent us from using any source. Please point us to this policy and show how we are violating it. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, have you aleeady forgotten that you redirected the Ghost RfC over here? my, what a selective memory you have...  -- Ludwigs 2  01:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * What does this have to do with this RfC or "point[ing] us to this policy and show how we are violating it"? "Redirected"? I'm not sure what you mean. That was a different RfC. This one deals with some of the same stuff, but for a very different purpose. Once again I'm requesting, please point us to this policy and show how we are violating it. No more evasion and stonewalling. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * My apologies, I misunderstood what you said above. as far as pointing you to the policy that you're violating - I've done that at least six times.  you apparently can't see it (which is a little odd), but I'll do it again here, in as simple terms as I can.  first the facts:
 * The document in question is a primary source for the NSF's views on "some major U.S. and international science and technology (S&T) developments"
 * The document itself is not peer reviewed, and only some of the material it references is peer reviewed
 * The document is not primarily about pseudoscience, and the only section that deals with pseudoscience issues is primarily about the public's (rather poor) understanding of science
 * the citation you are using explicitly defines pseudoscience as "claims presented so that they appear [to be] scientific even though they lack supporting evidence and plausibility" (from Shermer)
 * However, you are somehow concluding that these cites can be used to demonstrate that the NSF is willing to label mere beliefs (such as a belief in ghosts) as pseudoscientific. That conclusion can not be drawn from the document you've cited, except by carefully cherry-picking quotes and presenting them out of their proper context on the document.  That is a textbook example of wp:synthesis (combin[ing] material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources), except that in this case you are using multiple citations cherry-picked from a single source.
 * Now, let's see how long it is before I'm asked to repeat this again - lol. -- Ludwigs 2  03:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for repeating it. I wasn't sure if you were referring to some other policies as well. You have mentioned SYNTH once in this RfC, and now you have explained more fully your understanding of how you believe the formulation of the statement and the use of the source violate SYNTH. Thanks. I obviously disagree, as do nearly all other participants here, because you are misusing SYNTH.


 * You have not demonstrated that I have engaged in a SYNTH violation. You are essentially accusing the NSF of engaging in SYNTH and faulting them for it. It is the NSF which has done what you describe. You don't agree with them, and therefore you've been blocking this. You claim that I am guilty of "(combin[ing] material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources), except that in this case you are using multiple citations cherry-picked from a single source." It is the NSF that has made that synthesis. I have used ONE source, which is the NSF quote. SYNTH refers to Wikipedia editors, not to external sources. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Just as a technical point, the NSF cannot engage in synth (not unless they collectively start editing wikipedia). wp:SYN is a policy about how editors can and cannot use material found in published sources.  what you meant to say (I think) is that you (and others) are not engaged in SYN because you are faithfully representing what the NSF is saying in this document.  That seems to be the core of our disagreement, at any rate.


 * However, I am having a hard time understanding how you can make that claim, based on what the document actually says. I think the core of my objection revolves around this: If you wanted to use this cite to say that the NSF states that lay-people have a poor understanding of science (and thus that many people believe in things like ghosts and God and warp drives and creationism, which have no scientific standing) then I would almost certainly agree with you - that seems to me precisely what the cite is saying.  That statement allows for both pseudoscience and non-science, and more accurately captures the NSF's practices, where they may condemn belief in creationism (because it's pseudoscience) but not condemn belief in God (because that's not-science).  But you seem to turn the cite around to say that the NSF is actually condemning beliefs in general, whether or not they have any relation to science or scientific practice. On a page like Ghost, that causes problems, because many of the beliefs about ghosts are prescientific or non-scientific, and only a small part of the material is actually what can properly be called pseudoscience.  I somehow don't think that the NSF is going to start asking that Hamlet be rewritten to use hallucinations instead of ghosts.  The NSF would certainly (and rightly) poo-poo all of the various people who have tried to claim some scientific evidence for the existence of ghosts, but by all indications that's where they'd stop (well, except they'd encourage people to consider the issue scientifically and rationally.  do you see the distinction I'm making here? -- Ludwigs 2  05:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll reply to your "technical point". Of course they can't violate Wikipedia's SYNTH policy unless they do it here. That goes without saying, so we certainly agree on that! I meant that they, and any other author, usually engages in a synthesis of sources, and that's perfectly proper writing. I'm also saying that by quoting one quote from them I'm not engaging in synthesis, and my summary of that quote is also an accurate summary. You seem to be having more problems with whether the quote is being taken out of context. All I can say to that is they said what they said, and they did it very deliberately in a manner that reveals they did it consciously. They even substituted the word "paranormal" with "pseudoscience", thus placing the original Gallup Poll list into a new context, but not really, since they equate the paranormal with pseudoscience.


 * [Now for a little private OR ] They also seem to be delving deeper into the essence of what leads to the holding of pseudoscientific beliefs. The whole article deals with why a poor understanding of the scientific method and a lack of critical thinking leads the public to accept such beliefs as truth. Thus they go further than a stiff and rigid definition that depends only on claims of "scientificness" and excludes any other possibilities. To them it includes such claims, and the reasons such claims can be made. Basically any falsifiable claim is a potentially pseudoscientific claim, even if the one who makes the claim is only repeating something they've heard. They may not be "the" pseudoscientist (whom they are quoting), but they are making a pseudoscientific claim and holding pseudoscientific beliefs. All parties involved in that process are in some way or other tainted with their association with pseudoscience, whether they are actual pseudoscientists or "mere" believers. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but the 'They said what they said' argument just doesn't wash - it a wiki-lawyer claim. You can't take a statement out of context, re-interpret it in a preferred way, and then force that reinterpretation back on to the source.


 * Let me respond to your private OR (which isn't really private - a number of other editors have been making this argument explicitly for years OR) with some private OR of my own In some ways I sympathize with your position: People in general should have a better grasp of the fundamental of scientific reasoning and pragmatic logic.  People reason badly, that's a given.  but trying to force all bad reasoning into the category of bad science is an error (scientific reasoning is not the only - or even consistently the best - form of analytic reasoning).  Further, scientists don't worry about potentially pseudoscientific claims; they worry about claims that are actually pseudoscientific, because those are the only claims they can actually dispute on methodological or evidentiary grounds.  Scientists may not like beliefs that demonstrate a lack of reasoning, but scientists are not going to have anything to say about such beliefs except where they start trying to conflict with scientific research.  Your 'private OR' is a skeptic's position - everything must have proof, or must be rejected.  By contrast, scientists reject what evidence tells them to reject, and leave things that evidence doesn't speak to as matters of conjecture or opinion.  it's a much more conservative approach to the issue.  -- Ludwigs 2  19:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't believe the statement is taken out of context, and it's clear enough to stand on its own. We'll just have to disagree on that one and let others make their decision. As to the other comments, now we've both had our say, so let's end this little excursion. It was interesting. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * ok, and yes it was interesting. thanks for taking the time to talk out the details.  -- Ludwigs 2  05:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Support per LuckyLouie. Durova  412 18:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Support - The lengths to which the pro-supernatural biased editors have gone in an effort to censor the mainstream scientific view is absurd, and we see it on Talk:Ghost quite well. This change will make it more clear what the ruling was all about and hamper more such attempts to slant articles in the future. DreamGuy (talk) 19:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * well, only a congenital idiot would call me a 'pro-supernatural biased editor'. frankly, I'll confess on my side that I'm amazed by the number of supposed 'science' editors who lack basic reasoning skills.  It seems that every time someone tries to start a discussion on a fringe topic, the people who are supposedly defending the scientific perspective break out in hissy-fits: they scream, call people names, start edit wars, make rude comments, whine and bitch and moan about how abused they are - it's a disgusting display of hysteria and immaturity.  Sorry DreamGuy, but if you or your friends were willing to discuss these matters reasonably and intelligently, we wouldn't have these problems.  don't blame me for your failings.  -- Ludwigs 2  21:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Do I hear the crashing sounds of a pot throwing stones in their glass house? -- Brangifer (talk) 00:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * If so, it would be the first thing you've actually heard in the entire discussion, so I tend to think not.   -- Ludwigs 2  01:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. Pseudoscience is commonly and widely defined as a belief or methodology that purports to be scientific, but does not follow the scientific method. I don't think there is much dispute here about this point. The problem arises when people try to label beliefs in general as pseudoscience, when the believers don't make any claims that their belief is a science, or that they are following the scientific method. Most people who believe in ghosts, spirits, holy ghosts or spirits, devils or witches, or any kind of deity, don't generally see their beliefs as scientific, yet they still believe. To label what these people believe in, which in many cases amounts to their religion, as "pseudoscience" would require exceptional sourcing, and to make the claim that it represents the mainstream would require multiple high reliability secondary sources directly stating this claim, with no significant dissent. The NSF certainly makes no such claims. Crum375 (talk) 21:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * yes, that's exactly the point I'm trying to make, and exactly the point all the proponents are avoiding. sad commentary on wikipedia that they keep trying to confuse the issue...  -- Ludwigs 2  21:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. If ghosts exist, there must be some means by which their presence can be detected and distinguished from natural phenomena. When people discuss ghosts, they cite anecdotes, read reports, peer at photographs, and study videos. Ghosts are said to possess various attributes and various behaviours, and these are tabulated in the same way that nocturnal animals' behaviour might be tabulated. People wonder whether they are spirits, or the mindless playback of a "stone tape". It seems clear that most people who believe in ghosts, believe that in principle they could be studied by scientific means, and that it is the pigheadedness or incompetence of scientists that prevents progress; also, these beliefs are only vaguely associated with religious doctrines. Believers also follow with interest the pseudo-scientific activities and reports of ghost-hunters. I would say that the classification of belief in ghosts as pseudo-scientific is reasonable. Xanthoxyl  &lt; 07:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment about how I see this: This RfC can be likened to taking two puzzle pieces that have been found in different places and fitting them together, sort of like one person (myself) finding a girl walking down the street in NYC who has a unique half charm hanging around her neck, and that same person finding a guy in LA who has the totally unique other half hanging around his neck, and they don't know each other exists. I then bring them together and the match is perfect and everyone benefits. That's essentially what's happening here. The Psi ArbCom decision resulted in several decisions, including the formulation of four groupings that describe how we are to describe pseudoscience in an NPOV manner at Wikipedia. The second grouping has a unique wording which uses astrology as an example, but otherwise has no references. While references and examples aren't required in policies and guidelines, they do occur because they are considered helpful. The NSF reference happens to be the type of thing the Arbitration Committee would have eagerly grabbed and used to document an exact example of what they were describing if they had had it at hand during the proceedings. If this RfC succeeds (as it appears to be), there will be absolutely no change of wording in the NPOV policy, at least I don't currently see any need for it. Only the reference will be added to grouping two. That's all. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The two charms do not fit as well as you picture. If the NSF were to carefully crafted a position statement on pseudoscience, they would not have shoved it into a footnote fueled by the results of an annual Gallup poll. They would have taken mainstream scientist opinions and contrasted those with popular opinions only for flavor—the notional opinion piece would mainly be about what established science thinks, and the conclusions made by science would be the main point of the piece. We do not have this piece as they have not seen fit to write one. Binksternet (talk) 18:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * PLEASE CLOSE THIS RfC and the one at Talk:Ghost, and then block those who then refuse to abide by the RfC consensus. This disruption, forum shopping, and the incessant harassment against myself here and elsewhere by these few editors are insufferable violations of multiple policies. This little gang needs to be placed in a wikijail for some time. How about topic bans for them all and letting them know that harassment, including revenge RfC/Us, will not be tolerated? -- Brangifer (talk) 19:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * excuse me, forum shopping? You're the one who started this, and the misbegotten RfC at Ghost, and most of the other places where you've been flailing around trying to push through an entirely nonsensical claim against reasoned objections.  I say close this as NO CONSENSUS and be done with it.  -- Ludwigs 2  20:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. Pseudoscience is non-science masquerading as science. From the present policy, Pseudoscientific theories are claimed to be science, however, they lack scientific status by use of an inappropriate methodology or lack of objective evidence. Does anyone here disagree with that definition? I have not reviewed the NSF documents, but NSF doesn't have the authority to redefine the English language. Folk beliefs, intuitions, paranormal experiences, ghosts, etc., are not pseudoscience unless scientific authority is claimed for them. Someone, somewhere, got "superstition" -- a highly biased label, but at least it's more honest as to the attitudes involved -- confused with "pseudoscience." If the NSF accidentally makes an overstatement somewhere, outside its field of expertise, we are not obligated to give this prominence and enshrine it in a policy. --Abd (talk) 01:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Well said. Crum375 (talk) 01:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "...paranormal experiences, ghosts, etc., are not pseudoscience unless scientific authority is claimed for them" I agree... but... the problem is that there are those who claim scientific authority for them... or at least that they can be explained by and detected using science and scientific methods.  Those claims are pseudo-science.  What I am getting at is that we need to note the difference between "belief" in ghosts (perhaps superstition, but not pseudo-science), and claims that they can be detected, analyzed, studied, etc. (pseudo-science). Blueboar (talk) 02:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Random break

 * Comment. I have to agree they wording in some of these NSF articles is horrible. Take the comment from the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal in the 2002 report linked above.   Fire walking, voodoo magical thinking, Carlos hoax, and Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs) in the same "pseudoscience" category as yogi flying, therapeutic touch, astrology, and several others.  But those first four are NOT pseudoscience.


 * There have been many scientific studies as to why fire walking appears to work and various theories have been put forth. Willey, David (2007) "Firewalking Myth vs Physics" University of Pittsburgh gives a thumbnail sketch of these studies and came to the conclusion that yes it exist but there are perfectly scientific reasons as to why it works.


 * Voodoo magical thinking appeared in Gino Del Gurcio's 1986 "The Secrect of Haiti's Living Dead" Harvard Magazine reprinted in the 87/88 Annual Edition of Anthropology as article 33.


 * Carlos was a hoax orchestrated by James Randi to show how unsceptical people and the media were. Why this is even called pseudoscience I have no idea.


 * Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs) has to the layman become synonymous with ExtraTerrestrial Vehicles (ETVs) but they are two very different things. Project Blue Book did not say UFOs did not exist but rather they were mostly misidentifications of natural phenomena and conventional aircraft.  "Aliens? No, just the Pentagon playing with its latest toys" is another example of real UFos--not aliens but the testing of aircraft unknown to the general public my the military.  So it is NOT pseudoscience to believe in UFOs per say, what is pseudoscience is the idea they are ETVs.

The NSF really needs a better editor as they are clearly not explaining some of the claims they are reporting clearly.--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: (adding this on the bottom, as this section has got too long to manage threading well) Can I just say that the arguments of Brangifer and others only works in a certain western-centric context. Lethbridge and others attempted to find a scientific, non-supernatural explanation for ghosts, pendulum dowsing, ESP (a term coined to distinguish it from the old folk terms such as Second Sight) and other phenomena.  In doing so, there is no doubt that they created research into the paranormal as a pseudoscience, and as a result, people who believe in ghosts, ESP and suchlike because they think there is some scientifically credible evidence for them, are believing in the claims of pseudoscience.  However, people who believe, like Robbie Williams that the 'ghost' (or spirit, or soul, or angel-form) of their deceased grandmother watches over them, do not do so from any scientific basis, but from a primarily sentimental one, and no amount of education in the scientific method will remove this belief.
 * Even more significantly, history shows that it is possible to hold a strong religious conviction (any religion) and also be a competent scientist. Some religions (eg Shinto) require a belief in the spirits of the ancestors, who may appear or be communicated with, and Japanese scientists who hold religious convictions regularly square this circle. Catholicism requires a belief in a subset of the deceased known as saints, who are held to make appearances to the faithful from time to time, and Catholic scientists square that circle. By attempting to put everything into the category 'pseudoscience', we risk losing the perspective that such beliefs can also be religious, metaphysical (of spiritual or emotional philosophical content), cultural (folk belief, belief associated with one's cultural identity) or sentimental (beliefs held because they are comforting).  In none of the latter cases is scientific veracity or lack thereof of significance to the status of the belief.


 * It still therefore remains that to determin a NPOV way of referring to such things, one must take account of the context. To say 'a belief in ghosts is considered pseudoscience by the NSA' would follow the source. To say 'the belief in ghosts is pseudoscience' because the NSA says that it is is to push the source too far.  Shinto is not a pseudoscience. (eta) Should a visiting Japanese scientist take a break to burn incense to his deceased grandmother, I am sure that all but the crassest member of the NSA would mutter something about 'respecting cultural differences' and shuffle off to take the piss out of an episode of Most Haunted.Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Elen makes a good point... I think we do need to differentiate what we are talking about. Claims that the existance of ghosts etc can be proven scientifically,  or claims that there is is a scientific explanation for ghosts etc., is clearly pseudoscience and should be labeled as such.  But to say that all belief in ghosts etc is pseudoscience is simply inaccurate. Blueboar (talk) 15:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Just an observation: I agree that the NSF's opinion would not be appropriate at an article such as spirit, which I think addresses Elen's concerns completely. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * This is my main concern, because this has somehow got NPOV mixed in with it, and it is important to point out that 'pseudoscience' is not an NPOV way of referring to to the whole gamut of belief in the supernatural, only to that component that features elements of science (or bad science) deployed to explain the phenomenon (eg Lethbridge's Ghost and Ghoul) or investigate the phenomenon (eg TAPS), or where there is the appearance of science (eg the doctrine of signatures, which was regarded as scientific for a good long time). As evidence of the attitude of the scientific community (at least in the US) it is a sufficient source, now that we appear to have sorted out who said what, although it's not an ideal source, since it includes things like 'witches' (which needed much more unpacking), 'firewalking' (which relies on the physics of heat transfer - the only pseudoscience is the psychological mumbo jumbo surrounding it) and 'yogic flying' (which is a plain old fraud). Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I can't help but agree with you. If we're going to use this cite (which I still oppose, mind you, but I'm open to the possibility) we should probably balance it with the actual definition of pseudoscience given in the passage before the quote - "claims presented so that they appear [to be] scientific even though they lack supporting evidence and plausibility" - or by reference to the fact that the document itself is primarily concerned with critical thinking and not with pseudoscience.  At any rate, some sort of clarification that pseudoscience only refers to misapplications, misrepresentations, or inappropriate assertions of or about science, not to poor reasoning more broadly put...  In fact, that might be a useful addition to the section regardless; what do you think?  -- Ludwigs 2  19:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Certainly, I think a definition of pseudoscience in respect of Fringe would be useful - and the NSF seems as good a source for that as any - and this would help to decide whether in any article/discussion Fringe applies. This would also benefit in respect of Fringe theories that are not apparently about the paranormal (those magnetic bracelets come to mind), but that still represent bad science. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I have no objections to including the one definition they use in that article, although it's not necessary since this isn't about definitions, but about how we are to describe subjects that are "Generally considered pseudoscience". It's interesting to note that nowhere in the 2004 or 2006 versions of the article does the NSF actually discuss the idea expressed in Elen's edit summary "it is research into the paranormal that is the pseudoscience." They don't discuss it at all! While I think that most everyone here agrees that what she says is very true, and that the NSF probably does too, they don't touch that subject in either article. Unfortunately that idea has been forced upon the 2004 version of that source in the lead of the Ghost article in a classic example of OR using the wrong source which I tagged: "Beginning with 19th-century spiritism, various attempts have been made to draw conclusions about the existence of ghosts through scientific methods, but such efforts are generally held to be pseudoscientific."  While it's a true statement, the source doesn't mention that at all. It has since been fixed by finding more appropriate references. When a statement is obviously true, the appropriate response is to tag it and then find better sources. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not always clear in the NSF piece what exactly they do mean, but it would not support the sentence you have quoted. I'm sure there's a better reference somewhere, because there is such a long history of searching for an explanation for ghostly manifestation in the realms of physics - all the way back to the Crookes tube (Carnacki uses a pentagram made of fluorescent tubes) - and there have been plenty of scientists eager to distance themselves from it.Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Pseudoscience on Wikipedia: Part 42
Two competing camps here have good points:


 * 1) Inasmuch as belief in ghosts is supported by a pseudoscientific gloss that probably got its biggest kick from the movie Ghostbusters, the NSF is a reliable source for describing how the current belief in ghosts represents a distinctly pseudoscientific aspect of our culture.
 * 2) Ghosts, as a cultural phenomenon, extend way beyond the pseudoscientific trappings of ghostbusters. There are references to ghosts in all major religions except for Islam where the belief in ghosts is explicitly repudiated (though djinn are arguably "spirits") and ghosts are used as literary devices in major works of literature from Hamlet to A Christmas Carol.

Per WP:FRINGE, we must be careful to segregate these aspects of the subject. Modern ghosthunting is pseudoscientific. The modern secular belief in ghosts as entities is part-and-parcel to this activity (and all the parapsychology that is associated with that). Ghosts, as a subject, however, have literary and theological significance that is totally independent of the scientific content or the empirical questions of whether entities such as ghosts exist.

Wikipedia is under the obligation to report that there is no scientific evidence for ghosts, the ghosthunters use pseudoscience to support their claims of observing ghosts, and to the extent that modern beliefs in ghosts are centered around ghosthunting activities, such are pseudoscientific beliefs as outlined by the NSF.

Beyond this, Wikipedia is also under the obligation to report on what ghosts are as a cultural, religious, and literary device. This is essentially independent from the latter issue in all but the referent.

ScienceApologist (talk) 20:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, quite true. The problem is that some editors conflate "beliefs" in general, such as personal beliefs in religion or the paranormal, with the attempt to couch such beliefs in "science". The former is part of human culture and affects in some way almost everyone, while the latter involves people trying to cloak non-science with a scientific mantle, i.e. pseudoscience. Since both topics are distinct and highly notable, WP should cover both, and clarify the distinctions where appropriate, relying on the best possible sources. Crum375 (talk) 20:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Quite. If the list had stuck to the likes of ESP/telekinesis, poltergeists and ghosthunting (which has a much older history than Ghostbusters), we wouldn't be having this discussion I suspect.  It was adding in 'belief in ghosts', 'belief in reincarnation' and other such concepts that are much larger than just their pseudoscience aspect, that has muddied the water rather.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Oddly enough, the demarcation between pseudoscience and superstition is often less-well understood than the demarcation between science and pseudoscience. In theory, a pseudoscientist is either a charlatan or a true-believer in a superstition who uses the trappings of the scientific method and scientific jargon in statements that they make supporting their belief. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes indeed - and many sellers of such snake oil do indeed seem to believe in the things that they peddle. And many of the superstitious have a pseudoscientific cause-and-effect approach to their beliefs. As I observed before, the doctrine of signatures was considered science for a long time, and works in exactly that way, endeavouring to identify a causal relationship and, from that, a set of principals which could be used universally.  It was the periodic table of its day, and of course, it was right - by chance - some of the time.
 * "I have an earach"
 * 3000BC Here, eat this root
 * 1000AD That root is pagan. Here, say this prayer
 * 1800AD That prayer is superstition. Here, drink this potion
 * 1960AD That potion is ineffective. Here, take this course of antibiotics
 * 2010AD It's well known that antibiotics don't work, and anyway, they're not natural. Here, eat this root.  Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Except for your last line (which is both true and false, depending on the cause), your other points are good. For a good laugh, the scientific method is compared to the pseudoscientific method (in this case creationism) in the cartoon here. Another good one is found here. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Surely my last line is a classic example of pseudoscience :) Love the Trudeau cartoon. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree but we run into the problem of citation. When a reputable organization X says that {paranormal topic Y} is pseudoscientific then we can pretty much report that X says Y is pseudoscience without bothering of the nuance that Y may also be informed by spiritualism, insanity, literature etc. We must be careful not to interpolate what X may have have meant (the possible truth), just simply report what they did in fact say (the verifiable truth). --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No. We can't pick and choose quotes from sources, regardless of how "reputable" they are, unless the text we write, and the sources we provide represent all notable views about a topic. In other words, following WP:V alone is insufficient; anything we say must also conform to WP:NPOV, which means it must fairly represent all views. Crum375 (talk) 00:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, represent all views - but if we want to represent "mainstream science" surely statements by the American Academy for the Advancement of the Sciences, or the Royal Institute of Great Brittain, count for more than other reputable sources? I think that the statements of major professional associations may not speak for "science" as such, but do speak for "mainstream science." Slrubenstein  |  Talk 00:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, we can choose a small number of sources to represent "mainstream science", in principle. If we have a clear-cut opinion from the Royal Institute saying that, for example, a belief in ghosts is considered pseudoscience, but a belief in holy ghosts isn't, we could cite it. The problem is that we need to be very careful we don't pick and choose pieces from otherwise high quality sources to promote our own POV. Crum375 (talk) 01:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Unless I'm misunderstanding something here, this is also about proper attribution, which is always a good idea. As to "represent[ing] all notable views about a topic", that is nonsense. There is no policy that requires a single source to represent all views. Per NPOV, an article should include all notable views from V & RS, but each source will usually represent one or more views, and very rarely "all" views (that's often impossible). A single source that represents all views is rare and usually worthless, because it isn't really shedding much light on the subject in an in depth manner. Individual sources from varying POV will usually present the case for their POV in a much more in depth manner and thus shed more light on the subject. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No, I agree with you here. The NSF source is not NPOV - but it doesn't have to be. When talking about the broad context of 'a belief in appearances by simulacra of the deceased' one would not use this view as the only definition of the phenomenon. One could include it, but one would have to include other sources as well to reflect NPOV.Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Crum375, I think you're wrong here. Sources don't have to be neutral (or one would never write a politics article!!!). One achieves NPOV by the accumulation of sources. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Elen, I have never seen a "neutral" source, and don't expect to any time soon. Where did I say or imply that a source has to be neutral? What I did say is that we, as WP editors, are obliged to strive for neutrality, per WP:NPOV, and must therefore present all notable views and sources about a topic, properly balanced. Crum375 (talk) 01:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Apologies. I (and apparently also Brangifer) read you as saying that each source must reflect all views, but reviewing your edits it is apparent that you meant each article must reflect all views.Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem. Yes, exactly. Crum375 (talk) 01:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for fixing it. That makes a world of difference! -- Brangifer (talk) 04:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem. Sorry for the confusion. Crum375 (talk) 04:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I think we need to keep on focus here. the question isn't really about whether the NSF represents all notable positions, but about whether this citation (as given) can really be used as representative of the NSFs position on pseudoscience.  as it stands, it does not appear that this section of this document was ever intended to to be a definitive statement on pseudoscience - pseudoscience only enters into the discussion as an example of poor critical thinking, which is the main focus of the document.  I mean, this is rather like taking Albert Einstein's famous statement "God does not play dice with the universe" and using it to claim that he was opposed to legalized gambling.  see what I mean?  -- Ludwigs 2  01:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Not quite. It's like taking that quote of Einstein's and using it to point out his opposition to Deism. Philosophically, in fact, that's an underlying part of what Einstein was saying, and his objection to quantum mechanics can be seen as an implicit rejection of any theory that relies on a probability mechanism due to such philosophical difficulties. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * That's pretty much my point. Einstein was frank about his opposition to Deism, and if there were any question about using the quote to support his opposition to Deism, then other sources could easily be found which bolster the claim.  I don't know what Einstein's position on legalized gambling was, and using this quote to demonstrate that he was opposed to it is questionable.  The problem lies in taking quotes that were meant at to demonstrate point A and using them as though they demonstrated (some tangentially related) point B.  The pseudoscience passages in this section are examples of poor critical thinking, not primarily definitive examples of pseudoscience - there's really no other way to read the section.  -- Ludwigs 2  17:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but I fail to see a distinction between pseudoscientific beliefs and poor critical thinking in these cases. Attempting to parse the NSF statement like this when they actually use the term "pseudoscience" is like trying to argue that Einstein didn't really mean God when he said, "God". A bit originally researched. Let the quote stand in context, sure, but don't obstruct its use as a source for the fact that the NSF has criticized certain aspects of failure to critically think as pseudoscience. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree with ScienceApologist. I doubt that NSF are speaking figuratively when they refer to "pseudoscientific beliefs". --Salimfadhley (talk) 19:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that wikipedia would be best served by inline attributing the quote to NSF lest there be further confusion. To me, it reads like the final wording was either not by a scientist or at least not by a scientist with his 'scientist hat' on. I personally would rather not believe in ghosts, it sounds like a pretty boring to way to live out eternity, as it were, and find nothingness a bit more personally satisfying. Nonetheless, it is difficult to accept the tortured wording as anything but either confused or 'politically motivated'. Taking their wording to be 'fact' in our WP:RS sense rather than a fact that NSF have stated this seems to run counter to our interests. Unomi (talk) 19:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Have you actually looked at the proposed addition? It isn't designed to become part of the text, but only as a ref, where it has abundant in-line attribution. Your comment has now led to a mini-thread that's based on a misunderstanding of its intended usage. The only thing that is missing, and I don't know how I did that, is the quotation marks, since it's an exact quote. I'll add that now. --Brangifer (talk) 01:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I have now added an exact example of how it would look above. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Summaries are generally better than direct quotes for encyclopedia articles. Of course, the problem with summarizing is you may get people who interpret a statement in different ways. However, we are equipped by a number of policies and guidelines to ferret out which of these interpretations are of possible nefarious designs and which are legitimate. If possible, avoiding particular attribution altogether is a good way of doing this. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * (E/c) Unomi - I agree. This isn't one of those grammar school arguments where 'you said it so you must have meant it' has value.  add that the term 'pseudoscientific belief' doesn't actually mean anything when taken analytically, and this argument makes even less sense.  I mean, I understand why people are putting so much effort into defending this snippet - this quote must be used on hundreds of fringe pages as a pseudo-argument against the various topics - but the fact that it's widely distributed doesn't make it correct.  -- Ludwigs 2  19:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know of any place this quote is used in an article other than Ghost, except for the talk pages of about 4-5 relevant articles. If the quote actually contradicted scientific opinions, then you'd have a case for it being taken out of context, but it doesn't, and it even provides further understanding of how deeply the NSF understands this topic. They understand that the obvious and simplistic definition we always use is still true, but they then go on to show how a lack of critical thinking leads to pseudoscientific beliefs. Yes, beliefs can be pseudoscientific. They didn't make a typo there, and we would all do well to add that to our understanding of this subject. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Never thought I see you argue for exposition of the truth rather than what is verifiable, Ludwigs2. Looks a bit opportunist to me, actually. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * To be honest, I have never been a big fan of WP:ASF, rarely is anything simple unless ones' appreciation of it is superficial. I also find it unlikely that people will find the passage from NSF less compelling when actually attributed to NSF compared to standing as an unattributed assertion by a random wiki-editor, ymmv. Unomi (talk) 21:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm still waiting for L2 to start a new section in which he shows us the correct way to cite this document! --Salimfadhley (talk) 21:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The correct way would be to simply state that the NSF have said this. I don't see what the downside is to such a solution. Unomi (talk) 21:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:FRINGE explains the downside. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Surely you don't consider fear of people understanding the NSF to be a minority view as a valid reason to not mention that this has been stated by a premier scientific body and government agency? Unomi (talk) 22:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Given some of the comments made in this discussion, I think it is justified to fear that particular attribution to the NSF could be used to construe their statement as a minority view. There are many people disparaging and berating the quotes as irrelevant, incoherent, incorrect, and inchoate. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * (e/c) particular attribution is such a shoddy piece of policy; don't even get me started on it. I've made a new section below with a suggestion for how we can use this quote on the NPOV page, one which tries to incorporate the belief thing as much as I can without stepping into OR. I've temporized on how it can be used on other pages - that's an iffier venue.  -- Ludwigs 2  23:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ignore the consensus at your own peril, Ludwigs2. Actually, I note that you follow it with your suggestion below. Maybe you just haven't read it. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Sadly as James Burke pointed out in "Day the Universe Changed" science can and does reject viable hypothesis based on the "structure" of the day.  The treatment of Gregor Mendel and Alfred Wegener are prime examples of when science not only does a spectacular fail but then decades later gets egg on its face.  Miner's "Body Ritual among the Nacirema" is a satirical paper on how the hypothesis can drive what the "facts" are.  Carl Sagan noted the sad case of Percival Lowell and his Martian canals noting that there was no doubt that they were of intelligent design but the issue was which side of the telescope the intelligence was one.  "When we have strong emotions we can fool ourselves."--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, but WP:CRYSTAL. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't see how WP:CRYSTAL applies to summaries of studies done that are so badly written that they give the wrong impression. "A recent study of 20 years of survey data collected by NSF concluded that "many Americans accept pseudoscientific beliefs," such as astrology, lucky numbers, the existence of unidentified flying objects (UFOs), extrasensory perception (ESP), and magnetic therapy (Losh et al. 2003)" (SEI 2006) But as I have shown above "the existence of unidentified flying objects (UFOs)" in of itself NOT a pseudoscientific belief--only the belief that (UFOs) are ETVs which is a totally different thing is pseudoscientific.--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not a totally different thing, actually. Most people, when they discuss UFOs, mean exactly that -- a fact pointed out in the lead of our very own Unidentified flying object article! ScienceApologist (talk) 11:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you need to go back and reread the Unidentified flying object article because the very lead in states: "Unidentified flying object (commonly abbreviated as UFO or U.F.O.) is the popular term for any apparent aerial phenomenon whose cause cannot be easily or immediately identified by the observer." and only later it states the connection and that was based on a 1990s article while I found a 2006 book that clearly states "Strictly speaking, ETV is a special version of the broader view that there are genuine unidentified flying objects (UFOs)." I have added that and reworked the UFO ETV connection because quite frankly it is a mess.--BruceGrubb (talk) 11:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

proper usage of quote
in reference to Salim's above request about how to correctly use this document on the NPOV page, here you are. On this page the quote should be (as someone else pointed out) a natural extension of the second point in the ArbCom decision. it could be incorporated by adding a footnote to point two as follows: "This following the NSFs definition of pseudoscience as 'claims presented so that they appear [to be] scientific even though they lack supporting evidence and plausibility.' This may refer to material that overtly mimics scientific procedures - such as more extreme forms of cryptozoology - or beliefs that are broadly promoted as scientific in the mass media - such as von Daniken's 'Chariots of the Gods' or the idea of 'warp drives' - despite having little to no valid scientific investigation." This should incorporate the 'beliefs aspect properly, without allowing it to stray over into beliefs more generally put. I don't think there is a general way to use this quote on other pages. The Ghost page currently has a half-decent example of this at the end of the lead, but I think the matter would need to be addressed on a case by case basis. -- Ludwigs 2 23:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * These examples are not from the quote nor are they correct. The idea of "warp drives" is not pseudoscientific, nor has the mass media paid much attention to them. Von Daniken's ideas are surely pseudoscience, but not really connected to the mass media. "More extreme forms of cryptozoology" is ambiguous at best. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Unless I'm totally misunderstanding the proposition here, this seems to actually introduce a real change in the wording of NPOV, and even without using the quote we're discussing. This is pure unsourced OR. The use of the definition really adds nothing that isn't already included in the pseudoscience article. This seems like an attempt at an end run around this whole RfC in an attempt to not use the quote at all. To make sure I don't misunderstand this, please provide a real example of how it will appear, like I have done above. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:05, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * yeah, I figured that would be the response. Note that I'm aware of this tactic; I'm just indulging it for the moment.


 * back on topic, the examples are irrelevant (use other if you like; it just threw those in there in a misguided attempt at clarity). to the substantive point that BRangifer made: I don't know whether this is a real change in NPOV or not. I was asked to provide the correct way of using this particular cite, and this is far more correct than then the version proposed above.  again, examples aside, nothing here extends the NSFs position beyond what can reasonably be implied by the given document.  Or are you asking me to use the lines about "pseudoscientific belief" without reference to the definition of pseudoscience given in the document?  why would I take them out of context like that?  -- Ludwigs 2  06:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Tactic? Color me confused. I'm pretty sure Ludwigs2 is arguing that this phraseology should be relegated to a footnote as opposed to being included in the actual text. I really don't care one way or the other, but I wonder, why throw out one part of the quote at all? ScienceApologist (talk) 06:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * There is no "tactic". AGF. I am truly confused by that wording. If he's relegating it to the footnote, that helps a bit, but it's still OR and leaves out the quote relevant to this RfC. As such it's a diversion and should not be listed here at all. If the quote isn't being used at all, then this subsection is misleadingly titled. Still confused by the unclear wording. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * assuming that you have a tactic does not violate AGF. I credit you all with the intelligence to plan out the arguments you are going to make - in fact, if you're not planning out your arguments to some extent, that's a far more serious problem (can't have a reasoned debate where people are consistently speaking from the gut).  The tactic here, in case you want to know, is to get your opponent to say something that you can criticize unmercifully: it's possible to make even the dumbest idea look good if you focus all of your attention on making your opponent and/or his/her ideas look bad.  it's ad hominem applied to an entire argument style: crude, but effective.


 * setting that aside, however... I don't really care about footnote or text (I had been assuming brangifer wanted his added as a footnote).  I hadn't intended particularly to throw out part of the quote, but in the actual document, the 'pseudoscientific belief' stuff is clearly a subsidiary element to the given definition of pseudoscience.  It doesn't stand on its own.  my aim here was to wrap it into context with the definition of pseudoscience given and use it to enlarge on the ArbCom statement.  I assume that was brangifer's intent as well, except that his use distorts the NSF statements significantly by taking them out of proper context.  I can expand it a bit, if you really want to use those particular lines, but keep in mind that the source we are citing here is the document as a whole - the quotes we use need to reflect the meaning of the document as a whole, not the meaning of particular lines of the document.  -- Ludwigs 2  17:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm disappointed, for all the words of criticism you gave of the way BullRangifer cited the document, this is far, far worse. It's OR, SYNTH and goes way beyond what the cited document actually says. --Salimfadhley (talk) 17:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * how so? you keep saying that, but as yet I haven't seen you explain your statement.  I'm betting that you can't.  so, have at it: explain how this constitutes synth. (and don't harp on the examples or I'll simply remove them; stick to substance.)


 * For the reasons already stated by ScienceApologist and BullRangifer. It might help if you revised the citation text, imagine we were going to do-over the Ghost citiation,how could this be improved. --Salimfadhley (talk) 18:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * excuse me, I didn't ask what Science Apologist or BullRangifer thought, I asked you to explain it. If you can't do it, don't lean on them (particularly since neither of them has given a proper explanation either).  it's a real simple thing, Salim: you said it was synth, you explain why.  And yeah, I don't think you can, and I'm sorry to push you on it, but I'm tired of playing this little tag team game.  spit it out yourself, or suck it up.  -- Ludwigs 2  19:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

To be able to make heads or tails of the example given by Ludwigs2 above, let's try analyzing it. Maybe he will reword it, because it's very confusing to me. Here it is:


 * "This following the NSFs definition of pseudoscience as "claims presented so that they appear [to be] scientific even though they lack supporting evidence and plausibility." This may refer to material that overtly mimics scientific procedures - such as more extreme forms of cryptozoology - or beliefs that are broadly promoted as scientific in the mass media - such as von Daniken's "Chariots of the Gods" or the idea of "warp drives" - despite having little to no valid scientific investigation."

What does "This following the..." mean? It's an odd sentence structure. Maybe it's my speaking Danish (my second language) for 24 years that makes it hard for me to parse. My English is rusty, but even then others also have a hard time understanding Ludwigs2.

What does "this" refer to? Is it something assumed and not mentioned? I'm not concerned about the rest. It's understandable, but pure OR and has no relation to the NSF quote and even avoids using it. Getting that included, and without any reference, would take a request to get the ArbCom decision amended. We are dealing with an exact ArbCom quote. So, what do those first three words mean? It would sure be nice if Ludwigs2 created an exact example as I have done above. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Just as a technical point of language 'this following...' is a somewhat standard usage in footnotes, the implication being that the footnote continues or explains a thought that was begun in the main passage. in this case 'This following the NSF's...' would be equivalent to 'The statement this footnote refers to follows from the NSF's...'.  Just to avoid confusion, though, let's reword it (1) on the assumption that it's a footnote to bullet 2 of the ArbCom statement, (2) with some clarifications, and (3) without the examples, which seem to annoy people. The rewording:  "Aside from obvious pseudoscience - i.e. fake science - the NSFs defines pseudoscience as "claims presented so that they appear [to be] scientific even though they lack supporting evidence and plausibility.".  This may refer to material that overtly mimics scientific procedures, or to beliefs that are broadly promoted as scientific in mass media, but which lack valid scientific methodologies or proper systematic investigation."  The wording on the last phrase is open to discussion. I considered using 'skeptical detachment' rather than 'proper scientific investigation'; I could make a case for skeptical detachment because the document is clearly more concerned with critical thinking (which involves skeptical detachment) than actual scientific procedure.  but... -- Ludwigs 2  06:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

<-- Thanks! I think I understand now. I wasn't familiar with that phrasing in the absence of what it was referring to. It seemed to just hang there in midair, so to speak. That's a legitimate literary device, but I didn't know for sure what it was you had "hanging in the air." I needed to have you clarify that point. I wasn't about to buy a bag, without seeing what kind of cat was in it. It would really help if you created an actual example for us to read, like I did above. It's not that hard to do. Note that even if you did, you'd be involved in OR and creating rather radical new content, which is hard to do with this policy. Such an addition should be attempted separately from this RfC, as it disrupts this and muddies the waters.

Where we differ is that "you" are the one who is "annoy"ed by the list of examples, while the majority of partipants in both RfCs are not. Your statement is therefore misleading ("the examples, which seem to annoy people"). That's just plain deceptive. The majority clearly support the statement, while you still wish to avoid using it.

On another point we also disagree. I'm not saying it would be actually "wrong" to use the definition, but it's completely unnecessary in this context as it adds absolutely nothing new. It is the standard, rigid, definition we always use. Its addition is therefore not an improvement.

The definition is not the missing puzzle piece that exactly fits the ArbCom statement in group 2. What is refreshing about using the portion of the statement by the NSF, as I have proposed, is that it's an "exact" fit. In fact it couldn't be better. Take a look at the actual wording in group 2 (with my added numbers):


 * 2. Generally considered pseudoscience: (1) Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are (2) generally considered pseudoscience by the (3) scientific community (4) may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.

On ALL four points it fits: (1) The NSF identifies even more subjects/theories/items than the one, very lonely, example used (astrology). (2) It very clearly identifies those ten subjects as subjects that "are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community." (3) The NSF represents the "scientific community". (4) Thus the ten subjects are eligible for "properly contain[ing] that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience."

That's just how precise a fit their statement is. Just like a unique puzzle piece, it fits exactly with the ArbCom statement in group 2, but not the other groups. My proposition also has the advantage of not using any OR, or of changing a single word of policy. Everything stays the same. This is only added as a ref that backs up the policy, and shows an actual application of the policy to ten different subjects. As long as this section of the NPOV policy stands, it will clearly identify and justify placing each of those ten subjects in the Category:Pseudoscience. This section of NPOV can always be used to end edit wars over the classification of these subjects. The net benefit to Wikipedia is less disruption and more peace on those articles. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The examples that annoyed people were my examples, which I removed from the revised version, not the NSF's examples. bit o' confusion there.


 * To the second point: The problem with what you've presented is that it takes that list of ten items out of context, and makes it appear as though the NSF is saying something far more extreme than its real position. I don't doubt for a moment that those '10 items' have been presented in various contexts as scientific truths, and that the NSF objects to that presentation, but you seem to want to use that out-of-context quote to imply that the NSF objects to people's beliefs more generally, which isn't supportable from the document in question.  The version I gave (while not perfect, of course) makes it clear that the NSF is concerned with 'beliefs promoted as scientific' - please recall that this quote comes from a chapter on 'Public Attitudes and Understanding, and the section in question is concerned specifically with "the public's susceptibility to unproven [scientific] claims"


 * I'll also point out that you are using an older version of the Science and Technology Indicators. This document is revised every year, and in the the current version of this chapter - http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind10/c7/c7h.htm#s2 - doesn't mention 'pseudoscientific beliefs', and has revised the footnote you are referring to read as follows: The pseudoscience section focuses on astrology because of the availability of long-term national trend indicators on this subject. Other examples of pseudoscience include the belief in lucky numbers, the existence of unidentified flying objects (UFOs), extrasensory perception (ESP), or magnetic therapy."''  This would seem to indicate that I am correct that the NSF didn't mean anthing analytic by 'pseudoscientific belief' and has backed away from the terminology. agreed?  -- Ludwigs 2  09:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * (for reference) PDF version of 2010 report --Enric Naval (talk) 09:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The 2010 report lists only Astrology because it's the only one where they have recorded long term trends. Then they give four more examples of pseudoscience. They have dropped "ghosts" as an example. I don't see how this invalidates what they said at the 2006 report. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * it's the same document revised yearly - the fact that they had the comment previously and removed it is a pretty clear sign that they decided it was incorrect, misleading, or otherwise removable. I mean (at the very least) if the phrase were as important as the proponents of this RfC have been arguing, the NSF would have preserved it (or amplified it) over revisions, but they did the opposite.  I see no reason why we should preference an older version of the document over the current version, since we can expect the current version to be a more accurate reflection of the NSF's view.  -- Ludwigs 2  23:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I suppose the NSF could have intended the omission to signify a secret retraction of their incorrect or misleading position on ghosts and haunted houses. But that seems very far-fetched to me. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Good point LuckyLouie. Ludwigs2, this is not about scientific research, where new findings replace old and outdated ones. The NSF report changes slightly from year to year. In the absence of any evidence that they have changed their POV, the contents of ALL the NSF reports are legitimate sources. The part that's relevant and fits the ArbCom wording exactly is found in the 2006 version and possibly others. Just because the NSF declared belief in ten concepts to be "pseudoscientific beliefs" in 2006, doesn't mean they are suddenly not pseudoscientific beliefs today. (In fact other versions add even more ideas that they declare to be pseudoscientific beliefs, and they are STILL pseudoscientific beliefs!)


 * What you say above really doesn't matter. It's just another diversionary attempt (by substituting a different version for the one which contains the content overwhelmingly approved by two RfCs). You don't really think that you can fool people with such a tactic, do you?


 * The National Science Foundation is a legitimate source and my simple formulation from that source has overwhelmingly passed muster in two different RfCs found at Talk:Ghost and above. There are two overwhelming consensus against you.


 * I implore you once again to bow to the consensus as any good Wikipedian does. Your continual violation of consensus isn't taken lightly. You have caused serious disruption many places now, including noticeboards, and you are planning an RfC/U against me as revenge for losing two RfCs. You have just been blocked and unblocked for edit warring over this issue, and your unblock is based on a promise not to edit the Ghost article, but your disruption is still very evident on talk pages. Wikipedia works by consensus, and editors who continually resist, edit, and argue against consensus are classified as tendentious editors: "On Wikipedia, the term also carries the connotation of repetitive attempts to insert or delete content which is resisted by multiple other editors." That's exactly what you've been engaged in. Please drop the stick and walk away from the dead horse.


 * I encourage editors to comb through the later parts of Ludwigs2's contribution history. You'll find plenty of disruption making for a very long rope. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I glanced at the contribution history and I don't see "disruption" in the last 50 edits. What I do see going back to the NSF papers is very poor wording: belief in something does not make it psudoscience (as nearly all the papers imply) but rather improperly or incorrectly using science to explain it.  As I have shown with the 2002 report four of the things presented as psudoscience (Fire walking, voodoo magical thinking, Carlos hoax, and Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs)) simply are not.  Another problem is the reports say 30 percent of the people surveyed said "some of the unidentified flying objects that have been reported are really space vehicles from other civilizations." but it doesn't tell you how many many of the 70 percent that did not think UFOs were ETVs believed they existed.
 * The 2000 report shows the problem in that it states (I've added percentages) "Between one-third (33.3%) and one-half (50%) of Americans believe in unidentified flying objects (UFOs). A somewhat smaller percentage believes that aliens have landed on Earth."  But if only 30 percent thought UFOs were ETVs then what did the remaining 3.3 to 20 percent that believed UFOs existed think they were?  The 2000 report doesn't say but it does show as I stated before "Do you believe UFOs exist?" and "Do you believe UFOs are vehicles operated by aliens?" are two different questions and thanks to the poor way these reports are worded it is not clear how the data was structured.--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for repeating your OR and personally inaccurate interpretation of the report here. We've read it before. There are other, less simplistic ways of understanding the report, but that's not the issue here. We have a national scientific body, the National Science Foundation, and their wording was anything but carelessly written. I trust they understand this matter better than any of us, and it is irrelevant to this discussion whether any of us considers them to be right or wrong. That question is totally irrelevant to Wikipedia's sourcing policies, which operates on "verifiability", not "truth". Your speculations may be welcome on some personal talk pages, but not here, as they are off-topic. This discussion is about our sourcing policy, not the "truth" or falsity of the NSF. Even if I initially considered them to be in error, it would likely be wise for me to start revising my opinions and bringing them in line with the NSF, which is more likely to be right than I am on such subjects. -- Brangifer (talk) 09:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

lol - brangifer, you are hilarious. here are the two positions being presented: Here's the facts: the NSF used this particular wroding - 'pseudoscientific belief' - in one passage of the document written in 2006 (I haven't checked to see if it was in the 2005 or 207 versions, but I'll do that later). they later revised the document so that that language no longer appears. so here are the two options available to us: Basically you claim that the NSF got it right once and screwed it up numerous other times, where as I claim that the NSF screwed it up once. read Occam's razor. further, instead of discussing the issue towards some kind of agreement, you misuse policy, insult people, run misguided RfCs and try to manipulate the results, and generally play politics to get your way over any kind of common sense. You are the very definition of a tendentious, POV-pushing, single purpose account, and the thing that amazes me is that you've managed to hoodwink so many otherwise decent editors into thinking you are reasonable. it's damnably funny. -- Ludwigs 2 17:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * brangifer's position: Assume that the 2006 wording was the NSF's actual position on the matter, and that all prior or later omissions from revisions are oversights or mistakes.
 * ludwigs2's position: Assume that the absence of the language from all prior and later revisions is the NSF's actual position on the matter, and that the 2006 statement was an oversight or mistake.


 * Third possibility: Assume that the 2006 wording reflects the NSF's actual position at that time... and that subsequent wordings relfect the NSF's subsequent position.
 * If we accept this possibility, then it is logical to infer that the NSF might have changed its position... but we can not make any inference as to what position they changed it to, or what position they currently hold (as they chose not to discuss it). Blueboar (talk) 17:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Ludwigs2, your statement is a blatent misrepresentation and personal attack. You have the nerve to make fun of me because we don't agree. There is only one reasonable interpretation of the fact that versions differ since there is no evidence that they represent a change of position, and that wouldn't even make sense. They just choose to word their statement differently. Big deal. The NSF hasn't screwed anything up at all in any version, and I have obviously never even intimated such an absurd idea. You, by contrast, are the one who has been warring against the NSF and actually stated "that the NSF screwed it up once." That's a pretty bold statement to make without any evidence other than that they don't agree with your beliefs. You don't like their clear statement, so you attack me and the NSF. This is incredible! They understand this better than any of us. I have learned from their exposition on that whole page and have long since enlarged my understanding, while you choose to maintain a limited and rigid understanding and say they have "screwed it up" because they reveal a very deep understanding of the issues that lead to the holding of pseudoscientific beliefs. I choose them as authoritative over your simplistic and shallow OR. Your disruption needs to be stopped. I suggest a topic ban from all fringe topics and all talk pages (IOW no mention anywhere at Wikipedia), and if you take revenge by starting the threatened RfC/U, a complete ban for extreme disruption. -- Brangifer (talk)


 * the problem, Blueboar (which is really the main point I've been trying to discuss in this entire debacle) is that there's really no good evidence to assume that the NSF ever had a position on 'beliefs'. Bullrangifer has (as I've pointed out numerous times) taken one passage from one section of an older revision of one document (a document which is actually written for a different purpose entirely), and parlayed it into a definitive claim that the NSF labels all non-scientific beliefs as pseudoscience.  it's ridiculous on the face of it, and the only reason its gone  this far is that Bullrangifer has put an extensive effort into distorting the issue and discrediting me in order to keep it from being discussed properly. I mean really - why would the National Science Foundation take a stand on non-scientific beliefs?  I understand the pseudoscience problem on wikipedia, but there are better ways of dealing with it than making the NSF look like a bunch of idiots.  -- Ludwigs 2  17:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I fully agree with Ludwig on this. We can't take a single quote out of any source, regardless how prestigious, and use it to promote a POV, because that would violate NPOV. I don't believe the NSF would consider religion as "pseudoscience", yet the way this quote is being used, it is so broad as to paint most religious beliefs (many or all of which include some combination of ghosts, spirits, devils, deities, miracles and other super-natural phenomena) as pseudo-scientific. So I suggest we get off this direction, which is fruitless. Crum375 (talk) 18:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Excellent point Crum... I was not trying to promote my possible scenario as being realistic... I was trying to show that both of the scenarios Ludwig was presenting were flawed. You said it better. Blueboar (talk) 18:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, Ludwigs2's campaign is totally off track and fruitless and their attacks on the NSF and myself need to stop. They should allow the consensus to rule. Crum375, as the fourth add-on to the gang of three, has repeatedly tried to insert religion into the discussions, when neither I nor the NSF have done so. It's Crum's OR. It appears that two admins may need desysopping. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * @ Blueboar: I see your point, and I will admit that my comments were a bit clouded by irritation. my apologies, and yes, let's leave go with Crum, who said it better than either of us.  -- Ludwigs 2  18:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * no problem. :>) May I suggest that it does not look like either side in this discussion has a remote chance of convincing the other to change its mind, and so further discussion of this is sort of pointless. Blueboar (talk) 19:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * well, I have no intention of giving up on the issue, if it continues to be an issue, but I'm doing my best to regain proper perspective. I'll do a better job of keeping composure, but if you think I'm failing please leave a note on my talk page and remind me.    -- Ludwigs 2  22:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)