Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Archive 39

RfC: Wikilinking to Category:Pseudoscience in this policy
Withdrawn by proposer. Wrong time, wrong place, and too complicated for the participants. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BullRangifer - 04:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposal:

I'd like to add direct wikilinks to Category:Pseudoscience at three spots in the section entitled Pseudoscience and related fringe theories. No change of wording is proposed and thus no change of policy. To ensure that misunderstandings can't be used against me, I'll make it clear that this entails decisions about the (1) intent of the existing wording, and approval of the (2) addition of a wikilink in three spots. Please weigh in. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Background:

In the section entitled Pseudoscience and related fringe theories, four guidelines are listed. The introduction immediately before the guidelines and the first two guidelines contain wording regarding "categorize" as pseudoscience. If I recall the Pseudoscience ArbCom correctly (and the wordings of the first two guidelines came directly from it (Guideline 1 and Guideline 2), this wording refers to the use of Category:Pseudoscience. Not all editors may realize that this was and is the intended meaning, and I'd like to add category wikilinks in the appropriate places to make this intention explicitly clear.

Here is the current wording: (bolding added)


 * The following guidelines may help with deciding whether something is appropriately classified as pseudoscience:


 * Things which generally should be classified as pseudoscience—for instance, for categorization purposes—include


 * 1. Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labelled and categorized as such without more justification.


 * 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.

What this will look like with the wikilinks:


 * The following guidelines may help with deciding whether something is appropriately classified as pseudoscience:


 * Things which generally should be classified as pseudoscience—for instance, for categorization purposes—include


 * 1. Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labelled and categorized as such without more justification.


 * 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.

This doesn't represent any change of policy or any change of wording, but only makes the original intention of ArbCom and the current intention of this policy clearer. That whole section isn't so much about defining pseudoscience, but about how we are to present, describe, classify, and categorize pseudoscience at Wikipedia, which obviously includes how we use Category:Pseudoscience.

What think ye? -- Brangifer (talk) 04:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments

 * ATTENTION! The proposal above mentions two issues to consider. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose - I would be against linking to a wiki-category in a policy. The criteria for adding something to a category is often either vague or contentious, with inappropriate articles added to the category that no one catches.  I don't think it helps this policy to link to the category.  Blueboar (talk) 06:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Addendum - I think we should avoid "categorize" completely... as that gets us into the often contentious issue of adding an article to a specific Wikicategory. The issue is whether things that are pseudoscience can be described as being pseudoscience. Blueboar (talk) 15:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * ^^ Unomi (talk) 17:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Blueboar, please explain what you mean by "The issue is whether things that are pseudoscience can be described as being pseudoscience." Are you quoting (the italicized words) from somewhere else? The first guideline is about "obvious pseudoscience", IOW unquestioned pseudoscience. The second is about "generally considered" to be so by the scientific community. Strictly speaking this isn't about unquestioned "truth" that something "IS" pseudoscience, but is about "opinions" of the scientific community. It's a matter of finding verifiable statements that can be attributed to academies of science or national science boards, such as the NSF, which do speak for the scientific community. If they have uttered statements that identify a practice as pseudoscientific, then Guideline 2 applies and that practice can be categorized as pseudoscience, IOW placed in the category. Guidelines 3 & 4 make it clear that the opinions of lesser bodies or individuals aren't enough to use the category. -- Brangifer (talk)


 * Blueboar, just because something is often contentious doesn't mean we should be passive. The first two guidelines are a legitimate part of NPOV policy and are meant to be used, not avoided because they deal with possibly contentious issues. In fact the opposite is the case. They were created precisely because of the contention that often surrounds categorizing things as pseudoscience. The ArbCom formed them to avoid misuse of the category, limiting its use to only the situations described in the first two guidelines. The solution to any contention in individual cases is to discuss it in those specific cases, not to deprecate the use of the NPOV guidelines. You seem to be deprecating their use. If the "criteria for adding something to a category is often either vague or contentious", the solution is to strengthen those criteria, not avoid the issue. Please explain. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * To expand... This is a content policy... and as such should restrict itself to what is appropriate and inappropriate in terms of article content... Wikipedia categories are navigation tools, not article content, and so are not within the scope of this policy.  The place to discuss what is appropriate or inappropriate in terms of categorization is WP:CAT.
 * So... the NPOV policy should address whether it is appropriate to describe something as being pseudoscience within the text of the article... while WP:CAT should address whether it is appropriate to place a specific article in the wikicategory: . Blueboar (talk) 18:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Now THAT'S a well reasoned response based on policy, and not on hatred of the NSF source. I can accept that. Thanks Blueboar for being so reasonable and clear. Based on your reasoning and one other fact, I'm withdrawing this RfC. The other reason being that it has become apparent that it was filed in too close proximity to the other RfC, so the heated feelings of the same editors who opposed it have been unloaded here. That's too bad. I should also have simplified it, since it's too complicated a matter for those who don't remember the original ArbCom and the way their wording was adopted here to remember. This would probably be better as a Request for Clarification at the ArbCom. Maybe later, but I'm tired of this and will withdraw the RfC as it's only a rehash of the old grievances by the same objectors, with you as the notable and reasonable exemption. Thanks. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose. It's a bit eccentric and doesn't serve any useful purpose. I guess it's just one of BullRangifer's usual misunderstandings. He wants to categorise ghost and witchcraft in Category:Pseudoscience, which is hilarious because these are extremely broad topics of which pseudoscience constitutes only a small fraction. (In the case of witchcraft I am not even aware of any connection to pseudoscience.) If anyone is confused by this statement: Note that all definitions of pseudoscience, including the one cited by the NSF paper that BullRangifer is quote-mining for the claim that belief in ghosts or witchcraft is belief in pseudoscience, including our article pseudoscience, and including this policy ("Pseudoscientific theories are claimed to be science, however, they lack scientific status by use of an inappropriate methodology or lack of objective evidence."), all such definitions make it clear that something that doesn't pretend to be science cannot be pseudo-science.
 * It seems bleedingly obvious, but BullRangifer is simply ignoring it. So he is looking for alternative explanations for the opposition against this miscategorisation. Apparently he now believes that some people might be opposed because they think the three passages in the Arbcom decision that mention categorisation as pseudoscience can be misunderstood as not relating to Category:Pseudoscience. That is nonsense and therefore no valid reason to change anything about this policy.
 * The real 'problem' is in the following passage: "2. [...] 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." It does not contain a reminder that the entire decision only speaks about theories pretending to be science, leaving BullRangifer room to hallucinate that he can categorise subjects that do not under any definition fall under pseudoscience as pseudoscience simply by a combination of wikilawyering, quote-mining and misquoting. (Yes, apparently he has searched on the web for "ghost pseudoscience" or something like that, found an NSF document that fits his purpose if you are willing to completely ignore what it is really saying, and now things this passage gives him the right to abuse the category. See Talk:Ghost, his last RfC here and the related ANI thread.) Hans Adler 06:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Hans, you are confusing Guideline 1 with Guideline 2. Guideline 2 explicitly doesn't deal with subjects which "purport... to be scientific". Only Guideline 1 does that. Guidelines 2-4 explicitly don't include that definitional aspect of pseudoscience, and they do so for a reason.


 * Your statement "... does not contain a reminder that the entire decision only speaks about theories pretending to be science," is wrong and misleading. Only Guideline 1 requires such claims ("purporting to be scientific"). The ArbCom and the community were very clear about this distinction. Keep focused and you'll avoid getting more confused than you already are.


 * Listen very carefully, because I'm giving you a way out. Your confused and misleading statement above may actually reveal the root cause (exacerbated by your failures to AGF) of all the contention from your side. You have been thinking that I've been trying to label things that are covered by Guideline 2 as if they were "Obvious pseudoscience". That has not been the case. (For example ghosts and witches are only partially pseudoscience, even if the paranormal basis for their claimed existence is clearly considered pseudoscience.) We have been talking about two different things. It isn't until now that you've revealed your confusion so clearly that I realized this might be at the root of the disagreement. This is yet another misunderstanding which could have been cleared up long ago if you had AGF and just asked me for clarification. Instead you have ended up making numerous false claims about me. Winning a war against a straw man of your own creation won't work in the long run. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for clarifying that I have hit the problem exactly on the nail. Yes, the "purport to be science" condition was left out for a reason, an obvious reason: Brevity. In "Guideline 2" it is redundant because that talks about theories (by the way, ghosts are practically unrelated to any theories, except for the small pseudoscience aspect of the topic) which are generally considered pseudoscience by the academic community. The academic community does not consider things pseudoscience that do not remotely purport to be similar to science. And Arbcom, when they drafted the original version of this text (all "Guidelines" together, consecutively, obviously classifying superficially science-like theories into 4 classes), did not even dream that someone might hallucinate that an NSF executive report for politicians that conflates pseudoscience and paranormal expresses academic consensus about a question that is totally off-topic for that report, a "consensus" that has left no trace anywhere in the academic literature and contradicts the previous paragraph in that report. Hans Adler 19:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I agree with Blueboar - categories are too imprecise and easily modified to be included in a major policy. When policy is updated, changes are carefully reviewed by many editors.  But categories are constantly changing, with additions or removals easily missed.  Categories are useful as taxonomic and navigation aids, but they are not appropriate for use in defining how policies apply to particular articles.  --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 07:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The category has both a wider applicability (articles about pseudoscience as a concept, as well as articles about things that might be described as pseudoscience, such as TimeCube) and a narrower one (topics which have a pseudoscientific component, such as ghosthunting or the "stonetape" theory within the broad topic of Ghosts). One would not wish to prevent the community creating subcats to address this, by locking the categorisation into the policy.Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose As others have noted above, a wiki-cat, esp. for contentious issues, is a loose cannon: its inclusion criteria are vague and prone to daily variations. A policy has to be stable and stand on its own, guiding article space content, not the other way around. Crum375 (talk) 02:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The solution is to strengthen the criteria, not to avoid using them. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose Besides combining two questions in one RfC, one of them being not amenable to answers which can be analyzed easily, RfC here was way premature, this specific proposal (the second question) was not previously discussed. A new idea or text change should not be initially proposed by RfC, unless consensus has already been attempted, with some patience and negotiation, and could not be found. There were debates here over other issues (albeit related), and the suspicion, then, is that this is an attempt to create a policy policy, something fixed and inflexible, by obtaining an RfC decision, when policy text is normally worked out over time, following actual practice. This comment is opposed to concluding that the categories should be linked. It is not opposed to linking, itself, I defer to future consensus on that. --Abd (talk) 05:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No, this is about recognizing that the clear intent of the wording is that it refers to the Category:Pseudoscience. Are you suggesting that the ArbCom and the editors who took that decision and included it in this policy meant something else? --Brangifer (talk) 06:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Please see BlueBears statement near the top of this section. Unomi (talk) 06:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I have asked Blueboar to explain. I was addressing Abd and would still like Abd to answer my question. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe I was clear. I'm opposed to coming to the requested conclusion because process has been short-circuited in an improper way, which ought to be obvious by now. An RfC with unanimous Oppose may be a WP:POINT violation. It's not the place to start with a new specific proposal. As to the specific question about intent, I prefer not to come to conclusions without adequate review of evidence and arguments, which is missing, because of the process error. I'm not commenting beyond what I've said, because I'm under an editing restriction regarding discussion of the disputes of others and wish to avoid pushing the edge. So please don't ask me to further involve myself. --Abd (talk) 20:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I have explained (or at least expanded my comment in an attempt to explain). See above. Blueboar (talk) 18:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Read and commented above. Thanks. I'll withdraw this RfC. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Does consensus rule here or not?
Crum375 has now twice reverted edits approved by a consensus. I have explained it on their talk page, but they reverted again without doing their homework. That's edit warring. From their talkpage:


 * Crum375, things have changed since you last reverted me. The changes I made were clearly backed by consensus on Talk:NPOV. The RfC has closed with an overwhelming consensus supporting my use of the NSF as a reference, as I proposed in the RfC. The numbering, a very uncontroversial matter, was also approved in another section.

Reverting without reading edit summaries and checking to see if they are true is disruptive. Their edit summary proves they didn't do their homework, because it is factually incorrect:


 * "(Please stop edit warring; there is no consensus on talk to use this reference)"

Obviously the consensus in a very notable RfC on this page approved of using this reference in this manner.

Crum375 happens to be one of the few editors who !voted against the clear consensus in two RfCs on this subject, and I fear this is clouding their judgment. Maybe they should leave it alone and see how editors who don't have such a COI deal with this. Editing against consensus isn't very wikipedian. It's disruptive edit warring. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I haven't seen any consensus, and certainly not on this talk page, to use that reference in the NPOV policy page. If there is such consensus, please point us to it. Crum375 (talk) 04:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You still haven't followed the links I have provided on your talk page and right above in this section? This is incredible! You're an admin. You should know better. -- Brangifer (talk)


 * I haven't seen any consensus either, and I have seen/made some very good arguments that the source is drastically misused. -- Ludwigs 2  04:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * P.s. - I don't mind the numbering system at all, personally speaking, but let's not push it beyond that. -- Ludwigs 2 04:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

From the RfC: "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." Further down in the introduction I make it even more clear.... "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." I then created a very clear example of exactly what I was proposing. If you missed it, that's not my fault. I was very, very clear. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * BullRangifer, please show us where you see a consensus to use this reference in this policy page &mdash; none of the links you provide above show such agreement. If it exists, it should be easy for you to point us to it. What you quote above are your own words, and not something that has gained any kind of consensus. Crum375 (talk) 04:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Read! It's right above your comment. How easy can I make this for you? -- Brangifer (talk) 05:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Erm, it was closed as National Science Foundation is a reliable source. The closer made no comment as to whether there was consensus for adding the text to this policy page, and in going through the discussion I see very very few that focus on the issue of inclusion vs the issue of RS. Unomi (talk) 05:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Exactly. BullRangifer, please show us where an uninvolved person has said that there is consensus to insert that reference into this policy page. All I see are your own words, and someone uninvolved confirming that the source is reliable, which was never at issue. Crum375 (talk) 05:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Is it suddenly my fault that you didn't read? Besides, what harm does it do? It fits the wording exactly as an example of what guideline 2 is talking about. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

It's rather (un)remarkable, that those who object !voted against the RfC, so no real objection is being raised here. If those who !voted for the RfC objected, then we'd have to start another RfC over this small bit of improvement. Only those who objected before are objecting now, ergo the negatives remain unchanged, and the positives remain unchanged. Status quo. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * BullRangifer, the way WP works, you need to gain consensus for these types of changes on a core policy page, whether you personally think they are correct or not. Crum375 (talk) 05:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The RfC clearly established that consensus. It was closed in favor of the proposed meaning and use of the source. You may not agree with it or like it, but that's a fact. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * ah, Jesus Christ... I told you that the RfC was malformed, I told you that it was going to cause confusion, I told you that (because of the malformation and the confusion) it would solve nothing.  Why are you pretending that you're surprised that it's caused confusion and solved nothing?


 * now that we have that settled, why not have another RfC on the correct issue, rather than trying to morph this badly formed RfC to the issue you wanted to ask about in the first place?


 * Socrates spent his life trying to get people to reason correctly, and failed. now I know why...  -- Ludwigs 2  06:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * BullRangifer, you have carefully crafted a misleading RfC, one that made a strong impression that it was about one thing (whether NSF is a reliable source) but really was about something entirely else (whether to add a certain footnote containing an NSF misquotation to the policy). It is no wonder that you confused everybody; it's all your work. You can't complain now that you confused even the closer. This is yet another example of what I meant on your talk page and on ANI by your problematic relation to truth. Hans Adler 10:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * With respect, and acknowledging that I have not been very involved in any of this, I think we should retain AGF, I have no reason to believe that brangifer was not simply confused with regards to how the RFC would be received or understood. I think brangifer meant to make a clear and transparent rfc and was unable to see how muddled it became. I agree that brangifer should probably have considered a cold reading of the NSF text and reconsidered how and if it should be used. Unomi (talk) 10:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You are right, extreme incompetence can be indistinguishable from lying and intentional deceit, especially if someone continues doing the wrong thing after several people have explained why it's wrong repeatedly over several days. But I have intentionally chosen the expression "problematic relation to truth", because I think it is wide enough to also cover the repetition of untruths in the face of contrary evidence, even when it happens in good faith. If I don't notice that my wife is standing right in front of me and talking to me, then I would think it's safe to say that I have a problematic relation with her. Hans Adler 12:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * To focus on the edit and not the editor... I have to admit that I too thought the AfD was about using the NSF generally, and missed the part about adding it to this policy page. I think there is a consensus on the first issue... I do not think there is any consensus for the latter.
 * I, for one, don't think the footnote should be added to this page. Blueboar (talk) 13:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Blueboar, this is a first. You are the only editor who !voted for the proposition who now expresses disagreement, so I'm really interested in your reasoning. After going back and reading my proposition more carefully, do you agree that I did state my reason, but that you apparently didn't notice it? If so, you are AGF, and I can respect that. OTOH, some others are stating that I was deceptive, when that isn't the case at all. They are violating policy by failing to AGF.


 * You can accurately say that you have changed your mind, but you can't speak for others, since the consensus still stands even with your change of mind. Please explain your thinking. I really want to know. This is probably very tightly linked with your answer to my question below, so please repeat your answer here. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The RfC specifically stated to use as an illustration for a portion of an ArbCom statement used in the NPOV policy.  Further, a number of the support votes referenced the possible wording or the ArbCom statement so saying now that editors were confused and claiming this makes the consensus invalid seems rather silly.  If you're really that concerned, I'd suggest either working out wording for another RfC that everyone could agree to or considering some kind of mediation, but in the meantime, perhaps leaving it alone rather than edit warring? Shell   babelfish 14:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * How is "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." a neutral summary of an RfC about the question whether a specific footnote should be added to a policy? Either way the RfC was defective. Hans Adler 14:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * What would you have suggested as a neutral summary? Shell  babelfish 14:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Here is my suggested wording of a hypothetical RfC: Please weigh in on the following questions: "1. Should references to outside sources be added to the pseudoscience definition(s) in the NPOV policy? 2. If yes, how many such references would be needed to cover the prevailing views on this topic? 3. If yes, how (in principle) should such views be presented in an NPOV manner? 4. If yes, which specific sources should be cited, and what format and phrasing do you suggest, to conform to NPOV?" This would do for starters. Crum375 (talk) 15:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * All relevant questions, but probably too complex for an RfC. Would it be possible to hash out some of those issues first with the regular participants here and provide something more concrete for an RfC? Shell  babelfish 15:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I would suggest starting with the first question, and it doesn't need to be an RfC. Crum375 (talk) 15:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * How about this: "It has been proposed to add a footnote with a list of pseudoscientific beliefs to WP:NPOV. Please weigh in on the following questions: 1. Does the footnote accurately represent the content of the source or is it a misquotation? 2. Should the footnote be added?"
 * The key fact to remember is that the entire dispute started with Ludwigs2's observation that this is a misquotation. See Talk:Ghost. Note that in that original section there was a consensus against the abuse of the NSF source. (It was more or less about the same misquotation that we are dealing with here, but at Ghost.) Then Brangifer started an RfC about whether the NSF is a reliable source for such a statement. Almost everybody agreed, only a few protested and said that while they agree with the RfC, the RfC had nothing to do with the original dispute. Then Brangifer decided to change policy to get an advantage, was reverted, and started this ambiguous RfC. How much more does the gaming have to see so that Brangifer's friends recognise it as such? Hans Adler 16:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Focusing on editors isn't going to help resolve the dispute. Shell  babelfish 16:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The dispute has been manufactured out of thin air by a single editor. This kind of dispute is best resolved by focusing on the instigator. Hans Adler 18:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Hans, please AGF. This constant harping on me as a bad person just doesn't cut it. On top of assuming bad faith, you have made a serious charge that requires proof. You wrote: "...Brangifer decided to change policy to get an advantage..." Please prove that with precise diffs. That's not true. I never have tried to change policy, and it isn't my intention to do so. Nothing could be further from the truth. You made a totally false accusation, now prove it or apologize. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

As an aside, why were arbcom findings deprecated? I personally would think that these are the most pertinent references, I mean really, why are we referring to outside sources for our policy? Unomi (talk) 16:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I too wondered why Crum375 deprecated the ArbCom as a source. Using a source on a policy or guideline page doesn't necessarily mean the source dictates the content. In this case I only intended it as a point of historical interest to show that the wording originated with an ArbCom ruling. The ArbCom ruling did became policy very quickly. The outside source (NSF) is intended to be used as an example of what the wording was referring to. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, it is not clear that this source was what Arbcom was referring to, this is the problem of using outside sources, we simply should not need them. If we want to make a list of examples we as editors are perfectly able to simply write one. Policy mandate comes not from outside sources, it comes from its status as consensus positions of editors. Also, please, please, move your discussion argument to the discussion section. Unomi (talk) 02:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The reference is not a source for the policy, nor have I claimed that the ArbCom was referring to it. ''It is only an example of the type of thing that guideline 2 is referring to. I'm not sure what you mean by moving my "discussion argument to the discussion section". My comments are replies to comments made here. If I reply to something in the discussion section, they will appear there. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * First let me retract the bit about moving discussion arguments, due to phrasing and behavior of other editors I assumed that the first section should just be simple yes/no while the discussion section should offer rationale and discussion.
 * It is only an example of the type of thing that guideline 2 is referring to. But that is exactly it! There is no reason to believe that guideline 2 actually refers to that! For one, the definition of pseudoscience which NSF seemed to employ is one which is a bit unusual. Second, from the discussion on the particular articles it seems that editors by and large agree that Ghosts and Witches are not pseudoscience. Our article on the demarcation problem which Hans Adler has linked to numerous times explains why. A useful simplification could be that nonscience is not automatically pseudoscience. I hope this helps, Unomi (talk) 02:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The actual "definition" they used is the standard one, and it's true. Now to throw a monkeywrench into the works. I've said this many times, but we need to get back on topic. The definition has never been questioned by myself! Note that the NSF statement doesn't claim that ghosts (or any of the other in the list of ten) are pseudoscience. I don't know why people keep getting confused over this. Everything gets twisted into a discussion of pseudo-science, when the NSF statement under discussion is about "pseudoscientific beliefs", not about pseudo-science. Of course they're related, but when we use a source, we must not misquote it. The NSF was concerned about how people come to hold pseudoscientific beliefs and described why. Then they listed ten examples of pseudoscientific beliefs, not ten items that are "obvious pseudoscience", to use the NPOV and ArbCom wording in Guideline 1. I even have a thread on my talk page where you are welcome to come and discuss this in a casual and friendly manner. There I have described in detail my understanding of this matter. In fact, it's entirely possible to hold a pseudoscientific belief in something that isn't strictly a pseudoscience. Now doesn't that make you curious? -- Brangifer (talk) 07:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

First question: Should references to outside sources be added to the pseudoscience definition(s) in the NPOV policy?
The first of several questions suggested by Crum375 as a way to resolve the dispute. In order to help work towards a consensus, please limit yourself to a statement on this issue and keep any threaded discussion for the discussion section (or elsewhere on this page as appropriate). Shell  babelfish 16:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)  -- Just to clarify, you're welcome to put your reasoning with your answer, but limit replies to other people's reasoning or other discussion to the discussion section (sorry about the confusion!) Shell   babelfish 17:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No Blueboar (talk) 17:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No. Unomi (talk) 17:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No. Per Blueboar and others below. Crum375 (talk) 17:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No. -- Ludwigs 2 17:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Neutral.Hans Adler 18:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course The NSF reference is a perfect match, providing precisely what the wording refers to. Similar statements from Academies of Sciences and other national scientific bodies would also qualify. The NSF happens to be the supreme body in the USA, with the leaders of all scientific bodies as members. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No Wikipedia sets Wikipedia policy, not outside sources or authorities. --Abd (talk) 03:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No Wikipedia uses its own definitions for things. The Arbcom definition didn't come from this source, so it can't be the reference for it.Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No - concur with multiple editors' comments in this section. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 07:18, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Discussion
 * I have no problem calling the NSF reliable, or citing the NSF in an article to support the statement that the NSF considers a topic (or an aspect of a topic) to be pseudoscience. But I see no reason to cite it, or any other outside source, in the NPOV policy itself.  Blueboar (talk) 17:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure you have read, or at least understood, why I added the NSF statement to the wording in guideline 2. Why do you think I added it? -- Brangifer (talk) 01:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I know for a fact that I don't understand why you added it, nor do I really care... my opposition stems from the fact that I don't think we should add citations to outside sources to any policy, period. Blueboar (talk) 13:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia policy should be informed by consensus statements by editors, to the extent that sources are deemed necessary it seems more appropriate to reference internal findings or examples. Unomi (talk) 17:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I generally agree that internal findings or examples are best, which is why I first attempted to link to the ArbCom from which the wordings came, but Crum375 deprecated that as improper, which I still doubt. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Policy pertains to editing practices: It is not the correct venue for trying to mandate specific article content. -- Ludwigs 2  17:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Generally true, but the four guidelines specifically dictate when and when not to use Category:Pseudoscience. So NPOV doesn't generally dictate article content, but in this case it dictates very strongly article categorization. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't care either way about this general point. However, if any references are added it's important that they have a wide consensus. If we had an excellent summary of the various approaches to the demarcation problem and what they say about specific fields, this might be a very useful thing to link to. But there is no reason to be desperate and use an obviously flawed list based on someone from the NSF casually endorsing a list that came originally from Gallup. Hans Adler 18:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * *Hans, It seems to me that all of that is better done in the Pseudoscience article itself, and not in policy. Blueboar (talk) 18:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The point for me is that if we find a source that competently and uncontroversially explains (some of) the distinctions that Arbcom made, then it would be a good idea to add them. The pseudoscience article has slightly different needs and may need different sources. But this is all purely hypothetical because we don't have such a source anyway and I doubt it's easy to find (if it even exists). Hans Adler 18:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * If we should come across a source which everyone agrees contains the perfect wording then we simply plagiarize it ;) A truly convincing source will let us IAR. On the other hand setting the bar such that one might reasonably expect outside sources to constitute RS for guiding wikipedia policy then we could be involving ourselves in more heated debates than it seems worth. Unomi (talk) 18:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * (e/c) myself, I would appreciate a source that clarified this issue once and for all, because I am tired of wrangling with all the misbegotten petulance paranormal topics tend to accrue. I'm not sure you'll find a proper source for it, though.  Most scientists don't waste ink on the pseudoscience issue because they see it as non-problematic (for them there's science and there's crap, with very little grounds for confusion).  Most of the pseudoscience writing you'll find comes from people with an axe to grind (people who are angry about cheaters, charlatans and quacks; people trying to defend something from skeptical attacks, people more interested in playing politics than in thinking about things clearly).  some philosophy of science scholars might have a handle on it, but philosophy of science is itself a bit marginalized in modern academia (it was bigger in the 70's and 80's).  Fact is, pseudoscience is just a pejorative term from the start, and most reputable scholars prefer not to use it.  I really have no idea how it got so entrenched in wikipedia - I don't think I've ever heard one of my colleagues use the term in an academic setting.  -- Ludwigs 2  18:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * So what happened to the arbcom finding wording? Unomi (talk) 18:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec)I think the root of the problem is that one of the few (if not the only one) content-related decisions that Arbcom has ever made is related to pseudoscience. There is a good reason: Genuine pseudoscience presents a certain danger to the encyclopedia in that a too sympathetic description can easily be misunderstood as an endorsement. The pseudoscience decision has given editors certain tools for dealing with a particular type of crap. (It also included instructions not to overdo it, but they are usually conveniently ignored.) They naturally try to expand the scope of the ruling as broadly as possible.
 * It's basically the same effect as with terrorism. Nowadays if you want to have a window replaced fast because it's getting cold in your office, claiming that the terrorists might enter the building through it is the most effective strategy.
 * Of course this is all just laziness. I think I never felt a need to appeal to the pseudoscience ruling for dealing with crap. (Perhaps I did this occasionally, but it didn't really help.) And when editors start compromising article space by dropping their absurd original research there in order to score wiki-internal points, then it gets really problematic. Hans Adler 19:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with much of the above. Regarding why WP has to deal with "pseudoscience", here is an example of an article I waded into (as an informal mediator initially) and almost drowned in it because various SPA promoters and their socks fought tenaciously to keep their preferred version, eliminating all criticism. It ended up on ArbCom due to the abusive behavior of at least one editor, who eventually got perma-banned. The point is that even in that article, I wasn't enthused about using the term "pseudoscience", because it's like saying "crap science", and that's not very NPOV. I think a major problem is when some editors fight hard to apply that term to things they don't like, while excluding other things, like their religion or other personal beliefs. If it were up to me, we'd use the term extremely carefully, and only to report when reliable third parties are using it, like "terrorism" and other WTAs. Crum375 (talk) 19:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Much of what you say is true. The four guidelines were created specifically to define and delimit the use of the category. We shouldn't be fearful of using the first two guidelines when we have the sources, while we shouldn't use the category for the last two. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I have to say, that BDORT thing is hilarious. that's a technique that's been used in TCM for a millennium or so as an informal diagnostic tool (roughly equivalent to your GP testing your reflexes with a rubber hammer).  unless Dr. Omura is really old I don't see how he can claim to have invented it.  That whole article looks promotional to me; I may need to pull out my hedge clippers and give it a trimming.  let me look it over... -- Ludwigs 2  20:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Million (US-centric question)
I don't know if this is the correct page. Couldn't find a way to search the archives. (Yes. It's "easy" if you know how! Maybe a reminder could be placed at the top of the page?)

Realized that "million" which I have been placing in a lot of articles is ambiguous. UK (and others?) use it differently than Americans. Should this word be verboten? Student7 (talk) 13:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * In 1974 the British adopted the American usage, so the issue is mute. see Long and short scales. Rjensen (talk) 13:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, that's a relief! Thanks! Student7 (talk) 21:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * What's wrong with million? That's 1,000,000 in every variant of every language I know. Milliard is the traditional word for 1,000,000,000 in many European languages, but under American influence more and more people call this a billion nowadays (what used to be 1,000,000,000,000). Even in German, due to incorrect translations in news stories being the norm nowadays. Hans Adler 19:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

NPOV and categories
There are too many somewhat related contentious debates open at this time. There seems to be consensus to postpone this discussion. Hans Adler 14:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Inspired by, but separate from the specific debates above.... I think we need to discuss how NPOV applies to categorization in more depth. NPOV mentions categories or categorization in two sections: WP:UNDUE (in passing), and WP:PSCI (repeatedly).

For its part, WP:CAT links to NPOV once... saying: ''Categorizations appear on pages without annotations or referencing to justify or explain their addition; editors should be conscious of the need to maintain a neutral point of view when creating categories or adding them to articles. Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial; if the category's topic is likely to spark controversy, then a list article (which can be annotated and referenced) is probably more appropriate.''

I think everyone would agree that categories can be misused to push POV agendas, and that this is something we want to prevent... the question is where and how should we discuss this. As I said above, categories are navigation tools and not article content, and so properly fall outside the scope of this policy. At this point, I am not proposing any specific changes to either policy... I just think some discussion on the issue is called for. Please share your thoughts. Blueboar (talk) 14:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree, we categorize things in order to create structures that help readers find related information; we don't (or at least shouldn't) be categorizing things because we think they somehow deserve to be categorized that way (Category:Religions whose adherents are going to hell, anyone?). I'd go beyond Blueboar and actually suggest adding a small "Article categorization" section after the "Article structure" section which ports over the statement from WP:CAT (above) and expands on it a bit.  -- Ludwigs 2  15:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I propose, and I am very serious about this, not to do anything like this at the moment. The problem of categories that may or may not be regarded as disparaging (depending on various factors) has been discussed recently, very widely, with no good result so far. If we start a discussion now we risk a huge chaos with a large battlefield in which a pseudoscience battle, an LGBT battle and a BLP battle are being fought simultaneously. I don't think anything good is going to come out of that. We have been living with the problem for years and so far it hasn't broken the wiki. I think we can wait for the current NSF/pseudoscience thing to be resolved before attacking this problem. Hans Adler 16:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * That sounds wise... I did not intend for anything to be proposed ... merely to begin discussion and dialogue on the general topic. Blueboar (talk) 18:40, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, well, I suppose it would get a little 'Attila the wiki-hun'-ish. I've no problem with not proposing anything specific, but should we curtail the discussion completely? -- Ludwigs 2  18:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I think if we can stop the discussion we should do so now. Perhaps someone can set a reminder to revisit this in four weeks' time or so? Hans Adler 19:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not in a rush... and am happy to table discussion for a while. I will raise it again when it will not cause disruption.  This discussion never happened... pay no attention to the man behind the curtain... these are not the droids you are looking for. Blueboar (talk) 20:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * A very wise decision. When it's resumed, the discussion about categories in general should be kept separate from any proposal to remove mention of the NPOV use of categories described in the NPOV policy. Any removal of that wording in the Psi section would do violence to an ArbCom ruling. As such it would be best to start with an ArbCom "Request for Clarification" at the Psi ArbCom. There we can get the ArbCom's clarification of their intent with that particular wording, which was very quickly adopted into the policy without any change of intent. (Anyone who can remember the ArbCom already knows the history and clear intent.) Before that ruling, the NPOV policy had little (if anything) to say about the NPOV use of categories, and there were many edit wars over the matter. The ruling set some very clear limits as regards the use and abuse of the Psi Category, and those limits shouldn't be removed. We'd return to chaos. I suggest that the wise decision to end this thread be followed and that Blueboar gets the honor to do it. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Then why do you keep poking at it? You are poking at the wasps nest of 'Do ArbCom set policy', 'Can consensus change' and Categorization, all for the sake of last word. Unomi (talk) 07:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, brangifer doesn't have an actual argument to make, so he has to make sure that he appears to win all of the political points. His entire strategy is to assert victory out of whole cloth and then attack any disagreement brutally (look back over his diffs - this is what he always does).  It wasn't enough here for us to table the issue on our own, he had to make certain that it looked as though he had somehow won an exchange he had never even participated in.


 * It's a problem for him. the minute he loses any political battle his entire strategy (and thus his credibility, and his ability to assert his POV) will be shot to hell.  As a consequence, he is compelled to put a whole lot of time, effort, and energy into maintaining an appearance of dominance.  -- Ludwigs 2  13:31, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Please... discuss the policy and how to improve it, not individual editors. Blueboar (talk) 13:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * nonsense calls for explanation, otherwise it gets interpreted as meaningful. Trust me, I'd have made that same comment about anyone editing from a purely political agenda.  While I agree that there should never be an overt ad hominem focus on an editor, there are times when you have call an editor out on his speech acts in order to avoid giving legitimacy to otherwise inane comments.  -- Ludwigs 2  14:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Ludwigs2. The strategy that BullRangifer is employing (subconsciously – I am sure it's all in good faith) is to constantly claim against the evidence that he has already proved that he is right, that he has already proved that consensus is on his side etc. Some people can get away with it that is blatantly wrong, and some can't. For some reason BullRangifer can get away with it. This must be addressed in a more appropriate place. (ANI didn't help because it got too confusing, so we are working on RfC/U now.) But in the meantime every instance of BullRangifer's misrepresentations must be clearly marked as such to make sure he doesn't win any arguments based on nothing but this faulty logic. Hans Adler 14:31, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry you disagree with my agreement with your comment that it would be wise to close this discussion. So you basically seem to be saying that no matter what I say, even when I agree with you, it has to be a bad thing and worthy of personal attacks. It's a very sad day when my agreement with you is used by Unomi, you and Ludwigs2 to attack me. Very sad indeed. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

As discussed, I am Closing this thread for now. Blueboar (talk) 14:28, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * sigh... Re-opening... see discussion on "Obviously Bogus" below. Blueboar (talk) 22:20, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Misunderstanding of "A Simple Formulation"
Someone on a talk page mis-understood this sentence ''Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." to mean that an assertion of fact did not'' need a reference, even though a couple other editors explained it did need one. I think you have to make it clear at top of the section, instead of the bottom, that reliable sources are needed. Part of the confusion is that you mix two examples that don't need referencing (Mars and Plato) with one that clearly could produce disagreement ("a survey produced a certain published result"). Now unless I am mis-understanding the meaning of the section myself - and someone would need to clarify it in that case, I'll change it to end possible confusion. Thoughts?? CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I think this could be resolved by simply changing it to "Assert verifiable facts, including...." with a link to WP:V. Blueboar (talk) 14:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it should be noted here that the definition of fact is incorrect. A fact is a piece of information that can be proven, in this case, by verifying in reliable sources. (Synonym: verity.) This definition can also be verified in reliable sources. Zaereth (talk) 17:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No, you are confusing veracity and verifiability. Veracity means the fact is provable... verifiability means we can prove that someone (a reliable source) says it is a fact. Blueboar (talk) 20:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * personally (and as I've said elsewhere) I dislike the whole 'fact' terminology. really what this passage should say is something like: "Assert verifiable statements, including statements about opinions—but do not assert the opinions about statements."  The whole 'fact' nomenclature tends to lead editors down the wrong path into making value judgements about (as blueboar says) veracity.  -- Ludwigs 2  21:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No, I don't think I'm confused here, unless Wikipedia has concocted its own definition for that as well. Verity is a synonym of fact. The two are directly interchangeable in a sentence. (ie: "Assert verifiable [verities], including...." From Merriam Webster:
 * "Verify (transitive verb) to establish the truth, accuracy, or reality of."
 * "Verity (noun) the quality or state of being true."
 * "Veracity (noun) devotion to the truth. Something true."
 * "Verifiable (adjective) capable of being verified."
 * "Fact (noun) the quality of being actual."
 * "Opinion (noun) A view." (As in "point of view.")
 * "Neutral (adjective) not engaged in either side."
 * My question is, if Wikipedia is about reliable sourcing, why don't the policy definitions match them? Is it intended to make things confusing and to promote wikilawyering? is it just a misunderstanding or an inability to find the correct word? Zaereth (talk) 21:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia does not care if something is True™; it only cares if something can be verified.
 * And, yes, Wikipedia has its own jargon and assigns particular meanings to these common words. For example, not everything that is notable is WP:Notable.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, the fundamental flaw. What is achieved by removing fact from verifiability? Without it, the word has no meaning, except whatever meaning the writers decide to make up. That sounds a bit fishy to me. Everybody here can feel free to make up whatever they want. You won't get any further interference from me. I try not to get caught up in the groupthink, but look for reality-based solutions to problems. The idea that Wikipedia is not about fact leaves only the assumption that it is about fiction, and as anyone who has tried to wade through all of this policy-mess can attest, it is quite a tangled web that we've woven. Zaereth (talk) 23:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Might it help to replace the sentence {By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute."} by {By "fact" we mean here: "a piece of verifiable factual information about which there is no serious dispute."}? --Lambiam 01:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * What is achieved by removing fact from verifiability? We achieve the very desirable elimination of a certain class of unresolvable disputes:  Does God exist?  Is multiple chemical sensitivity a "physical" disease caused by chemicals?  Are 'freedom fighters' or 'terrorists' or 'legitimate soldiers'?  Does your personal experience with baking cakes tell us something about cake baking, or about your individual skill?
 * As a practical matter, "verifiability, not truth" belongs to WP:V, and no conversation here, at WT:NPOV, will have any practical impact on changing the text at WP:V. If you want to make a case for elevating Wikipedia's goals to Truth™, then you will have to present your arguments over there.  (I suggest reading the archives first:  You are certainly not the first person to inquire about this phrase.  Also, given the overwhelming support for the phrase, I suggest that your carefully consider whether making a [very likely] doomed effort to change a widely supported phrase is worth your time.)  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, and the very definition of groupthink. As I've said before, nothing on Wikipedia is worth my time. And, yes, I tend to avoid circular discussions such as this one. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of the policies, and you can do with it what you wish. I'm taking all policy pages off of my watchlist now. Sorry to bother you with facts. Zaereth (talk) 02:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * wow, and people think I have a bad attitude... -- Ludwigs 2  04:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Unnecessary attribution is a violation of WP:ASF policy when no serious dispute exists among reliable sources (an objective fact that is not a serious dispute). WP:ASF does not require in-text attribution for information where there is no serious dispute. Requiring in-text attribution for widespread consensus of reliable sources on the grounds that it is "opinion" would allow a contrarian reader to insist on in-text attribution for material about which there is no serious dispute, using the argument that the material is an "opinion". This would mean, in the end, that all material in Wikipedia would require in-text attribution, even if only one Wikipedia editor insisted on it, which is not the intent of WP:ASF or of WP:CONSENSUS. QuackGuru (talk) 07:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, this doesn't pass muster.
 * Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. This is a completely different concept than alking about simple clear facts like "there is a planet called Mars" and "Plato was a philosopher" which do not have to be sourced. Two different concepts are confusingly merged. Lets decide WHICH is the simple formulation.
 * By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." For example, that a survey produced a certain published result would be a fact. That there is a planet called Mars is a fact. That Plato was a philosopher is a fact. No one seriously disputes any of these things, so we assert as many of them as possible. Again, how many hours have wikipedia editors argued about what a survey REALLY said, even WITH attribution? Only the most simple "Sky is blue" statements should be included as examples - except the sky is not always blue! So that wouldn't even fit. So let's at least take out the first example of the survey.
 * Re: This brand new addition Adding inline-text attribution is unnecessary when the information is not seriously disputed and is well sourced. It depends on what you mean by "seriously disputed." And editor disputes it and wants a source? Or only the highest quality WP:RS can dispute it??
 * Again, whatever happened to the first line of WP:Verifiability: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source (see below), not whether editors think it is true. Not to mention PROVEIT:  When there is dispute about whether a piece of text is fully supported by a given source, direct quotes and other relevant details from the source should be provided to other editors as a courtesy. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

"Adding inline-text attribution is unnecessary when the information is not seriously disputed among reliable sources." I think this will work. QuackGuru (talk) 21:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Except certain editors may Wiki-lawyer that to mean that any opinion can be represented as fact, as long as no reliable source contradicts that opinion. For instance, an article could say "Darwin is a beautiful city", as long as no one had a source that contradicted it, even though it is CLEARLY an opinion. DigitalC (talk) 04:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * In fact, User:QuackGuru has gone on to do exactly this, and has stated that WP:ASF defines an opinion as "a matter which is subject to dispute.". There may or may not be reliable sources that deal with such dispute, and if I find a source that says "The Beatles are the greatest band in the world", I should attribute that opinion before including it in an article, whether I have seen reliable sources that disagree with it or not, because it "very clearly express values or opinions". Is there a way to make this more clear in the policy text? DigitalC (talk) 12:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * What about what I write below to define FACT so that fact and opinion do not get confused?? CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Two relevant proposals
After coming back a few days later I see this issue more clearly and propose:
 * Somewhat expand the previous “Bias” section so first sentence reads:
 * Neutrality requires views to be represented without bias. Forms of bias include gender, racial, nationalist, religious, class, commercial or political bias.


 * Fix the first paragraph of “A simple formulation” to read:
 * Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. By fact we mean a piece of information which can be verified. In Wikipedia most facts, except the most obvious ones - like “Mars is a planet” and “Plato was a philosopher” - must be verified through a reliable source.

Hearing no dissent, I'll for for it! CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I tend to support this wording, thanks :) Unomi (talk) 08:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Wow. I'd like to say that the above sentence is a step in the right direction Carol. If I may offer a piece of advice, in journalistic writing, which is what encyclopedias use, we are taught to refrain from thinking of facts as either subjective or objective. A fact simply is. From Philosophy of scientific method by John Stuart Mill, "For distinction's sake, every fact which is solely composed of feelings or states of consciousness considered as such, is often called a psychological or subjective fact, while every fact which is composed, either wholly or in part, of something different from these, that is, substances and attributes, is called an objective fact."


 * As we can see, in journalism, it is best to avoid the influx of emotion and to, ideally, remain objective. As stated in the quote in the section below, objectivity is an impossible goal. In journalism class, we are taught to distinguish fact from opinion like this. It is a fact if it answers the question "what," as in "What happened?" (John got in a werck.) "Where," "when," "who," and "how" also ask for facts. (About a half an hour ago, out on the freeway. He collided head on with a mail truck.) If it answers the question "why," then it is an opinion. (He seemed a bit troubled when he left my house. He must not have been paying attention.) The key here is the word "conclusion."


 * This simple formula works for any article. We can answer the question, "What causes things to fall." (Gravity.) We can answer where gravity is found, when, and how it behaves. (9 meters per second squared.) But the answer to why things fall will always be an opinion, either in the form of theory, (backed up with evidence), or hypothesis, (not or poorly backed up). The facts behind the theories are given. (What is the view, where did it come from, when, who and how?) These facts are important, for they not only present the view, but also give us the point from which it came. Once again, I hope this info helps. Zaereth (talk) 17:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I support the first change. The second does seem to be a step in the right direction, in that it shortens the first paragraph. However, ASF isn't really about whether facts need to be verified. DigitalC (talk) 19:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The point is that fact was so poorly defined - and not in compliance with WP:Verifiability it confused the issue and some editors. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Fringe section
I've rewritten a little, because as it stood it appeared to be an NPOV and NOR violation. It now says essentially the same thing, but is streamlined a little, and it stresses the need for reliable sources. Before and after. The "after" version is:

==Fringe theories== When discussing fringe views, any mention of them should be proportionate, making clear which is the dominant majority view among reliable sources, and which the minority view. Topics that represent tiny-minority views should be discussed in articles devoted to them. Examples of these are forms of historical revisionism that reliable sources widely regard as lacking evidence&mdash;or actively ignoring it&mdash;such as Holocaust denial or claims that the Apollo moon landing was faked.

===Pseudoscience=== When discussing topics that reliable sources say are pseudoscientific, editors should be careful not to present those views alongside the scientific consensus as though they are equal but opposing views. While pseudoscience may in some cases be significant to an article, it should not obfuscate the description of the main views. Topics that may be added to the pseudoscience category include the following:


 * 1. Obviously bogus ideas: Obviously bogus theories such as Time Cube may be described as pseudoscience if reliable sources concur.


 * 2. Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may also be described as pseudoscience if reliable sources concur.

The following should not be added to the category, even if there are reliable sources for the claim:


 * 3. Theories with a substantial and respectable following: Established ideas and practices such as psychoanalysis, which some critics allege are pseudoscientific but which also attract an academic following, may contain the view that they are pseudoscientific if it is reliably sourced, but the claim should not be added to the lead or highlighted unduly, and should not be included without qualification.


 * 4. Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations from within the scientific community, such as Modified Newtonian Dynamics as opposed to dark matter, which are part of the scientific process. Such theoretical formulations may fail to explain some aspect of reality, but should they succeed will be rapidly accepted. For instance, the theory of continental drift was heavily criticized because there was no known mechanism for it, and thus the evidence in its favor was dismissed. When the mechanism was discovered, it became mainstream as plate tectonics.

I still think it could use a bit of work, as it seems to encourage adding "pseudoscience" when the thing was never meant to be science in the first place, but at least if we stress the need for reliable sources that may go some way toward alleviating that. SlimVirgin TALK  contribs 13:59, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I have made one small change to the first paragraph... "Topics that represent notable but tiny-minority views should be discussed in articles devoted to them." This brings us into line with UNDUE (sometimes the tiny-minority is so small that we should not even mention its views) and NOTE (only notable topics deserve articles). Blueboar (talk) 14:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * "Tiny-minority" seems to be a rather laughable phrase. Can't we find something more credible sounding, even just small minority? CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * yeah, it is a bit strange. maybe replace 'tiny-minority views' with 'views that have very limited scholarly acceptance'?  -- Ludwigs 2  17:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * What about "notable views which are held by a tiny minority"? I think this says what we mean clearly (and accounts for fringe views on non-academic topics, like politics or religion). Blueboar (talk) 18:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * well, I think the problem is the non-analytic 'tiny minority' thing. Science isn't a voting system: what we are trying to say here is that there are generally accepted theories, secondary theories that vying with them for prominence on scientific grounds, and theories that (whether or not they are scientifically sound) are not currently in the running for prominence.  the 'tiny minority' thing is a code phrase for "Assumed to be significant by a tiny minority of researchers" which is itself a code phrase for "largely ignored by the vast majority of scientific research"...


 * honestly, I think we'd do better to rephrase entirely and say something like: "Views which have not gained prominence on scientific grounds should be presented in articles devoted to them, but may be excluded from broader discussions of the topic, except where they are also prominent for historical reasons." Or something like that.  -- Ludwigs 2  18:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * We're not only talking about scientific issues, though, and the phrase "tiny minority" is a tried and tested one on WP, first used by Jimbo many years ago, I believe. I seem to remember that it was in this policy for a long time, and I think it's a good concept to restore.  SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 18:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't mind the term "tiny minority"... but we do need to mention that such fringe views need to be notable enough to warrant an article (WP:FRINGE does this very well, setting a fairly low bar for what is notable enough and what isn't). Blueboar (talk) 19:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually... now that I think about it... Wouldn't WP:FRINGE be a more logical location for us to go into all these details? Blueboar (talk) 19:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * (e/c) well, I probably should have said scholarly, rather than scientific. If there's a reason to keep the wording, that's cool; I just wanted to point out this isn't really a numeric issue, but rather an extension of the 'proportionate' issue (basically a cut-off value, based on scholarly acceptance, for when we do and don't want to cover a viewpoint in an article). -- Ludwigs 2  19:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * One test that I use to decide when a minority's view is too tiny or insignificant to include, is to see whether that view has been mentioned by a high quality reliable secondary source when describing the range of views on the main topic (not when focusing on the dissenting minorities). If we can't find a reliable secondary source which mentions it in that general context, then we don't include it either. I wonder if there is a way to incorporate that into the text, here or on WP:FRINGE. Crum375 (talk) 19:56, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Obviously bogus ideas
I don't care for the changes to the "Obviously bogus ideas" section. The new wording does not say essentially the same thing as before. Maybe that's OK as the older version may have violated WP:OR and/or WP:NPOV. But the new wording doesn't make much sense. There's now a qualifier about reliable sources. AFAIK there are no reliable sources that explicitly say TimeCube is pseudoscience. So, it's kind of a bad example. Also, if reliable sources are required, what's the point of titling the section as "Obviously bogus"? I used to understand what this section meant. Now I don't. It seems to be a wholesale departure from what it used to mean. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * We can't say or imply anything on WP article space that is not attributable to a reliable source. It's always been that way. Crum375 (talk) 21:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec) The problem is that the pseudoskeptics have long been used to being able to employ subpar sources, like blogs and popular press both to characterize and as sources for content. A current row has started at Talk:Reincarnation_research where a partial quote in a skeptical publication is being used instead of the full one, in order to lend a certain flavor. Unomi (talk) 21:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I know that. But that's not what it used to say.  These changes were described as  "essentially the same thing" and it's not.  And the TimeCube example doesn't make any sense.  There also appears to be a major change to the pseudoscience section.  Categorization used to be an example.  Now it's the key qualification and even defines a specific category,  .  If this section now only applies to this category, is this the right place to mention this?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree that the whole "pseudoscience" section is problematic. I personally feel that "pseudoscience" is a pejorative term, similar to "terrorism" or "terrorist", and should only be used when attributed in the text to a reliable source. I see that category just as problematic. Crum375 (talk) 21:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Quest, when I was copy-editing it I added the reliable sources thing because it's there anyway, whether written down in this policy or not: anything challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source. If no source has called Time Cube pseudoscience, that means we can't say it either, and why would we even want to? It's just silliness and calling it a bad name won't make it any sillier. But you're right: as soon as you make the reliable source provision explicit, the whole thing becomes about a category. It's just an odd section all round. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 23:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * This goes directly to my previous question about whether we should discuss any category in this policy (and if so how)... I know I said we should postpone discussion, but that issue has to be addressed if we are to move forward with this one. I think we need to decide whether WP:NPOV should discuss categorization in the first place before we figure out how to word any such discussion.
 * As I see it, the problem with categorization is that, unlike article content, it has no mechanism for verifiability... and without verifiability there is no way to judge whether adding something to a category is NPOV or not. Other than a broad statement saying: "Don't add a topic to (or remove a topic from) any category in order to push a POV". I have to question whether this is the right policy in which to discuss categorization?
 * On the more specific issue of discussing Category:Pseudoscience in this policy... what makes this particular category different from any of the other controversial categories in Wikipedia... there are dozens of categories where addition or removal is a highly POV issue. What justification is there for the NPOV policy to single out category:pseudoscience for special mention?   Should we now create more sub-sections to discuss what should and should not be added to other controversial categories?  Furthermore, we already have an entire guideline devoted to the topic of dealing with topics like pseudoscience... its called WP:FRINGE.  I would think that guideline would be a better location for us to discuss how to categorize fringe topics. Blueboar (talk) 22:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree. I think if we have instructions for when to categorize something as "pseudoscience", we should do it also for "terrorism", and all other controversial pejoratives. As you say, cats are tricky, esp. for controversial topics, since there is no specific place to "verify" them with reliable sources or explain the rationale for their inclusion. Crum375 (talk) 22:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't mind having instructions... I just don't think they belong here, in this policy. Blueboar (talk) 22:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree. This is not the page for either pseudoscience or categories. Maurreen (talk) 22:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think this policy should give us a broad outline of how to ensure neutrality, not a detailed recipe for dealing with specific contentious issues or their categories. Crum375 (talk) 22:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I've always felt this section was problematic, because it seemed to be a violation of NPOV, NOR, and V, namely that we can label certain things "pseudoscience" without any source having said that about them. I also felt the focus on pseudoscience over any other kind of fringe issue was odd to have within a content policy, which should focus on meta issues. I would agree with moving it to WP:FRINGE. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 22:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * That only applied to Guideline 1, but you're right. Everything that's potentially contentious should be sourced, even the obvious. I also support moving that section to Fringe. Since we're dealing with the most "sacred" policy we have, I think this should be the subject of an RfC before doing it. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:05, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * SlimVirgin, what was your intent with the changes in regards to the TimeCube example. Are you saying that it should be in the pseudoscience category or shouldn't?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * My only intention was to fix the writing. I removed the OR and add the reliable sources provision because that was an obvious omission. Regarding the pseudoscience category, I'm not sure I've ever seen the point of it, but certainly nothing should be in it unless multiple reliable sources have used that term. The problem is that it's used to denigrate rather than describe, and the problem with categories is that there's no nuance. I've seen it used a few times in ways that didn't seem sensible. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 10:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not SlimVirgin, but the existing text (after her excellent streamlining) still expressly states that the first two Guidelines govern putting those things in the pseudoscience category, and the last two that one should not do it. Read immediately above them. This is consistent with the original wording and the intent of the ArbCom ruling. Removing that clause would mean a step backwards to the days where far more edit conflicts occurred over this matter. The ArbCom ruling created a bright line to prevent abuse by both skeptics and pseudoscientists, which is a good thing. Good things should be kept. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:00, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Bear in mind that I only copy edited it, BR, in an effort to make clearer what it was saying. I don't think the section should be in the policy, and I wouldn't want the copy edit to be seen as support for it. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 10:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Split off section
I'm splitting off the section, here. Maurreen (talk) 09:42, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I used the version before SlimVirgin's changes, because there was discussion about those changes. Maurreen (talk) 09:51, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree with this splitting off. That section now stands as a policy in its own right, and I don't see that as making any sense, that we would have a policy devoted to pseudoscience. Policies are for overviews. It needs to be removed from here and/or moved to FRINGE. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 10:25, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I've redirected that new page to Fringe theories for now. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 10:30, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * And I have unredirected it. If you want to remove the policy tag or incorporate it into another page, that's fine. But please don't be so quick to undo anything you don't like. Maurreen (talk 15:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Why don't we leave it as is and let someone else, other than the two of us, make the next move? Maurreen (talk) 15:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Clearly creating a new policy page out of whole cloth is the more contentious move. A number of editors have made statements to the effect that these matters are better handled in individual guidelines rather than at the toplevel NPOV policy page. Unomi (talk) 15:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * In other words, someone else has made the next move by again redirecting. Maurreen (talk) 16:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, generally speaking we don't just create new policy pages, though we can promote guidelines to be policy. As to where the pseudoscience stuff should be, I don't really have a firm stance on that at the moment, but it certain seems as though it would be a natural fit with WP:FRINGE. Unomi (talk) 16:25, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Generally speaking, we don't don't mark redirects as minor and give no edit summary. Maurreen (talk) 16:31, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not sure why you are so upset about that, there is no other option. We absolutely cannot just create a new policy page. Maybe it shouldn't have been marked minor, but it certainly wasn't a contentious edit. Unomi (talk) 16:34, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Maurreen, one individual can't decide to remove a section from a core policy page, turn it into a separate policy, and revert over objections. It's anyway not fit to stand alone as a policy, certainly not as written, and arguably won't ever be because policy doesn't deal with individual topics in that way. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 16:35, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * SV, what is your excuse for marking redirection as minor? Maurreen (talk) 16:38, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Can we please just slow down and take this a step at a time... we need to establish a clear consensus... As a first step, I have notified the folks at WP:FRINGE that we have been having this discussion, and asking for their input... I think the next step is a formal RfC. Shall I start one, or do we need more informal discussion first? Blueboar (talk) 16:42, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * My apologies if I marked the redirect as minor. I tend to mark reverts and redirects that way to signal that I'm not making a content change as such. I can't see what difference it makes though because it was clear what I'd done. And I agree with Blueboar. This is a core content policy, and substantive changes need consensus. BB, I'd like to see a bit of discussion about the RfC first, because we're confusing two issues which I'd like to keep entirely separate: (1) should that section remain in NPOV, and (2) if not, where should it go, if anywhere? SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 16:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * SV, reverts and redirection are far from minor. Wiping out thousand of bytes is not minor.
 * Please review WP:MINOR -- "A good rule of thumb is that edits consisting solely of spelling corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content should be flagged as minor edits."
 * And it wasn't clear what you had done, because you didn't leave an edit summary.
 * There was no consensus to wipe out thousands of bytes.
 * You had less consensus than I. If you look above, you see people agree with a page split, one suggesting an RFC. I see nothing about removing the material entirely.
 * If you had moved the section back here or moved it to another page, or just taken the "policy" tag off, that would be different.
 * I care less about the pseudoscience section than whether "consensus" matters only when somebody wants it to. Maurreen (talk) 17:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Maurreen, a lot has changed in the four years since you stopped editing in 2006, especially at policy level. You simply cannot move a section out of a key policy without consensus, create a new page also without consensus, and slap a policy tag on it. If someone reverts you (and I did add several edit summaries to the edits I made, which explained my concern), you don't restore what you've done. If you want to discuss it further, let's go to user talk because this isn't the place for it. I suggest you revert your change to this policy too and wait for a real consensus to emerge. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 17:14, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Any rules, customs, etc., apply equally to you. Maurreen (talk) 17:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * About user talk, that's where I started this, you responded here, and I'm fine with moving it back. Maurreen (talk) 17:32, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Recent changes
1. The lead has been changed from:
 * All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view...

to:
 * All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view...

I think the "other encyclopedic content" (or some variation) needs to be restored because categories, templates, and probably other things that aren't articles, could easily be cast in a POV manner. My guess is that the original wording is suggesting that there should be no attempt to apply WP:NPOV to what editors write on a talk page (although WP:BLP and other policies do restrict discussions), but categories and so on must comply with WP:NPOV.

2. The following paragraph has been omitted from the Pseudoscience section:
 * To determine whether something falls into the category of pseudoscience or merely an alternative theoretical formulation, consider this: Alternative theoretical formulations generally tweak things on the frontiers of science, or deal with strong, puzzling evidence which it is difficult to explain away, in an effort to create a model that better explains reality. Pseudoscience generally proposes changes in basic scientific laws or reality in order to allow some phenomenon which the supporters want to believe occurs, but lack the strong scientific evidence that would justify such major changes. Pseudoscience usually relies mainly on weak evidence, such as anecdotal evidence or weak statistical evidence at just above the level of detection, though it may have a few papers with positive results, for example: parapsychology and homeopathy.

I think this should be retained as a very useful explanation of the distinction. It's all very well to say that we rely purely on reliable sources without thinking, but the above para is helpful in practice to explain the general strategy that should be applied (subject to reliable sources). Johnuniq (talk) 00:41, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding the "other encyclopedic content", I would have no problem to clarify that NPOV applies to all of mainspace. Regarding the "missing paragraph" about pseudoscience, I and other editors here (see above) feel that these details about one specific contentious topic don't belong in the NPOV policy, though they may belong in WP:FRINGE. Crum375 (talk) 01:09, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, I am not entirely sure. I can see three legitimate possibilities:
 * Pseudoscience is a special case. Our usual rules don't apply. By posing as science, pseudoscience represents a unique threat to Wikipedia. Our rules must be bended/adapted to deal with this threat.
 * Pseudoscience is not a special case, but it is an important one, to the point that not only do our policies inform our treatment of pseudoscience, but conversely our treatment of pseudoscience informs what our policies say and how they are interpreted. Pseudoscience should be discussed in this policy as a prominent example of how the policy should be applied in specific cases. By doing this here, we can ensure that the policy and the example stay synchronised.
 * Pseudoscience is just an important special case, but should be discussed in a separate guideline (probably WP:FRINGE). So long as it is discussed here, editors are confused as to whether 1. or 2. is intended. This has resulted in a situation in which many editors rely just on the pseudoscience passage itself and interpret it in a way that is inconsistent with the policy itself. The policy and the example do no stay synchronised in practice, because changes in the way pseudoscience is handled do not feed back into the policy as a whole, but only into the pseudoscience passage. Hans Adler 09:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you leave out a possibility:
 * 4 Pseudoscience is not a "special case", but it is a controversial one. It is specific sub-class of fringe topic, and as such should be discussed in that context, at WP:FRINGE. Blueboar (talk) 16:34, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * As a mathematician I use the word "special case" in an inclusive way that does not imply special treatment. As it was redundant from my point of view I have simply struck it. Hans Adler 17:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the editors who want to retain the pseudoscience section should explain why they feel it warrants being in the policy over any other topic. I can't offhand think of a policy that dwells on a specific subject area in this way. The issue for discussion on this page shouldn't be the interests of pseudoscience or opposition to it, but the interests of the policy. As I see it the policy is harmed by having this in it, partly because it's too specific, partly because it's almost an NPOV violation in itself, and before the copy edit was OR-ish and seemed to be advocating V violations. So whether it's about pseudoscience or butterflies, I feel it needs to go. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 16:41, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * In Hans' post above, I think out of the 3 choices given, 2 is the closest that matches my understanding. WP:NPOV applies to all topics.  It shouldn't matter whether the view point is intelligent design or Holocaust denial.  Fringe is fringe is fringe.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:43, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding Hans's post 2 above, if I understand it correctly, he is saying that using a special case, such as pseudoscience, to explain or illustrate the NPOV policy is useful. I disagree. I think the pseudoscience issue is so contentious and so fraught with problems that incorporating its discussion into the general NPOV policy page will end up creating more, rather than less, confusion. If anything, examples should rely on simple clear-cut situations, possibly fictitious, where there is no reasonable disagreement or misunderstanding. By introducing a complex issue as our "example", we are inviting long term confusion. Crum375 (talk) 18:00, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And to clarify, I think we all agree that there is a need to deal with the use of the term "pseudoscience" on WP; the question is only where: inside a core policy, or in more dedicated pages such as WP:FRINGE and WP:WTA. Crum375 (talk) 18:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The issue of pseudocience is a particular aspect of fringe views which has rightly been part of policy rather than a more easily disregarded guideline, and is crucial to the validity of WP in a central subject area. Having said that, the more detailed questions of discussing dealing with fringe views are rightly in the guideline, and the revisions to the bare policy mention here seem reasonable subject to making it clear that the pseudoscience issue involves classifying topics in a general sense, not just deciding which category applies. . dave souza, talk 08:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Religion
While we're at it I wouldn't mind removing the religion section too, for the same reasons. I think these were sections that were on the FAQ page, which really wasn't an appropriate thing to have policy status, and when it was decided to get rid of it, these sections were moved back here. This page should deal with general principles; particular examples are fine but they shouldn't develop into whole sections. The section says:

In the case of human beliefs and practices, Wikipedia content should not only encompass what motivates individuals who hold these beliefs and practices, but also account for how such beliefs and practices developed. Wikipedia articles on history and religion draw from a religion's sacred texts as well as from modern archaeological, historical, and scientific sources.

Some adherents of a religion might object to a critical historical treatment of their own faith because in their view such analysis discriminates against their religious beliefs. Their point of view must be mentioned if it can be documented by independent reliable sources, yet note that there is no contradiction. NPOV policy means that Wikipedia editors ought to try to write sentences like this: "Certain adherents of this faith (say which) believe X, and also believe that they have always believed X; however, due to the findings (say which) of modern historians and archaeologists (say which), other adherents (say which) of this faith now believe Z."

Several words that have very specific meanings in studies of religion have different meanings in less formal contexts, e.g. fundamentalism and mythology. Wikipedia articles about religious topics should take care to use these words only in their formal senses in order to avoid causing unnecessary offense or misleading the reader. Conversely, editors should not avoid using terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and note worthy sources on a topic out of sympathy for a particular point of view, or concern that readers may confuse the formal and informal meanings. Details about some particular terms can be found at words to avoid.

SlimVirgin TALK  contribs 16:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree... but one thing at a time. Blueboar (talk) 18:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * My thinking is that they're both the same issue&mdash;moving sections about specific topics out of the policy&mdash;and it might be just as easy to handle them both at the same time. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 18:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You asked earlier about posting an RfC. How about something like:


 * "Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view. There is a proposal to remove two topic-specific sections, one on pseudoscience, the other on religion, so that the policy provides only a general overview. Fresh eyes would be appreciated."


 * SlimVirgin TALK  contribs 22:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think we should link two controversial topics together. It's more likely to derail the process as it give people more reasons to argue about it.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, you'd need to come up with an argument in that case why you want to leave one topic-specific section but remove another. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 01:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No, I mean we should address them separately. Once we have one worked out, we can work on the other.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Understood. But my first question coming to an RfC like that would be, "Why aren't you dealing with the religion section too? What's so special about pseudoscience?" I'm fine either way, but to me it makes more sense to deal with the principle that policies shouldn't focus on particular topics, except as examples in passing. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 03:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * While scientists in conflict might label each others' views "pseudoscience" and while today's pseudoscience theoretically could become tomorrow's science, religion is defacto subjective and like political, ethnic, nationalist, etc. biases should be merely listed under bias. Or people could go back to the old format which was bulleted and described each kind of bias. Religious POV's doesn't seem to be more deserving of a section than others do. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. I think examples of contentious POV issues don't belong in a general policy, which should focus on the broad outline. If necessary, specific contentious topics or terminologies may have their own guideline pages, like WP:FRINGE or WP:WTA. Crum375 (talk) 04:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC).


 * Harping a SlimVirgin's 'both the same issue' thought... I think this is absolutely correct: the issue is that we don't want any group (of any size) using wikipedia to spin its viewpoint as truth over and above any scholarly research. This is just to guarantee impartiality: (secondary) scholarly sources that can be assumed to approach material with a reasonable degree of impartiality (because scholars are paid to be analytic and detached, and punished by their peers when they are not); other sources have no such constraints.  personally, I think we could dispense with the pseudoscience, fringe, religion, and any other specific sections and replace them with something much simpler, such as:
 * "A neutral point of view is careful never to promote, salvage, or otherwise foster any idea beyond its prominence in scholarly discourse, and it is careful never to denigrate, refute, or otherwise disparage such ideas for not having gained more prominence. Ideas are described impartially to the extent possible, given the full range of sources available. Editors will often advocate for particular points of view on talk pages - this is natural and unavoidable - and such advocacy is acceptable as part of building a broader consensus.  Advocacy of that sort, however, should never extend to article space."
 * I think that covers everything meaningful in the pseudoscience and religion sections, and dispense with a whole lot of lawyer-fodder. -- Ludwigs 2  17:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I like that. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 17:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well done Ludwigs... I like it too. Blueboar (talk) 20:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Possible problem. See essay Reliable_source_examples, which suggests recognizing some religious sources as reliable in some contexts. It might be necessary for the policy page to make clear what counts as scholarship. Peter jackson (talk) 10:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Why does a policy about maintaining a neutral point of view need to make clear what counts as scholarship? Blueboar (talk) 12:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Because Ludwigs' suggested wording, which you & SV approved, talks of scholarly discourse. If religious groups can claim that their own literature counts a sscholarly discourse then you haven't achieved much. Peter jackson (talk) 16:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Potential RfC language

 * There is a consensus of editors at WP:NPOV that it is inappropriate for a broad policy to discuss issues that relate specifically to only one topic area. At the moment, the policy includes two such discussions: discussing the issue of pseudoscience at WP:PSCI and the issue of religion at WP:RNPOV. It is proposed that both of these sections be replaced with a broader statement as follows:

"A neutral point of view is careful never to promote, salvage, or otherwise foster any idea beyond its prominence in scholarly discourse, and it is careful never to denigrate, refute, or otherwise disparage such ideas for not having gained more prominence. Ideas are described impartially to the extent possible, given the full range of sources available. Editors will often advocate for particular points of view on talk pages - this is natural and unavoidable - and such advocacy is acceptable on a talk page as part of building a broader consensus.  Advocacy of that sort, however, should never extend to article space."

However, there is an additional question in regards to WP:PSCI. As the language in this section is derived directly from an important arb-com ruling, would it be better to save that language by moving it to some other policy or guideline page, such as WP:FRINGE?

Thoughts? (and if this is more or less the right idea... feel free to tweek it) Blueboar (talk) 21:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I concur that the content should be "moved", rather than merely "deleted". It contains important advice and principles that were created to deal with a conflict and to prevent it from recurring. This content does have value, but maybe not here. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * "scholarly discourse" What about recent events where only mainstream news media have covered the topic and no peer-reviewed academic journals have yet been published? (Blueboar, you know what I'm talking about.)  Also, keep in mind that we're a general purpose encyclopedia.  We cover everything from South Park to music bands to reality TV shows.  Many (most?) of our articles will never be covered in scholarly discourse. I suggest changing this phrase to "reliable sources". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree. We shouldn't undermine our RS policy by making an end run around it. If the bar is lifted to an unrealistically high level, no sources will exist for some topics. That would leave holes in our goal of documenting the sum total of all human knowledge as documented using V & RS. We do have the MEDRS policy, which does have a very high level, but it is only applicable in the most logical of all places, the nitty gritty details of scientific research and medical claims. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:55, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Quest. I suggest the following revision:"A neutral point of view should not promote any idea beyond its prominence in verifiable reliable sources, nor disparage it for not having gained more prominence. Ideas should be described impartially to the extent possible, reflecting the available sources. Editors will often advocate for particular points of view on talk pages - this is natural and unavoidable - and such advocacy is acceptable on a talk page as part of building a broader consensus.  Advocacy of that sort, however, should never extend to article space."


 * Comments? Crum375 (talk) 02:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * That's an excellent tightening of the language. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem is that downgrading from "scholarly discourse" to meet situations where lower quality sources are widely available increased the problems of Systemic bias where mass media in some countries misrepresent a strong scholarly consensus by favouring the more newsworthy fringe or outlier views. Quest describes a situation of trying to discuss current news before scholarly sources are available, [http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-2756-2009.65.pdf this] discusses such bias in some detail, and the issue is summarised by [[Joe Romm]] [http://climateprogress.org/2010/02/25/max-boykoff-media-balance-deniers-contrarian-climate-change/ here]. It might be possible to rephrase "in verifiable reliable sources" as "in the best available verifiable reliable sources", but that still seems rather unsatisfactory. . . [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], talk 08:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * we might split the difference and say "...beyond its prominence in scholarly discourse or other verifiable, reliable sources...". I agree with Dave that we don't want to put USA Today on the same footing with the journal Science, but you're right that limiting it to scholarly discourse is too narrow.  I'd also like to ask you about the "promote, salvage, or otherwise foster" language you shortened.  I'd originally put it that way because I was trying to capture what I've sen people do on articles (advocating for unaccepted ideas, rehabilitating discredited ideas, 'teapotting' ideas by excluding outside viewpoints, or contrarily a number of different ways of attacking ideas). I'm concerned that the simple 'promoting/disparaging' wording might get interpreted too narrowly. that might be an unjustified concern, though; what do you think?  -- Ludwigs 2  16:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * While the paragraph has merit in itself, I'm strongly opposed to removal of the section on fringe views and pseudoscience, and this is not an adequate substitute. Science is a wide area covering many of the most disputed aspects of Wikipedia, and has been in the policy from early days because of the prominence of these subjects and of promotion of pseudoscientific views. This really looks like a charter for promoting fringe views which have wide coverage in mass media. . dave souza, talk 08:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Dave, ArbCom doesn't write policy, and while I'm happy to see an ArbCom ruling in a behavioral policy (so long as the ruling clearly reflects consensus), we can't have one in a content policy, because ArbCom isn't allowed to rule on content. If they do it, the content policies shouldn't capitulate. I doubt very much that the ArbCom realized their words were going to be added straight to the NPOV policy.


 * Even ignoring that aspect, the principle behind the section is wrong-headed. Here's an analogy from an area I edit it, animal rights. According to the implications of that section of the policy, I could go to every article that touches on poor or questionable animal treatment and, so long as I could find reliable sources&mdash;or maybe just one reliable source&mdash;could add to the lead that it was an example of animal abuse, and include it in an "animal abuse" category. Fishing, meat eating, leather, fur farms, horse racing, circuses, hunting, milk, cheese, eggs, wool, silk. There'd be no end to it. And before you argue that this is a tiny-minority view, that's far from the case. The sources would be senior academic philosophers, historians, psychologists and lawyers from the animal welfare as well as animal rights spectrum, and indeed academics with no connection to either. And anyway, the people adding "pseudoscience" never stop to wonder whether it's a minority view. They find one source that says it, and they slap it in, ignoring UNDUE whenever it suits them.


 * As a result of this section of the policy, we have a bunch of articles prominently tagged as "pseudoscience" just because one person or one institution or one website expressed that view. It includes articles about respected academics, and subjects that have nothing to do with science. It confuses pseudoscience, superstition, irrational beliefs, unusual beliefs, cutting-edge studies, interesting philosophy, and arguments in favour of paradigm shifts to the point where no one has a clue what the word means anymore. It has been close to a campaign on Wikipedia to add that word to as many articles as it could possibly apply to. It really has to be removed from this page, because the integrity of the policy matters more than the anti-pseudoscience campaign. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 14:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I like the first sentence. I'm not so sure that we should be saying that advocacy of a POV is okay. It's fine for editors to argue that a particular POV has ascendency among the RS, but it's not fine for them to advocate their own POV. I think the the second part blurs that distinction a little. --MoreThings (talk) 16:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * hmmm... I see your point, but I think it's useful to single out editors' actions for discussion.  The biggest source of NPOV problems, IMO, is where editors confuse their own understanding of a topic (however correct it may be) with a neutral understanding of the topic.  by explicitly telling them they can present their viewpoint on talk pages and pointing out that it should be kept off article space, we reinforce that distinction.  I mean, this is just a reality: not a lot of people are clear-headed and objective on every topic they edit, but most everyone thinks of themselves that way.  a reminder that there's a difference between what we believe/know and what ought to be said seems called for.  Might not be the best way of wording it though.  -- Ludwigs 2  17:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that it's a common problem, but I don't think this wording will fix the problem. I'd say advocacy is a pretty dangerous word to be putting into WP:NPOV in relation to permissible editor behaviour. Can you imagine the fun and games that would ensue if an editor were able to walk into, say, i/p debates armed with a WP:NPOV that makes it okay for him to start holding forth about exactly how he personally thinks the whole !*!*@ mess should be sorted out? --MoreThings (talk) 17:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * What if we leave out discussion of talk pages altogether... Editors will often wish to advocate for particular points of view they feel strongly about - this is natural - however, we should never allow our personal views on an issue influence how we write our articles. Blueboar (talk) 19:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If advocacy needs to be mentioned at all, then for me that formulation is better than the previous one, though natural does still feel a little like okay. When new editors arrive it's understandable for them to expect that what is required is that they share their own knowledge and views about whatever article they're working on. The first policies they'll be directed to are this and WP:V, so I think both need to make it plain that editors' personal views are not only not required, they are explicitly verboten. This amended version definitely goes a lot further in that direction, but I'm still not entirely convinced that WP:NPOV should come anywhere near condoning advocacy. Happy to leave it at that, though, and see what comes of the discussion. --MoreThings (talk) 12:30, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree. I'd prefer something like: "Editors often wish to advocate positions they feel strongly about, but we should never allow our personal views to influence our editing." SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 12:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * "Influence our editing" too vague, since it is usually interest in a subject that influences anyone to edit at all. Wording should be more specific like "never allow our personal views to bias our editing." CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * So the latest suggested replacement wording would be:
 * "A neutral point of view is careful never to promote, salvage, or otherwise foster any idea beyond its prominence in scholarly discourse, and it is careful never to denigrate, refute, or otherwise disparage such ideas for not having gained more prominence. Ideas are described impartially to the extent possible, given the full range of sources available. Editors often wish to advocate positions they feel strongly about, but we should never allow our personal views to bias our editing."
 * This works for me... is the rest of the RFC language OK? Blueboar (talk) 13:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I would tighten it, and focus on reliable sources, as discussed above:
 * "A neutral point of view should not promote any idea beyond its prominence in verifiable reliable sources, and not disparage such ideas for not having gained more prominence. Ideas should be described impartially to the extent possible, given the full range of sources available. Editors often wish to advocate positions they feel strongly about, but we should never allow our personal views to bias our editing."
 * Crum375 (talk) 13:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

question
I really like the language that we are working on, and I think we should definitely incorporate it into the policy... but... it reads like a general statement of what NPOV is all about. Something that belongs in the first few paragraphs of the policy rather than as a replacement for the PSCI and RNPOV sections. Thoughts? Blueboar (talk) 14:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the best answer to that is in SlimVirgin's largish post in the middle of the previous section. it boils down to two problems:
 * NPOV should be a general statement about neutrality. allowing overly-specific statements about particular kinds of content breeds confusion and starts to hamstring the policy itself, since people can start using these sections of the policy to unequally support or oppose particular viewpoints.
 * The ArbCom ruling which figures so heavily in the pseudoscience section was part of a behavioral solution to a very protracted war between big camps of editors. It's doubtful that it was intended as a general rule about content, and ArbCom is precluded from making binding decisions about content anyway, so it probably shouldn't be included as a significant portion of a content policy.
 * I don't think anyone has a problem with the material being moved to subsidiary guidelines that are intended to deal with specific content areas, but this entire discussion was intended to address the problems of having these sections in the policy. -- Ludwigs 2 22:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Let me rephrase... I am not sure that the paragraph we have been working on should be described in the RFC as being a "replacement" for the two sections in question. I agree that the sections should be moved (PSCI to WP:FRINGE - not sure where to move RNPOV) ... I think the paragraph should be added.  What I am questioning is whether these two things are or should be linked.  I can see people who come to the RFC from other pages being confused because there is no obvious connection between what we are proposing to move and what we are proposing to add. Blueboar (talk) 23:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * ah, I see. that's actually an interesting question.  There's a connection in my mind because I drafted that as a passage to try to capture what the other sections were saying in a more generalized form, but I have no idea whether that connection in meaningful outside of my mind.    I'll leave that for other, wiser heads to ponder.  -- Ludwigs 2  00:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not completely sure myself... which is why I asked. I don't think we need an RfC to add your paragraph... I do think we need one to move PSCI to FRINGE and to move RNPOV to where ever it should be moved to (for no other reason than doing so involves other pages).  So perhaps it is best to separate these two issues. Post an RfC on the moves... without mentioning the proposed addition.  And, concurrently, implement the addition without reference to the proposed move. Blueboar (talk) 17:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Personally I don't think we need an RfC to remove the pseudoscience and religion sections. We seem to agree that they're too specific, and for the former we know that ArbCom can't make content decisions. I'll go along with an RfC if others want it, but as I see it we already have sufficient consensus. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 18:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that this wording isn't something that is particularly relevant to the two sections under discussion. I don't have an opinion one way or the other regarding the RfC—I haven't followed the whole of the discussion. --MoreThings (talk) 12:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * well, my suggestion would be that we go ahead and edit in the paragraph - it seems to have broad support. normally I'd say that we should just remove the other sections, but I think in the case of the pseudoscience section, at least, it's pretty obvious that would meet some stiff resistance.  The question is whether there is sufficient grounds under policy to move the sections over anticipated objections.  If we have consensus that there is sufficient grounds, then I'd say just move them; if we're unsure, an RfC is probably in order.  -- Ludwigs 2  16:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Revised RFC langauge
Given the comments above, I propose the following language for the RfC: Does this accurately portray the question in a neutral tone? Blueboar (talk) 12:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a growing consensus of editors at Wt:NPOV that it is inappropriate for a broad policy to discuss issues that relate specifically to only one topic area. At the moment, the policy includes two such discussions: discussing the issue of pseudoscience at WP:PSCI and the issue of religion at WP:RNPOV. It is proposed that both of these sections be removed from the policy. PSCI (which is based on an important arb-com ruling) would be merged into WP:FRINGE.


 * RfCs are supposed to be worded entirely neutrally. As I said above, I'd suggest wording close to:


 * "Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view. There is a proposal to remove two topic-specific sections, one on pseudoscience, the other on religion, so that the policy provides only a general overview."


 * Personally I'm fine with the wording you suggest, but you're saying explicitly what the majority view is, so someone could object that it's not neutral. Also, calling the ArbCom ruling "important" depends on perspective. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 16:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Good point... what about:
 * Comments requested as to whether it is appropriate for a broad policy to discuss issues that relate to only one specific topic area. There are currently two topic-specific sections in the NPOV policy that do this: WP:PSCI (relating only to pseudoscience) and WP:RNPOV (relating only to religion).  It is proposed that these sections be removed.  It is further proposed that the section on pseudoscience should be merged into WP:FRINGE.
 * Is that better? All of the rational for or against the proposal would be left to commentary. Blueboar (talk) 17:03, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * That seems fine to me. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 17:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Are you intending to post this, BB? SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 19:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Please put in a link to the arbcom decision/ruling. -- PBS (talk) 20:03, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I have been busy, and this is not on the top of my priority list. If someone wants to post the RfC before I get around to it, go ahead. Blueboar (talk) 21:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't feel an RfC is needed, so I wouldn't want to post it myself, though I'm fine with the idea if someone else wants to do it. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 02:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality and article titles
Basically the same issues are discussed in the "Article titles" section of this page, and at WP:Article titles. To avoid duplication and the difficulties of maintaining the same text in two places, would it seem a sensible approach to do a brief summary of the principles here, and the details at WP:AT?--Kotniski (talk) 19:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I think this is one of these situations where the same issue needs to be discussed on two pages from different perspectives. I am not too worried about the exact language being the same (or different) as long as the broader concept being presented is the same on both pages.  Blueboar (talk) 21:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree with both of you: with Kotniski that there is too much detail here, and for the most part readers should be directed to WP:AT; with Blueboar that the issue still needs to be discussed here. I favour greatly reducing this section. Much of the first and last paragraphs are waffle. And note that this policy needn't guide readers all the way to choosing a title; it need only guide readers to the point of recognising which candidate titles are acceptable per this NPOV policy. They may find ten such candidates, in which case it is up to WP:AT to guide them to choose the most appropriate one. I propose the following:
 * "Like article content, article titles must be in the neutral point of view. Neutrality in article titles is assessed by considering the breadth of usage of a name, not by seeking meaning in the name itself. That is, we accept names used in neutral sources, and reject names used only by biased sources. Because Wikipedia takes a descriptive rather than prescriptive approach to article titles, names that are used by neutral sources are considered neutral even if they incorporate non-neutral terms: Boston massacre, Tea Pot Dome scandal, Edward the Confessor and Jack the Ripper are all neutral article titles because they are all names used by a consensus of neutral reliable sources. When there is no consensus amongst neutral reliable sources on how to refer to a topic, a descriptive title is constructed. Neutrality is especially important in these cases because it ensures that article topics are placed in the proper context, preventing the article title itself from becoming a source of contention and polarization. Therefore descriptive titles are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality."
 * Hesperian 00:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * We do not usually use "neutral reliable sources" to determine names we use "reliable sources". If we went the way of "neutral reliable sources" then do we exclude all American, British, Irish, and Canadian sources when deciding on what to title an article like "Patriot (American Revolution)" and American sources for "Extraordinary rendition"? This is for a good reason. It would appear odd (and non neutral) if an article had one name, yet the majority of reliable sources used within an article used another. We usually use article titles that reflect usage not ones that are politically and culturally neutral. -- PBS (talk) 01:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

In fact, thinking about this some more, it would actually make sense for this page not to have a section on article titles per se, but on the terms we use to name things (which includes article titles as well as section titles and the way we refer to things in article text). Then we can refer people to WP:AT for issues that apply specifically to article titles.--Kotniski (talk) 12:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * As far as "neutral sources" go... PBS has it right... we have to be neutral, not the sources. I suspect what Hesperian really means by "neutral" is more along the lines of "third party" or "independent" (although these terms have their own problems).
 * As for Kotniski's remarks... I would agree that the concepts presented in the NPOV#Article titles section should translate to section and sub-section headers (all the more so because these are more likely to be descriptive than be proper names, and so should be neutrally worded).  Blueboar (talk) 19:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * BB although I understand why you are doing it, I do not think that mixing advise on article titles and section heading is a good idea, because we have had a demarcation between titling of a page and the content of a page. I think that penning these two together will throw up more problems that it solves.-- PBS (talk) 19:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. I was just responding to Kotniski's comment. More a conceptual statement than a desire for action.Blueboar (talk) 02:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying they should be penned together entirely; but there are principles we can state about "naming" in general (that's what I'm suggesting should go on this page), and there are aspects or applications of thsoe principles that relate specifically to article titles (that's what I'm suggesting should go at WP:AT - obviously with appropriate links between the two sections). This just seems most logical to me. Of course, it leaves entirely open the question of what the guidance should be (on which there seems to be some quite substantial disagreement, judging by discussion at WT:AT), and I suspect that what we end up saying will be fairly vague, but this is just a proposal on how to divide the information in an intuitive manner between the two pages. --Kotniski (talk) 08:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The guidance should be on one page with a brief description on the other. The argument for keeping it here is in the words of the old WWII song "were here, because were here, because were here" and until recently (when it was moved there from a guideline) there was no mention on the AT policy page about NPOV and this section has been on NPOV, more or less as it is, for years. However it could be argued that the whole section should be moved to AT as the editors most aware of NPOV problems in titles are more likely to be looking at AT than NPOV. -- PBS (talk) 19:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe that the guidance specifically about article titles should be on the article titles page, and that guidance more generally about neutrality in naming (which seems to be absent at the moment, though it shouldn't be, since it keeps coming up in various contexts) should be on this page. The present setup is somewhat messy, illogical and incomplete. A draft as to how to do this is at User:Kotniski/Neu - comments and co-editing are welcome there.--Kotniski (talk) 10:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Homeopathy
Dear Sir/Madam, I observed that the articles on Christianiy, Islam, Hinduism, Osteopathy, Naturopathy,

Chiropractic etc. are good and positive and there are forks to the articles on Christianiy,

Islam and Hinduism which contain all the criticism. The article on Homeopathy as well as

its fork for criticism ('http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Homeopathy/Criticism'), on the

other hand, are both negative and bad; so can we make the article on Homeopathy good and

positive like all the other articles and put all the criticism on its fork? If there's a

rule that both articles should be full of criticism, then we must make the matter in the

criticism fork available in the main article for Christianiy, Islam and Hinduism also. Thanking you, Yours faithfully, Dr.Vittal (talk) 05:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia doesn't always observe its own policies, hence the inconsistency you note. This is because there's no effective procedure for enforcing it. You can try Wikinfo for a wiki with official policy of sympathetic point of view. Peter jackson (talk) 09:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, though, in this case Wikipedia's policy is pretty well enforced. There is a reasonable consensus among the scientific community that the basis of homeopathy is pseudoscientific - there is no known scientific test, up to and including the most sensisitive spectroscopic analysis, which can distinguish homeopathic preparations from placebo. Guy (Help!) 12:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Fringe
I have a couple of concerns on the recently vigorously edited fringe section.


 * The first is to note that there may be (particularly in fringe areas) multiple minority views, so the wording should not explicitly state there is only one. I have made a change in this direction. A related point, which I haven't addressed yet, is that the may be no majority view at all, with all views minority views. This is often the case in a contentious area. Better text (yet to be determined) doesn't need to make the assumption that there is a majority view, and could indiciate what to do in this case.


 * The wording seems ambiguous to me as to whether the reliable sources related to the topic as a whole (or possibly, even wider scope), or just the fringe area itself. Reliable sources on a fringe area are much narrower and skewed compared with reliable sources on a wider area, and I am proposing that the fringe sources are not wide enough to use, and if this was already the intention, that this be clarified in the text.

The changes which removed science as the unique source to NPOV seem reasonable at first sight. I like the shorter section. But science when correctly carried out is by its very nature NPOV, ruthlessly discarding old theories when better one come along. And NPOV procedures like this result in science. Is it worth mentioning something about science (or the scientific method) lest we slip back into an age of superstition and "revealed Truth" unchallenged?

Stephen B Streater (talk) 21:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Just for information's sake: Science is not NPOV; science is prejudicial, ruthlessly (as you say) discarding theories as they fail according the the rules science has established for itself. Science is a system which tries to distinguish between theoretical claims based on their ability to account for empirical observations.   Where scientists have opinions, they are opinions of the form "We accept theory X, because of all the theories available, X fits best with what we see under controlled investigation." Scientists make no claims about things where they have not (or cannot) perform controlled investigations or make empirical observations.


 * NPOV is tangential to that. NPOV says "We present all relevant theories in some rough balance according to their prominence, but we do not evaluate those theories (i.e. reject or accept them) except as they are evaluated in reliable sources".  Where science has made definitive claims, NPOV requires us to present them as such.  Where science has not made definitive claims, NPOV prohibits us from presenting a scientific perspective that does not exist in sources.


 * Science is a point of view (POV) built built around a particular (an highly restrictive) epistemology. Where science is performed and applied correctly it is a powerful POV that almost always outweighs other opinions (that is the entire raison d'etre of the scientific method: to provide an epistemological framework for making decisive claims about the world).  Where science is performed badly or applied outside the restricted realm in which it has epistemological power, it is just another point of view (and a spectacularly unconvincing one, at that).


 * just so it's said. -- Ludwigs 2  22:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * A nice defence of fringe views, but not actually relevant. Consider cosmology: the neutral point of view is the one followed by the scientific mainstream, because it's a scientific concept. Science follows objectively verifiable truth, fringe theories follow WP:TRUTH, which is different. Some of the bitterest disputes on Wikipedia centre around attempts to assert parity between objective reality and subjective WP:TRUTH, for example the creation-evolution debate. Evolution is a scientific theory, creation is religious one. A scientific theory can be abandoned and refined where conflicting evidence appears, a religious theory can't because all new evidence is weighed according to how well it fits the faith so conflicting evidence is rejected. So where something is purported as science - for example the study of some observed phenomenon - it is the scientific mainstream that has the neutral point of view. And yes, they can get things wrong, resulting in them correcting themselves form time to time. Guy (Help!) 12:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I understand what you're saying, and that that's a commonly presented argument here on wikipedia, but it is not (strictly speaking) correct. Science tries to make an approximation of 'truth' through verification; neutrality (in the wikipedia sense) is not about 'truth'.  For something like cosmology we present the scientific viewpoint, yes, but we do not present the scientific viewpoint because it's neutral. We present the scientific viewpoint because it is (by virtue of being a well-developed scientific claim) the most prominent viewpoint, and neutrality requires us to represent the most prominent viewpoint as such.  The same goes with the creation-evolution debate: evolution is the most prominent viewpoint in the scientific world (it is prominent because most scientists believe it, because it fits the available evidence well) so neutrality requires us to present evolution as the dominant theory in scientific contexts.  In the context of Abrahamic faiths, the balance is different - creation has far more prominence, evolution far less (different people believe different things, because the criteria of belief are different in religious contexts), and so NPOV requires a different handling.  The problem of non-scientific things that are 'purported as science' (such as creationism) is an interesting one, but the scientific point of view isn't neutral with respect to them: from the scientific point of view such things are straight-out wrong.  Again, NPOV insists that we give evolution first billing in scientific contexts not because science is neutral, but because evolution has gained prominence in the scientific world because it fits the available evidence.


 * 'Fringe view', incidentally, is not a scientific concept, and the way it's used on wikipedia it's not even an analytic concept. In the real world it seems to be a reference to funky ideas that are expressly framed as scientific but have little or no scientific standing; on wikipedia it has become a catch-all term for any number of distinct types of topics, with no real rhyme or reason that organizes them.  It's this mish-mash that polarizes the issue and causes people to confuse scientific efforts at establishing truth with editorial neutrality.  I don't really see why the whole 'fringe' thing was ever adopted; it seems to me that balancing topics based on prominence is more than adequate to maintain neutrality, and the whole Fringe issue creates far, far more contention and strife than it actually resolves.  but there may be some historical reason that I am not aware of.  -- Ludwigs 2  16:21, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The view that fringe topics should be biassed towards their own references would lead to, at the very least, inconsistencies across the encyclopaedia. At worst, a nonsense idea would refer to nonsense sources - dressed up as legitimate. Giving priority to scientifically tested ideas (ideas which, as they are independently verifiable by anyone, carry dominant weight where they are applicable) is one way to avoid this. How would you suggest avoiding nonsense dressed up as legitimate point of view? Stephen B Streater (talk) 16:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Why we deal with fringe topics the way we do is all discussed at WP:FRINGE. Have you read it? Blueboar (talk) 16:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * @ Blueboar: yes, I have, several times. did you have a specific section in mind, or was this just a general comment?  I'm happy to go reread the whole thing again, if that's what you had in mind.


 * @ Stephen B Streater: I don't see how that applies to what I said. first, I don't think 'fringe topic' is a coherent concept on wikipedia (though it has its uses), and second, I don't know where you got the 'biased towards their own references' bit.  can you clarify?  I'm a scientist, I like science, I do science, but science is a practice which only works in its own limited and well-defined domain (an ever expanding domain, of course - science is always going where no science has gone before - but it can only go where it can apply its own rules in a sensible way).  -- Ludwigs 2  17:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I see the relevant sections of WP:FRINGE have also been edited recently resulting in a similar unsatisfactory result as this policy has. As that guideline summarises this policy (and not the other way round), I think here is a better place to discuss and fix first. The improvements can then be moved to the guideline. It talks optimistically about majority of reliable sources, but isn't clear to me on whether sources respected within a fringe field should be treated as reliable, and hence the mainstream view, or unreliable but noteworthy as a secondary view. Stephen B Streater (talk) 19:39, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, the WP:FRINGE guideline is not just a summary of this policy... it is also a summary of WP:NOTE (it started as a notability guideline for Fringe topics) with a touch of WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOR tossed in. Blueboar (talk) 19:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Which reminds me that we need to rfc the pseudoscience as per the earlier discussions. Blueboar (talk) 19:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think your RFC, though worthy of comment, is orthogonal to my points - it talks about where things should be presented rather than what the policy should be. It seems that no one will admit that we are creeping towards a POV bias for each article, rather than NPOV for every article - which is a different thing. Or put another way do we want an encyclopaedia which is NPOV as a whole, or one in which every article is individually NPOV? The latter is much stronger, and implied by the no fork/single article policy. Stephen B Streater (talk) 21:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry.... I did not mean to imply that there is a direct connection between this thread and the RFC... the thread simply reminded me that I had put the RFC on hold because it dealt with the same broad topic. Yes, the RFC is purely about where this material should be presented.  Not about what the policy should be. Blueboar (talk) 16:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * patience stephen - I haven't gotten back to this thread until just now. I don't know what you mean by 'creeping towards a POV bias for each article'; can you provide an example?  I will say that there is no general 'NPOV stance' that can be applied uniformly to every article in wikipedia: each article needs to accurately convey information about the topic in question, and that will mean that what is NPOV in one article may be different than what is NPOV in another article.


 * a source can be reliable without being mainstream. for instance, if you take a topic like ESP, there is an awful lot of material (and even some well-formed research) available.  These are certainly reliable sources for discussing the topic of ESP, but are hardly mainstream.  They would not be considered reliable sources for, say, psychology.  Of course, you have to make certain that a topic like ESP is not presented in such a way that it appears to be mainstream within its article (that would not be neutral), but given that consideration there is no need to assume that NPOV for ESP would be the same as NPOV for Cognitive Therapy or NPOV for (say) Quantum Mechanics.  if you see what I mean... -- Ludwigs 2


 * You may be answering a different point to the one I'm raising, or I may not agree with you - it's not clear to me yet. If, hypothetically, there is a fringe group which believes some rubbish, and has published sources detailing the rubbish, are you saying that these sources should be treated as mainstream for the article or not? You appear to be saying that they should. But then suppose that the fringe beliefs are inconsistent with generally held scientific theories. The question is whether the fringe or the scientific view should be given most weight in the article. I'm not simply talking about the most text. Should the impression left on a reader be "This fringe view is probably reality" or should it be "This is probably nonsense"? Stephen B Streater (talk) 09:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Ludwigs that the concept of fringe seems muddled. There are a variety of possible types of candidates here:


 * theories held by a very small minority of reputable experts, published in reputable sources; an example of this might be Roger Penrose's theory that gravity is unquantized; he's certainly a highly regarded physicist, but I don't know whether anyone else agrees
 * theories held by a small number of experts, but for religious reasons (e.g. creationsism), & not published in reputable sources
 * theories completely outside the academic world


 * Even that's probably an oversimplification. Peter jackson (talk) 09:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd say that some of Roger Penrose's ideas are certainly fringe ;-) But then in some of the areas he writes about, there is no established majority view - something I raised at the start of this thread. My more fundamental question still remains unanswered though - is WP a place for Cultural_relativism or a place which sits outside any local beliefs. The wording on fringe as it stands is not clear to me. Stephen B Streater (talk) 10:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * So that's 3 of us agreed on that. Peter jackson (talk) 14:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * @ Stephen B Streater: I believe you've misunderstood me. again, let me reiterate: a source can be reliable without being mainstream. A book about some rubbish (assuming it's a well written book) can authoritatively describe that rubbish, and would be a perfectly reliable source for doing so.  There's no reason to assert that what the book says is true; however we can assert that the book is accurate within and constrained by the misbegotten premises of the rubbish it talks about.  To the extent that such a source (or the topic in general) makes claims that fly in the face of scientific reality, we are (obviously) required to introduce scientific clarifications, but beyond that we can use fringe sources to describe and explain the rubbish so that readers understand it.  The problem on a lot of fringe articles is that some editors have gotten the kooky notion that we should try to define or explain non-mainstream concepts from a purely mainstream perspective; this produces wildly inaccurate, uninformative, and badly sourced articles - since of course, the mainstream doesn't have a whole lot sensible to say about non-mainstream material, except to ridicule it.  It's a bit like insisting that we write our article on UFO cults strictly from the Christian perspective, since the Christian faith is mainstream in the English speaking world.  -- Ludwigs 2  15:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * P.s (just noticed this comment, sorry): NPOV is not cultural relativism; again, a clear description of something is not the same as a claim to facticity. I can make a very good description of a unicorn, but this does not imply that I believe unicorns actually exist. -- Ludwigs 2  16:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you. My views are much closer to yours than I had feared :-) Of course, a RS in an area may say that the area is WP:TRUTH, but however reliable it is at describing aspects of the area, it would not be impartial on the overall validity of the area. In fact, I imagine that most detailed accounts will think they are talking about reality. Stephen B Streater (talk) 20:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Attribution
In an article about some topic raising disputes among scholars. It can be article about climate change, historical event, philosophical position, political movement. While using some author as a source. Is it important what position author holds regarding the subject, is it important to mention that position in the article, and what rules regulate that? Thanks! --windyhead (talk) 20:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, attribution is often very important. Besides this policy, look at WP:Verifiability and WP:Identifying reliable sources, and WP:No original research... all of which touch on this idea.  You should also check out WP:Attribution, which while not a policy or a guideline, sums the issue up well. Blueboar (talk) 02:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

So may we somehow process to make changes to the rule? What the addition could be? --windyhead (talk) 12:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If your question is whether we may mention, or even highlight, the name of an author of a source in the text, the answer is yes. It is up to the editor to decide whether to use just the publication's name, the author, or both for in-text attribution. Typically we'd want to focus on the better known. See this section relating to fringe theories, but the principles are similar for all topics. Crum375 (talk) 12:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. What about author's position regarding the subject? I. e. the Vegetarianism article refers to a scholar who is known to be vegetarian. Or the opposite. Would it be better the article to mention his position as well? --windyhead (talk) 09:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I would say yes, this is often noted in our articles and it is practiced in media and scholarly works. Unomi (talk) 09:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

So how about this addition to Attributing and specifying biased statements section: If the author is known to adhere to (to hold) some position on a subject he's discussing, and there is a reliable source for that, it is good the author's position to be mentioned. Please improve. --windyhead (talk) 10:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this is getting into instruction creep here. Most of the time, an author's position on something will be obvious from what he says, ... on the other hand, if it is important to explicitly mention it, that can included in the attribution.  We need to give editors lee-way to phrase things as they feel best. Blueboar (talk) 14:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, and what must be done if there's a dispute about if the best way to phrase is to include the position or not to? --windyhead (talk) 13:41, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * New proposal: If the author is known to adhere to (to hold) some position on a subject he's discussing, and there is a reliable source for that, but author's position is not obvious from what he says, the article is considered more neutral if the author's position is mentioned. Please improve. --windyhead (talk) 11:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There are lots of ways to resolve disputes... see if there is a compromise position, seek third party opinions though an RfC, request formal mediation... editing policy to resolve a specific dispute is never a good option. Blueboar (talk) 15:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

POVed quotes On Philip Larkin
almost-instinct says on Wikipedia_talk:Quotations: "For the biogs sections I chose quotes that had some relevence to that section of Larkin's life. The other quotes are from popular poems and can stand alone."

We already have an article listing of Philip Larkin's Poems.

His choice of quotes is representing a certain point of view, specifically his, and using this these quotes creates an opinion that wikipedia endorses. These quotes should be moved to wikiquote. Can we get more feedback?96.52.92.106 (talk) 03:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * the complaint is too strong. Every selection of facts involves a judgment by the author on what is useful for the reader. It is quite impossible to summarize, say, a 500 page biography in 1000 words without making lots of choices--that is what or editors do all the time. Selecting poems of use to the reader is in the same category as selecting what facts to present, in my opinion. Rjensen (talk) 03:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * These excerpts from poems are poved, tho. For example, if you are picking salient facts from a 500 page book, these facts must be verifiable from other independent sources.174.3.123.220 (talk) 04:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If an editor boils down two different 500 page books into one 1000 word article, there is even more selectivity required--selection is what Wikipeduia is all about, it is not a POV. Rjensen (talk) 04:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * But the quotes have no explanation to their inclusion. They are jut boxed up in a corner.  We are left to guess why they are there.  Maybe the quotes could be introduced by prose saying, "This is a representative quote of (insert stage of Philip Larkin's life here):".  But if we include that, wouldn't that be pov?  If not, then original research?174.3.123.220 (talk) 05:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

To quote SlimVirgin above a general content policy is not the place to discuss specific content issues in depth Discuss this on the talk page of the article, as it seems to be primarily a content dispute. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * For questions, advice and assistance on how this policy should be applied to specific articles, ask at WP:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. Blueboar (talk) 15:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Should topic specific issues be discussed in a general policy
Comments requested as to whether it is appropriate for a broad policy to discuss issues that relate to only one specific topic area. There are currently two topic-specific sections in the NPOV policy that do this: WP:PSCI (relating only to pseudoscience) and WP:RNPOV (relating only to religion). It is proposed that these sections be removed. It is further proposed that the section on pseudoscience should be merged into WP:FRINGE. - Blueboar (talk) 19:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll kick this off by saying that I suspect two of the broadest areas with the most vociferous POV pushers are pseudoscience and religion, which are both fundamentally untestable belief based systems. If these are the areas which are causing editors the most trouble, many hours of strife may be saved by determining the WP approach in a single place - namely here. In this scenario, other areas of potential contention, such as commercial motivation, could also be sorted here. I wouldn't be opposed though to wikilinks to each problem area with brief directions from here. Stephen B Streater (talk) 21:39, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Stephen that brief directions from here may be warranted. We could mention a list of general trouble areas such as religion, pseudoscience, and biased terminology like "terrorism", as examples, with links to specialized sub-pages that deal with them, like WP:FRINGE and WP:WTA. But going beyond a mere mention on this page would clutter it with details, while inviting disagreements and instability. Crum375 (talk) 21:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I also agree with Stephen. We should not attempt to strip WP:NPOV of these two very helpful examples of NPOV as should it be applied at Wikipedia. People often have trouble understanding NPOV and without examples the policy could be interpreted to suit the editor – someone wanting to promote Reincarnation research as a serious scientific endeavor would read NPOV to suit their purpose, while someone wanting an opposite approach would argue that NPOV supports them. Johnuniq (talk) 00:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with these two improvements on my comments. Stephen B Streater (talk) 21:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - If you have not already done so... please read the previous discussions on this... starting a few threads up (with WT:NPOV) and continuing through several subsequent threads. It will explain what lead to this RFC, and give many of the arguments in favor of (and a few against) the idea. I don't think it is necessary to repeat them all again here. Blueboar (talk) 02:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I've been wading through all this stuff. Will revert if I discover anything which changes my mind. Also, happy that this discussion is focusing on the issues. Stephen B Streater (talk) 21:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose removal of fringe theories section. That points of view held by an extremely small minority don't belong in Wikipedia, should be in NPOV. The section on religion can be moved out. -- Rico  23:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Um... Rico, have you read the section in question? I don't think it says what you think it says. (And the section that comes closest to saying that is WP:UNDUE, which isn't under discussion.) Blueboar (talk) 02:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Support removal of the sections. First, it's not clear that they say anything. According to V, we can call views pseudoscientific if reliable sources do, and if not we can't; in addition, just because reliable sources say something doesn't mean we must repeat it, and that's something that can only be judged on a case-by-case basis, because it depends entirely on context, the quality and specificity of the sources, how many sources say it, and so on. Regarding the religion section, it could be summarized in one sentence, and that sentence would apply to all other topics. Secondly, the pseudoscience section comes straight from ArbCom, and while I have no problem linking to an ArbCom case, or repeating a decision in a behavioral policy, I'm not comfortable about quoting them at length in a content policy, and I doubt if the ArbCom intended to be so quoted. Finally, a general content policy is not the place to discuss specific content issues in depth; both the pseudoscience and religion sections would be more appropriate elsewhere, e.g. WP:FRINGE for pseudoscience. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 06:44, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Support removal of the sections. Needlessly duplicates content of other policy pages. Unomi (talk) 20:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

partly done
OK... I have moved the pseudoscience section to WP:FRINGE as per the suggestion. Before I remove the Religion section, we need to think... is there a home for it somewhere else... can we move it or should it be simply deleted? Blueboar (talk) 22:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for doing that, BB. As for religion, personally I think it could be deleted. I don't think it's making a point that isn't already elsewhere on the page in a more general form. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 05:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

And DONE

 * OK... given no reply indicating a desire to move the religion material to some other location, I have followed Slim Virgin's suggestion and simply cut it. I think we are done with this. Blueboar (talk) 02:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

-

about which there is no dispute
In the definition of a fact in WP:ASF, I don't think we mean "about which there is no dispute". Many facts are disputed (like evolution or the existence of the gas chambers); that doesn't stop us asserting them. --Kotniski (talk) 08:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The consensus version says: By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." This is correct. When there is no serious dispute and it is a fact we assert it. QuackGuru (talk) 17:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus version, but by coincidence I see I've restored the word "serious" as you wanted (without even noticing this comment). --Kotniski (talk) 18:15, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute."
 * The way the entire sentence was written before was better and was easier to understanding. Your rewrite makes no sense. QuackGuru (talk) 18:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you will find that 'about which there is no dispute' was in the original version that your text replaces. There is a difference between a fact that no-one disputes, and factual evidence that people put different interpretations on.  The gas chambers are an example of this - as you'll see if you read the next paragraph down. Elen of the Roads (talk) 08:40, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * So you think that every time an article mentions that people were gassed at Auschwitz, we have to mention also that some people deny that fact? Perhaps these minority views should be mentioned in the main article on the subject, but that shouldn't stop us from asserting the supermajority view as fact elsewhere.--Kotniski (talk) 08:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No. What you chopped out when you changed the article was that the thrust of this section was not distinguishing fact from opinion.  It was distinguishing that which could be asserted as beyond dispute from that which needed to be sourced and managed.  "Mars is a planet" is beyond dispute (even to those who still believe in the Crystal Spheres). "People were gassed at Auschwitz" is not beyond dispute, and therefore needs to be sourced and managed.  The counter view is of such a minority and fringe status that it need not be mentioned every single time (that certainly would fail WP:UNDUE), but it certainly cannot be asserted as a beyond-dispute-statement-that-everyone-is-familiar-with.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, so we're totally confused now. I thought this was about fact vs. opinion; you thought it was about fact-requiring-sources vs. fact-not-requiring-sources. Actually I think if you look at it, it's supposed to be the former (because that's what the bold sentence at the beginning says; and if it were the latter it wouldn't belong on this page anyway). But if it's confusing experienced editors, then it's certainly going to confuse newcomers, so probably needs a complete rewrite.--Kotniski (talk) 11:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Not arguing with your last sentence. I think the point it was trying to make that very few 'facts' are neutral, a lot of 'facts' can be presented in a way that supports one view or another (and not just in politics!!).  Therefore, only 'facts' that everyone knows and no-one disputes can be just asserted.  Everything else needs references, and recognition that it may be presented in more than one way. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Forcing changes without consensus to core Wikipedia policy is acceptable. These massive changes changed the meaning of ASF. I restored ASF to the last consensus version. ASF is not about fact-requiring-sources vs. fact-not-requiring-sources. It is about a fact v. an opinion. It is not about WP:V. QuackGuru (talk) 16:45, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Kotniski, I specifically rejected your suggestion to rewrite entire policy. Why are you rewriting ASF without a discussion first. QuackGuru (talk) 17:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem with your revert - the way the discussion above was going wasn't particularly helping to clarify things I feel (and I really explained things badly) Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:34, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The edit did not match the edit summary. The edit summary was surely this is what it's trying to say?. Kotniski deleted a significant part of ASF policy without explanation. QuackGuru (talk) 17:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Nonsense, I deleted a lot of empty guff. The sooner these stupid long, separate, meaningless pages are condensed into one sensisble and meaningful one, the better. Meanwhile, PLEASE don't make our life even harder by knee-jerk reverting when you don't even have a sensible reason.--Kotniski (talk) 18:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * No, you deleted a major part of ASF which changed the original meaning of ASF. You are continuing to force changes without consensus. See WP:CON.
 * Kotniski's edit summary was surely this is what it's trying to say?. But now Kotniski is saying I deleted a lot of empty guff without explantion for the strange edit. Kotniski, I know you deleted a massive amount of ASF policy but you never explained why you did it while you continued edit warring against consensus. Both Elen of the Roads and QuackGuru rejected the massive rewrite. QuackGuru (talk) 18:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm still waiting to hear any substantial objection to my new wording. (And please stop saying I deleted "policy"; I rewrote the policy to say the same thing in fewer words. Somebody has to.)--Kotniski (talk) 18:42, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm disappointed you did not revert your massive changes and deletion of text against established consensus. I explained my concerns in my previous edit but you ignored my concerns. The non-consensus version makes no sense. Again, please revert the incoherent changes to ASF policy. QuackGuru (talk) 18:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * All right, if it's consensus, then either revert it yourself or else someone else soon will. But I still don't udnerstand your objection - what do you find incoherent?--Kotniski (talk) 18:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I left this debate alone for a while, because there wasn't much take up of my idea of making it shorter. But Kotniski got it. Pages of subtle wording doesn't make good rules. Simple, clear - and brief - language does. ASF is supposed to be short and simple. The pages of description can go further down. Stephen B Streater (talk) 19:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Avoid cites for common knowledge;
 * Cite other facts;
 * Give appropriate balance and cites for opinions.
 * If we say that, more people will bother to read it and understand it. Stephen B Streater (talk) 19:04, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * By "fact" we mean an objective statement - there is a planet called Mars, Plato was a philosopher - about which there is no serious dispute. This sentence is confusing and mixes different points into one sentence. This is completely incoherent and nonsense. This is one of many problems the non-consensus changes made.
 * By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." This sentence clearly explained when there is no serious dispute we assert it as fact if it meets Wikipedia's definition of a fact.
 * I think it would be good faith editing if Kotniski took responsibity for the changes that Kotniski acknowledged does not have consensus. QuackGuru (talk) 19:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If we are into what people think, I think that people who make a proposal should not make the change. They have a conflict of interest when it comes to assessing consensus. In a true consensus, someone else would be willing to make the edit. However, in the case of mere acquiescence, there would be no change made, leaving the option open to form a true consensus. I have been burnt in the past by the difference between consensus and apathy. Stephen B Streater (talk) 19:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec) I'm not going to edit it any more today, so revert or leave it or whatever - or even better, cooperate by improving the text further. (But please consider what Stephen says about shorter being better.)--Kotniski (talk) 19:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * No specific response was made to my specfic objection to the actual text of non-consensus version. See WP:IDHT.
 * Kotniski deleted a massive amount of ASF policy but you never explained why you did it while Kotniski continued edit warring against consensus. Both Elen of the Roads and QuackGuru preferred the previous consensus version. QuackGuru (talk) 19:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Per POLICY, let's please seek community consensus before making unilaterally making changes which have not been posted to test for community agreement. BigK HeX (talk) 19:45, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Could someone put the two versions side by side, so we can clearly see what the differences are? Blueboar (talk) 20:04, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Dunno if it helps, but here's a diff. The first one is the new stuff, while the second one represents the older wording that appears to have been discussed above. BigK HeX (talk) 20:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Blueboar, I think you can get a better view from this angle. The editor claimed to rewrite ASF but deleted a lot of text. QuackGuru (talk) 01:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I get the sense that this discussion is off a little bit. I see no point to a discussion of fact vs. opinion - the distinction as such is irrelevant to Wikipedia, there are only views. I suspect that the cause of confusion here is that the issue (with fact) is not whether it is highly disputed, somewhat disputed, or accepted. I think the important issue is "by whom?" What makes evolution a "fact" is that all major biologists accept it. That matters. That fundamentalist Christians do not accept it matters too, which is why Wikipedia presents the article on creationism with the same neutraility as it presents the article on evolution. My point is, there are few if any "facts" that everyone in the world agree on. But there is a big difference between something that all biologists accept and no fundamentalist Christian accepts, and something that biologists are divided on, and fundamentalists are divided on. In short, we treat something as a fact when all the views we agree need to be represented in the article accept it as such. But it is still a view, it is just a view that is shared by all stakeholders in the given article. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 20:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That was what I was trying to explain (badly) above. It's not really talking about facts or opinions, its differentiating between matters that nobody will dispute (well OK, my dad might, but he's just like that) and matters that there is more than one view of any significance on. I actually think the current version does not benefit from calling the first 'fact' and the second 'opinion', because this extends the natural language usage of the word 'opinion'.  Equally, Kotnisky's version did not effectively distinguish what is assertable.  There are better definitions of that-which-does-not-need-citing in WP:V (or there was last time I looked). The nutshell version of this needs to say something different. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It is exactly this concept that makes me extremely uncomfortable with editing Wikipedia. Nowhere in in the sources I've provided on non-fiction writing does anyone claim that facts are just another form of opinion. Evolution is not a fact, no matter how many people believe in it. It's a theory, and any scientist worth his salt will be very careful to lable their theories as such. It is based on facts, such as fossile evidence and such, but cannot be proved.


 * Now if I write that a flashtube is usually powered by a capacitor, and someone tells me that's just my opinion, then I'm bound to get a little irrate. It is this kind of irrationality that I prefer to avoid, for I do not see how it can promote quality and accuracy. Zaereth (talk) 21:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually 'evolution' - the change in species over time - is a fact. It is the reasons given for why it happens (confoundingly also called 'evolution') that is the theory. But you are right. It is not unreasonable to ask for a citation to an obscure fact (the depth of the Marianas trench say), and that's not because it's an opinion, its to make sure you didn't just make it up; but it's maddening to ask for a citation that a blender is used to make soup.  At the same time, there are plenty of 'facts' out there that are really 'interpretations of the evidence', and while it can be a severe stretch of the word to refer to these as opinions, one does sometimes have to recognise that there are several interpretations to that piece of evidence. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:45, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The interpretations are opinions. The facts (evidence) themselves are not. That's my point. We can double check the evidence. Someone added to the Dogfight article that the term came from the noise made when WWI pilots would start and stop their engines during combat. While this was sourced, it was not reliably sourced. It was not hard to find sources indicating that WWI planes did not even have starters, and more sources showing the facts about the term without the needto speculate about why. Zaereth (talk) 22:03, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * So does everyone agree with my wording above? It's very concise, everyone will actually read it, and the long version can appear elsewhere. Stephen B Streater (talk) 22:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think everyone agrees with the wording above or the other wording above to eliminate the meaning of ASF. QuackGuru (talk) 01:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No I don't agree with those versions either. My version above is this. Stephen B Streater (talk) 07:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that it does by far read better. I tend to disagree that so-called common knowledge should not be cited. It's just as easy to do with blenders as it is with flashtubes. In fact, common knowledge is the easiest to cite. I'd hate to go to the blender article and find zero cites, because someone feels it is all common knowledge. I simply feel that a citation is not needed for every line, provided the information can be found in the same source. Perhaps a more specific example can show me why we should avoid using them. Zaereth (talk) 22:34, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The argument between Zaereth and Elen of the Roads (or anyone with a solid grounding in science) as to whether evolution is a fact or not demonstrates the wisdom of our NPOV policy quite nicely. Of course evolution is a fact, and Zaereth doesn't know what the difference is between a theory and an opinion. But ask Zaereth and she will say that I am the one who is full of crap. So we could go endlessly in circles, "I am write," "No, I am right" ... or we can comply with Wikipedia policy, specifically this one, NPOV, and say that there are just views. There is a consensus among scientists that evolution is a fact. Do you see what I have done? I have ascribed this view to the people who hold the view. And by implication it is now clear that we are talking about views, because at Wikipedia that is all there are, views held by different people. Scientists are of the view that evolution is a fact. Fundamentalists are of the view that it is an opinion. See my point? It doesn't matter whther we call it a fact or an opinion, because both of those are views. What does matter is identifying whose view, because depending on whose view we are talking about it is a fact, or an opinion. It is obviously both, in that diferent groups hold both views. If you cannot live with this, you do not belong at Wikipedia. Go find another soapbox. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 23:34, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I will please refer you to the reliable sources which I have provided on the subject of non-fiction writing, and I would ask you to provide sources which back up the views which you suggest. Do you wish me to list them again. Shall I provide more? Zaereth (talk) 00:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's ASF makes a distinction that there different views. One view is a fact an another view is an opinion. QuackGuru (talk) 01:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Are any of these reliable sources used in Wikipedia articles. I would like to see the sources along the ISBN numbers if availabe. QuackGuru (talk) 01:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Notification:The suggestion to completely rewrite or cut in half ASF seems to change (possibly even eliminate) the long-standing policies in the ASF section. If we're going to eliminate one of the purposes of WP:ASF, then I'd think it'd be worthy to have a broader discussion (probably a RFC) specifically on that topic first. So far no logical reason has been given to drastically change core ASF policy. QuackGuru (talk) 02:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Alternative formulation of the policy: assert facts, including facts about opinions--but don't assert opinions themselves

We sometimes give an alternative formulation of the nonbias policy: assert

facts, including facts about opinions--but don't assert opinions themselves.

By "fact," on the one hand, we mean "a piece of information about which

there is no serious dispute." In this sense, that a survey produced a

certain published result is a fact. That Mars is a planet is a fact.

That 2+2=4 is a fact. That Socrates was a philosopher is a fact. No one

seriously disputes any of these things. So Wikipedians can feel free to

assert as many of them as we can. By "opinion," on the other hand, we

mean "a piece of information about which there is some serious dispute."

There's bound to be borderline cases where we're not sure if we should

take a particular dispute seriously; but there are many propositions that

very clearly express opinions. That God exists is an opinion. That the

Beatles were the greatest rock and roll group is an opinion. That

intuitionistic logic is superior to ordinary logic is an opinion. That the

United States was wrong to drop the atomic bomb over Hiroshima and Nagasaki

is an opinion.

This is the first paragraph from early years Wikipedia policy when Larry Sanger was editing. QuackGuru (talk) 02:33, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins, a hard-headed scientist, in his book,  The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution, goes on at quite some length in his first chapter, titled "Only a theory", about treating a scientific theory as fact, quoting two senses of the word Theory from the OED: Theory, Sense 1: A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed.

Theory, sense 2: A hypothesis proposed as an explanation; hence, a mere hypothesis, speculation, conjecture; an idea or set of ideas about something; an individual view or notion. He goes on to name Heliocentrism and Evolution as two examples of theories where the Sense 1 definition applies.

I saw a WP talk page remark recently saying that in the statement "When a gold-leaf electroscope is charged, the leaves separate because the like charges on the two leaves cause them to repel one another.", the portion prior to the word because is fact, and the rest is scientific opinion. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes. Exactly. Newton's theory of gravity is an opinion. The laws of gravity are facts. Everything that answers the what, the where, the when, the who, and the how are facts. Everything else is an opinion. Thank you Wtmitchell.


 * To QuackGuru, I have no clue if these sources have been used on Wikipedia. Here they are:


 * 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
 * Reading and writing nonfiction genres By Kathleen Buss, Lee Karnowski
 * Literary journalism in the twentieth century By Norman Sims
 * Philosophy of scientific method by John Stuart Mill,


 * I have no clue what an ISBN is, (unless this is fighter pilot talk, I don't speak in acronyms). I can provide the copyright dates and publishers. I can even provide a link to google itself, if needed. Zaereth (talk) 05:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Which Wikipedia article(s) these references can be used for building article content. QuackGuru (talk) 05:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Which Wikipedia article(s) these references can be used for building article content. QuackGuru (talk) 05:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Which Wikipedia article(s) these references can be used for building article content. QuackGuru (talk) 05:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

This isn't helped by dividing the material between three separate pages (NPOV, V, NOR). But whatever it is we want to say, we need to say it clearly. As far as my edit goes, as far as I can tell no-one's actually raised any objections to it - it doesn't change the substance of what was written, just makes it shorter and clearer (though doubtless it could be further improved). In fact I think we should tear up these three pages as currently written, since there is no agreement among editors even on what they mean (and hence they are quite unhelpful and misleading to the newcomers for whom they are intended), and work on writing something clear that all reasonable editors will understand and agree on. But meanwhile, I think those of you who revert changes just because they "need consensus" (and without specifying what objection you have to them) have no idea how Wikipedia works. That attitude is probably responsible for the pitiful state these pages have got into - incomprehensible text isn't allowed to be touched because it's sacred, so eventually such text overruns the whole page. (OK it's not all that bad, but really, this is one of the most key policies, and there shouldn't be anything unclear or meaningless on the page.)--Kotniski (talk) 05:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * No specific response was made to my specfic objection to the actual text of the incomprehensible version.
 * Kotniski deleted a massive amount of ASF policy but you never explained why you did it while Kotniski continued edit warring against consensus. Both Elen of the Roads and QuackGuru preferred the previous consensus version. I did have a specific objection and no response was made. The consensus version is very clear. QuackGuru (talk) 05:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I still don't understand your objection. Is it that you prefer "piece of information" over "objective statement"? (If so, that can be easily remedied without reverting the whole thing.) And please stop claiming there is a consensus version - this discussion shows that there is not even a common understanding of what this issue is, let alone a common position, and still less an agreed way of putting it into words.--Kotniski (talk) 06:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * By "fact" we mean an objective statement - there is a planet called Mars, Plato was a philosopher - about which there is no serious dispute. This sentence is confusing and mixes different points into one sentence. This is completely incoherent and nonsense. Inserting objective and in the middle adding Mars and Plato is strange and confusing.
 * By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." There is not a problem with this sentence and you are unable to provide a reasonable objection to this sentence. QuackGuru (talk) 06:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * All right, I don't object to that sentence (though I think using the word "objective" will make it immediately understandable to many readers; however I don't insist). Do you have any other objections to what I changed?--Kotniski (talk) 06:17, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I objected to the massive text deletion and rewrite. You have not explained your objection to any specific sentence. Can you tell us why you are against core ASF policy. you want to completely rewrite policy but never gave a specific reason. The current elaborated version is very clear. The shortened version is confusing and vague.
 * That would be confusing to insert the word objective. Editors are working in another thread on two separate sentences to explain the difference between an objective observation and a subjective interpretation. QuackGuru (talk) 06:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The point of the section is to inform new readers of the sort of thing they should be doing, not to try and specify every action in every case. How about a new section, perhaps called A simple formulation, which looks like this. The detailed version being discussed here could then be added below by means of explanation for those who need it. We could fix the wording common knowledge to take into account Zaereth's point, but this gist is that referencing every trivial facts clutters up articles. Stephen B Streater (talk) 07:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You seem to want to take this in another direction. As I understand it, this isn't supposed to be about citing vs. not citing, it's about the facts we state directly vs. the opinions we state only indirectly. The fact that you and others have interpreted it as being something to do with citing (which belongs on another page, not WP:NPOV) is evidence of how unclear the present version is, and a good reason to include words like "objective" that make it clear what we're talking about. Or we should give examples of facts that aren't trivially obvious (like Mars being a planet).--Kotniski (talk) 08:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes - the whole section seems overlong and complicated. As you say, my solution is to a different problem. If we take the citing part out of my proposal, it's even shorter:
 * State information which is common knowledge;
 * Give appropriate balance where opinions differ.
 * Is this the nub of what we are trying to achieve? Stephen B Streater (talk) 09:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't put it in quite those words - most information in Wikipedia isn't "common knowledge".--Kotniski (talk) 09:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we can find the right words then. We could try "uncontroversial", "obviously true", "easily verifiable so no verification is required here". Perhaps "uncontroversial in the area" would be best, since an article about a subject should only need to provide cites for things that someone with a passing knowledge of the subject would like to check. An article about planets wouldn't need to say that Mars was a planet because it's well known in planet circles. Stephen B Streater (talk) 09:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

New section (for ease of use - do read the above thread if you've just arrived)
I think we're getting in a tangle because we're not thinking about why we are referring to common knowledge. It's not because its easily verifiable, it's because it is beyond dispute. The whole thrust of ASF is that unless something is beyond dispute, the article must retain an overall neutral approach to presenting the information, because there will be differing views (I'm favouring Slrubenstein on this - I don't think differentiating between 'fact' and 'opinion' is particularly helpful). Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

So perhaps something like:-

Some article content is common knowledge - water is wet, for example - and can just be stated. However, for most subjects, the likelihood is that there is more than one view on them. Editors must be careful not to represent their view as if it were the only view (the Flailing Hairnets are the best band to come out of Swindon in years). Articles must present a neutral point of view, and this means being clear about where the view presented comes from and how well established is (a poll in NME voted the Flailing Hairnets the best band to come out of Swindon in years), and including information on alternative views when these exist (in Radio 6 'Band of the Month' polls, listeners voted the Flailing Hairnets sixth in three consecutive months).

It can then go on to advice on
 * how to present alternative views
 * how much weight to give to views
 * the importance of references

etcElen of the Roads (talk) 11:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that for most subjects there is more than one view. At least, not for the subjects we address in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is full of facts; most of them are not the subject of dispute, but most of them are not common knowledge either (if they were, we wouldn't need Wikipedia). There are also opinions that may not be the subject of serious dispute ("Hitler was a bad man"), but we just don't make that sort of statement in the encyclopedia, however universally held they are.--Kotniski (talk) 11:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Then you don't do much editing of political or historical articles. Take a  simple examples, the name of the Irish state. -- PBS (talk) 10:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Zaereth still does not understand the difference between theory and fact. The view that the empirical observation is the fact and the interpretation of it is the opinion or theory goes back to 1950s debates in epistemology which have since been rejected by philosophers and quite a few scientists.  The real issue here is that Wikipedia is not the place to forward or views on epistemology or metaphysics.  NPOV is about a framework that enable editors who think other editors are completely wrong to be able to work together.  let's keep our eyes on the ball, folks. Pragmatically, I agree that a fact is something everyone agrees on.  By "everone" all that matters is everyone editing an article.  If all editors agree, there is no point to go into detail sourcing the view.  This of course can change at any time in a new editor becomes active and rejects the so-called fact.  As soon as there is a conflict on the talk page, or an edit war, it is obviously the most sensible thing to consider that there may be two views.  Then the first question is, is the second view fringe.  If it is fringe, it can be discounted.  If it is minority, even a small minority, the article has to be rewritten to provide both views.  The second part of the clause, "including opinions about facts," would be much clearer if we wrote, "Views should be presented about views.  Many of the views presented in Wikipedia are views about facts."


 * No one is trying to rewrite policy, except Zaereth who states explicitly on her talk page that her goal is to change policy. My goal is on the contrary to defend NPOV. And my intention in this discussion is simply to make this passage of the NPOV policy worded in a way that is (1) clearer and (2) more consistent with Wikipedia policy. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 11:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Quite. I disagree with Kotniski that for most subjects there is only one view (Kotniski is obviously wise, and never spends time on Administrator boards), but regardless of whether they are few or many, the nub is that if there is more than one view, editors must work together to represent them appropriately. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:42, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Second attempt: Some article content is common knowledge. Other content is not disputed - all the sources give the same answer. However, where there is more than one view on the content, editors must be careful not to represent their view as if it were the only one, or insist that their view should be the only one in the article. Articles must present a neutral point of view, and this means being clear about where the view you want to present comes from, how well established is, and what the alternative views are. Reliable sources should be used, as well as talkpage discussion, to ensure that overall the article has a balanced presentation of all the views.

I'd then give a list of do's and don'ts, rather than paragraphs of information. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I think that's getting close. But "common knowledge" and "not disputed" don't need to be distinguished here, I think - that's for other policies. Wikipedia content should consist of facts which are (or could be if necessary) confirmed by reliable sources. Some of these facts concern people's views. We have a potential neutrality problem when (a) different sources give conflicting statements of fact; or (b) there are conflicting views that potentially could be reported. Then we have to get the balance right. In fact what you propose writing seems reasonable (though I wouldn't include "as well as talkpage discussion" - this is about what we want to achieve, not the process for achieving it).--Kotniski (talk) 12:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I have been trying my best to read the above, but may have still missed something crucial. As far as I see it, we should not distinguish, or even try to define, "fact" or "opinion". From WP's point of view, per WP:V and WP:NOR, anything which we write must be attributable to a reliable source. If anything is challenged or likely to be challenged, or quoted, we must cite an inline source. If the material is the common view by all reliable sources, i.e. "asserted", then it generally needs no attribution, though it still needs to be attributable. If the material is contentious, there should be in-text attribution, i.e. "X says Y". Other cases can have just an inline citation as appropriate. I think trying to add definitions of "facts" and "opinions" only adds unnecessary confusion. Crum375 (talk) 13:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think we're sliding towards that. How's this

Where there is more than one view on the content of an article, editors must be careful not to represent their view as if it were the only one, or insist that their view should be the only one in the article. Articles must present a neutral point of view, and this means being clear about where the view you want to present comes from, how well established is, and what the alternative views are. Reliable sources should be used to ensure that overall the article has a balanced presentation of all the views.

Do not
 * Add content which cannot be verified
 * Add your own opinion to an article (I think Elvis is King)
 * Present your opinion, or anyone else's opinion, as if it were a fact (Elvis IS King)
 * Crowd-source content (everybody knows that Elvis is King)
 * Be vague about whose view you are reporting - in Wikipedia, this is called weasel words (Some say he eats only hamburgers)
 * Report the views held by the fringe, or by a tiny minority, as if they are mainstream (It is widely believed that Elvis isn't dead)
 * Give undue weight to just one aspect of the subject (Elvis's poor diet probably contributed to his death, but this does not justify twenty paragraphs on his eating habits)
 * Cherry-pick information to suit your own viewpoint
 * Remove opposing views from an article, or edit war to keep your perspective in the article

Do
 * Ensure that if a dispute should arise, you have a reliable source for anything that you want to add
 * Show clearly when you are reporting on a particular view, and be clear about whose view it is (Rolling Stone Magazine has proclaimed Elvis "the king of Rock and Roll")
 * Give appropriate weight to different views. If there are several recognised theories, they should be given equal treatment. If there is a recognised minority view, it needs to be referred to.
 * Avoid fringe views in mainstream articles. An article on the Pyramids may need to represent the views of several Egyptologists, but there is no need to include the theory that they were built by spacemen.
 * Accurately represent sources - if the source supports a view, but also contains some criticism, you should cover both aspects.
 * Ask other editors to provide sources if you disagree with what they have added

More could be said, I'm sure Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think this "do and don't" list is good, though it's more than just NPOV &mdash; it seems to cover all of our sourcing policies. Which brings us back to WP:ATT, which should have included all of them in the first place. Crum375 (talk) 14:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the key point here is that the distinction between fact and opinion is meaningless at Wikipedia, and this part of the policy should be rewritten to get rid of the distinction. We just have views.  Philosopher Ian Hacking (I think that is his name) argued in his book on the social construction of facts that a fact is just somethign everyone takes for granted in order to talk about other things.  That is one reason I think that all we have is views - some views everyone takes for granted, some views are accepted but not taken for granted, some views are accepted by some but not all, etc. The difference is not in the view, but in the weight different people or groups of people give that view. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 14:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree fully. Any distinction between "fact" and "opinion" is artificial and controversial, and adds nothing but confusion to our policies. We need to summarize material written by others, and cite the sources as appropriate. Whether we characterize something as "fact", "opinion", or "truth" doesn't matter, as long as it's attributed or attributable to a reliable source. Crum375 (talk) 14:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What I've tried to do above is just focus on POV, and listed the things that people do because they have a POV and don't know how to edit Wikipedia, but Crum375 is right, it would help if all the policies were tied together better, as POV-warriors also rubbish other people's sources, ignore sources, and do other things that are violations of more policies than just NPOV Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * While I believe the point has merit, I think to suggest that there can be no distinction between "fact" and "opinion" is slightly overstated. Discussing things like "who," "where," "when," and the physical sequences of events that occur would involve "facts."  Superlatives would be on the "opinion" side.  Of course, it is the gray area in between that we are focusing on today.  On that matter, I would submit that there are an infinity of commonly-accepted assertions that have no backing RS.  BigK HeX (talk) 15:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think there's a pretty clear distinction between objective facts and subjective judgements, even if it's fuzzy at the edges. I think everyone can see the difference between "Nazis killed Jews" and "Nazis were evil". The sources will agree on both statements; Wikipedia can directly state only the first.--Kotniski (talk) 15:58, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I would agree (with BigK HeX), and I think this is one of the reasons that the NPOV page makes so much reference to citation, because the call for a source should make it clear whether we are dealing with a fact or an opinion. A lot of NPOV issues arise in areas where there are few facts and a lot of opinions, so how to convey information that is not pin-downable should be part of this page.However, going back in the historical record, one quickly finds the facts evaporating, and where and when becomes far harder to pin down than one would imagine. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:02, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Any material added to Wikipedia articles must be attributable, which means it must have been published by a reliable source. We don't care if the material in question is a "fact", "opinion", "idea", or anything else. If it is attributable, we may include it, otherwise we may not, assuming it is neutrally presented, does not violate WP:UNDUE or WP:SYN, and does not otherwise fail some content policy like BLP. Because the "fact" vs. "opinion" characterization has no impact on the material's includability on WP, focusing on these distinctions, whatever they may be, only adds confusion. Crum375 (talk) 16:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

@Kotniski, it is surprising how often what one thinks of as 'fact' turns out to be no such thing. Documents are missing, eyewitness testimonies are contradictory, governments are suspected of doctoring figures, maps are misleading, instructions are vague. No-one can agree with 'factual' certainty on the governmental status of Gibralter (just go look at the talk page - it got so violent it ended at ArbCom). How can that be? Because there are two absolutely rock solid reliable sources (the UN and the UK Government) that contradict each other.Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I very much agree with Crum, in that fact versus opinion makes no distinction about inclusion. However, if anyone cares to look at the sources I've provided, I'm sure you'll find that the distinction is about accuracy and neutrality.


 * Slrubenstein, if you think I don't know anything about science, please go to the articles on which I've worked and revert anything I've done. Start with the liquid article. Glass, glass transition, laser pumping, mangalloy, basic fighter maneuvers, dye laser, ruby laser. As I've stated many times, I have no intention of making any changes to policy myself. I'm merely pointing out a reason why Wikipedia cannot elevate itself to the level of reliable source. I am still blown away by some of the stuff that passes for common knowledge around here. I try to correct these with reliable sources, but if you feel the version of the flashtube article was better of before I arrived, then please go make the revert. I will not edit war, but you may be in for a surprise when you start working with actual scientists. Zaereth (talk) 16:50, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Verifiability supercedes fact and opinions

 * Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves.

A few editors seem to not understand what this sentence means. It has nothing at all to do with WP:V. It is about attributing to so-and-so said. It is about asserting a fact without in-text attribution and for an opinion do not assert it but instead use in-text attribution when there is a serious dispute. In-text attribution is not V. In-text attribution is so-and-so said. This is a case by case basis for each article and not set in stone. Although this policy is not specifically about V controversial text still must ber verified.

This is a proposal for Facts and opinions (ASF): "In Wikipedia most facts, except the most obvious ones - like “Mars is a planet” and “Plato was a philosopher” - must be verified through a reliable source regardless if it is a truthful statement." If editors want to include information about V to avoid confusion we can include this sentence. I made this proposal based on this comment. QuackGuru (talk) 16:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I absolutely disagree with this. On Wikipedia we do not distinguish between facts, opinions, ideas or any other material added to an article. All material must be attributable to a reliable source. Dwelling on these distinctions, whatever they might be, only adds confusion. Crum375 (talk) 16:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree with Crum375. We got in a complete tangle with this obvious facts malarkey - it's nothing to do with NPOV whatsoever, and is of no help on the NPOV page. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

On Wikipedia we most certainly do distinguish between facts and opinions. If you disagree then you want to eliminate core ASF policy. Attributable to a reliable source and in-text attribution are different points. Do you understand there is a difference or are you thoroughly confused. QuackGuru (talk) 16:42, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * QuackGuru - I am certain that I am not allowed to state my own opinion in a Wikipedia article, or doctor the article so it only reflects my opinion. What I am saying is that your 'ASF policy' is a mess.  Indeed, it isn't a policy at all.  It's wedged in on the NPOV page (NPOV is a policy) without any clear indication of why or how it relates to NPOV.  What does Mars being a planet mean in terms of my POV?  Many facts need interpretation - the POV lies in the interpretation, and that is what the NPOV policy has to deal with. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * What your saying is not about ASF. Please tell us what is the difference between attributable to a reliable source and in-text attribution. QuackGuru (talk) 16:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec) There is no "ASF" policy. The ASF section in NPOV is an island of confusion, which doesn't say anything intelligible. At best it repeats what's already in NPOV and other policies. All material on WP must be attributable to a reliable source. An inline citation is required if the material is challenged, or likely to challenged, or a quote. An in-text attribution is recommended if the material is contentious. There is no need to classify material into categories of "fact", "fiction", "truth", "opinion", "idea" or whatever. All such classifications do is add confusion among editors. Crum375 (talk) 16:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with this as well. Wikipedia does not make a distinction about fiction, and that certainly does make it easier doesn't it? Zaereth (talk) 17:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * At best it repeats what's already in NPOV and other policies? I cannot find any other section or policy that is similar to ASF.
 * An inline citation is required if the material is challenged, or likely to challenged, or a quote. An inline citation is a reference.
 * An in-text attribution is recommended if the material is contentious. An in-text attribution is so-and-so said.
 * There is difference between attributable to a reliable source and in-text attribution. ASF is about facts (in-text attribution not required) and opinions (in-text attribution is recommended). QuackGuru (talk) 17:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Can we be clear about this. Those who are saying we don't distinguish between facts and opinions would be quite happy with stating, without any "so-and-so said", that (say) "The Nazis were evil". Is that right?--Kotniski (talk) 17:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * No, it's not right. See my replies elsewhere, but for anything contentious we recommend in-text attribution, and a direct quote if very contentious. So "Nazis are evil" would be controversial and should include a direct quotation and in-text attribution. Crum375 (talk) 17:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * And what makes it contentious? Is it not the fact that it's a subjective judgement rather than an objective statement? (Because I'm sure a greater percentage of sources say it than the percentage that say that life evolved.)--Kotniski (talk) 17:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * No, because one man's "objective" is another's "subjective". What makes a piece of material contentious is that editors on the page think so, by consensus and common sense. Trying to nail it down further in a policy would be legislating common sense. Crum375 (talk) 17:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I also agree with this first sentence, Crum. please read Philosophy of scientific method. There is no objectivity. There is only "accuracy and fairness without bias." however, I very much disagree that editors should decide what is contentious in the world. Doing so is directly placing our own values into an article. Reliable source should decide what is or is not contentious. Who are we to decide? We should simply list all sides of an opinion, and accurately report the facts. Zaereth (talk) 17:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The editors can look at the sources and decide if there is any disagreement among them. That disagreement would constitute "contention". Or, if some editors think that, based on the available sources, something is black and others think it's white, that's also contention. In other words, unless we and the sources are in complete agreement, the matter is contentious. To decide how contentious it is, we still need consensus and common sense. Crum375 (talk) 17:50, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * If you take the word "we" out of that "in other words" sentence, and let the sources agree or disagree, then I will go along with that. I will not discount the value of consensus and common sense. However, we must not lose one to gain the other, as is the definition of groupthink. There seems to be a fear of reliable sources here, which puzzles me. In my view, they should be first and foremost. Zaereth (talk) 18:02, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, the sources are "first and foremost". All we (the editors) are doing is summarizing them in a neutral fashion. If one source says black, and the other white, there is controversy. But to judge how much controversy there is, which source is more reliable, and how to present them fairly, properly weighted by their relative reliability and acceptance by the mainstream, we use our own editorial common sense and consensus. Crum375 (talk) 18:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Quack, you are just repeating the same words, but they don't make any sense (at least to me, and I suspect others). As I noted above, all material must be attributable. If it is challenged or likely to be challenged, it requires an inline citation. If it's controversial, we recommend an in-text attribution, and a direct quote if very controversial. There is no need for any classification into "facts", "opinions", or anything else. Unnecessary classifications and definitions just add confusion. Crum375 (talk) 17:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You claimed "At best it repeats what's already in NPOV and other policies." What other policy or section repeats ASF.
 * If it's controversial, we recommend an in-text attribution. It is classified as an opinion when it is a controversial statement. When it is an opinion then we can use in-text attribution. A non-controversial statement that is not disputed is a fact. Not having a clear definition for facts and opinions will add to the confusion. If you think a controversial statement shouldn't be classified as an opinion then what do you propose we do with ASF. Delete core ASF policy? QuackGuru (talk) 17:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec) There is no "ASF core policy". There is some ASF mumbo-jumbo in the NPOV policy which adds nothing that I can see to NPOV and the other policies. The distinction into "fact", "opinion", "idea", or anything else is irrelevant for Wikipedia sourcing policies. I repeat, since it's not getting through: all material must be attributable. If it is challenged or likely to be challenged, it requires an inline citation. If it's controversial, we recommend an in-text attribution, and a direct quote if very controversial. The classification into "opinion", "fact", "idea" or any other category, does not play a role in our sourcing requirements and only adds confusion. Crum375 (talk) 17:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * There is clearly "ASF core policy". The distinction into "fact" versus an "opinion" is relevant for Wikipedia's inline-text attribution (so-and-so says). For a fact is not required to attribute (so-and-so says) to a source. No, I did not say it is not required that facts should not be attributable to a source. All material must be attributable is about V policy. If it is challenged or likely to be challenged, is a separate issue and not what ASF is about. However, a "fact" versus an "opinion" does not change the role in our sourcing requirements. There is a difference between inline citations and in-text attribution. ASF and V policies remain separate and distinct. QuackGuru (talk) 19:58, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * There is no "ASF core policy", and it seems to me you are simply confused. All material must be attributable to a reliable source. Challenged material, or material likely to be challenged, must include an inline reference. Contentious material should normally include in-text attribution. More controversial material should be quoted. All quotes require inline sources. That's it. There is no ASF needed for any for that. There is no distinction between "opinion", "fact", or "idea" or any other label. Adding these distinctions only adds confusion with no benefit. Crum375 (talk) 20:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * There is "ASF core policy", and it seems you are missing the point.
 * "All material must be attributable to a reliable source. Challenged material, or material likely to be challenged, must include an inline reference." An inline reference is not the point ASF policy makes and ASF is not about V. ASF policy explains when in-text attribution (so-and-so) is recommended or not required.
 * ASF policty does make a distinction between "opinions" and "facts", and avoids confusion with huge benefit such as on alternative medicine articles where there are disputes. QuackGuru (talk) 21:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * ASF is not a policy. It is some unintelligible words embedded inside NPOV policy which create confusion and help nothing. If the added material is controversial, it needs in-text attribution. If it's more controversial, a quote from the source may be needed. Nothing to do with "facts", "fiction", "opinions", "truth" or "consequences". Crum375 (talk) 21:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * To avoid confusion maybe we can explain how ASF and V are different. QuackGuru (talk) 21:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Quack. Do you want to say "all controversial material must be cited" or "don't add opinions as if they were Gospel"? It doesn't matter whether you call it a fact or a teapot - if someone disputes the information it requires a citation, if Gordon Brown says Labour are the greatest, I can't put "labour are the greatest" in the article. "Show clearly when you are reporting on a particular view, and be clear about whose view it is " (quoting myself) would appear to cover it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't want to say that in ASF. After reading what other editors are saying I think ASF should stick to facts and opinions. QuackGuru (talk) 19:58, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * So this whole thing can be summed up as "if you want to include information that is someone's opinion, you must say something like "according to Gordon Brown, Labour are the greatest." Didn't we already say this? Why are you saying that we want to do away with this, and what does Mars being a planet have to do with it? Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * This whole thing cannot be summed up with a few sentences. When editors are saying ASF is mumbo jumbo or deleting large portions of ASF policy then I assume editors are against ASF. Mars is a planet is a fact. We don't need so-and-so says phrases for obvious facts. QuackGuru (talk) 20:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * There are no "facts" or "opinions" on Wikipedia, only bits of information, which we call "material". If all sources agree that Mars is a planet, then unless it's challenged, it would require no attribution, but would still need to be attributable (i.e. we should have a source handy in case it's challenged). If recent sources say that Pluto is not a planet, it's likely to be challenged by someone, so we need to attribute that statement via inline citation. If some lone scientist argues that Pluto is still a planet, we'd need in-text attribution, because that's more controversial. If someone claims Pluto has life, and other sources disagree, we may need to quote his words. No ASF needed, simply a gauging of the level of controversy or challenge by editors. The presentation format should be as follows: no challenge, and no likelihood of a challenge, only attributability is needed; a challenge, a likelihood of a challenge or a quote, inline citation is needed; contentious material needs in-text attribution; and very controversial material may need a quotation from the source. No need to classify things into "fact", "fiction", "truth", "idea", "opinion" or any other category. Just judge the contentiousness or controversy level of the material to decide on the presentation format, but everything must be attributable to a reliable source. Crum375 (talk) 21:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * An inline citation is for WP:V. An in-text attribution is for WP:ASF. These are different policies. There is no need to confound two policies. QuackGuru (talk) 21:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In-text attribution is needed to present any controversial material. Even more controversial material may need a direct quote from the source. There is no need to define "facts", "opinions", "ideas" or any other categories to explain that. There is no need for any confusing ASF section. Crum375 (talk) 21:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Editors at chiropractic think adding an unttributed controversial opinion as fact is okay as long as it is sourced according to ASF. QuackGuru (talk) 21:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sourcing requirement is specified by WP:V and WP:NOR, not ASF. You seem to be very confused about our policies. If something is challenged, it must be attributed by an inline citation. If it's controversial, an in-text attribution is recommended. Crum375 (talk) 21:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * What do you think I am confused about. I am not confused about Wikipedia policies. Other editors at chiropractic think an unttributed controversial opinion as fact is okay as long as it is sourced according to ASF. I think if it is challenged, it must be attributed using an an inline citation and then if it's controversial, an in-text attribution (so-and-so says) is recommended. But V and ASF policies are different. QuackGuru (talk) 21:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Are there any specific examples you can maybe construct where this would actually alter anything from standard practice? This seems like the distinctions here may be hair splitting. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The debate at chiropractic has spilled over to NPOV policy guidelines. Editors continue to violate ASF, Weight, and Consensus. See Talk:Chiropractic. Editors think inline citation is attributable per WP:ASF. I am not splitting hairs. I am pulling my hairs! QuackGuru (talk) 21:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You should take a step back and read the policies. There is no "ASF policy" or "ASF violation". If you want to add that the moon is made of green cheese, first find a reliable source. Then, gauge the controversy level: if it's high (as in this case), use in-text attribution. If it's very high (as in this case), use a direct quote. That's all there is to it. Since everything must be attributable, the issue is only the presentation format. Of course the above assumes you meet WP:UNDUE and all other relevant policies. Crum375 (talk) 21:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think it is okay to add an unttributed controversial opinion as fact as long as it is sourced? QuackGuru (talk) 21:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't understand your question. If we add material which is not challenged or likely to be challenged, no source attribution is needed, but it must still be attributable, i.e. a source must be presented when challenged. If the material is controversial, a source must be provided via in-text attribution. "Fact" or "opinion" has nothing to do with our sourcing requirements. Crum375 (talk) 21:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * "Fact" or "opinion" has nothing to do with our sourcing requirements but at chiropractic unttributed controversial opinion is a fact as long as it is sourced. Editors at chiropractic think attributable to the source meets ASF. QuackGuru (talk) 21:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * This is still the presentation issue, nothing else. The Guild of Chiropractors says that chiropracty can cure...asthma, or erectile dysfunction, or something.  There's been a recent court case over someone criticising them for it.  If someone puts in the article "chiropracty can cure asthma" and sources to the GoC, that is a fail on so many levels that it in no way requires your alleged policy to deal with it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec) The confusion stems from "meeting ASF" which is a confusing jumble of words. You need to meet WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE, and WP:BLP if there are living persons involved. If somebody says X, and X is controversial and challenged, it should be first decided if X meets WP:V and WP:SOURCES. If so, it should then be tested for WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. If it passes these tests, but it's still controversial, it should be presented via in-text attribution, properly balanced with any notable conflicting views. The mainstream view should always be presented most prominently. Crum375 (talk) 22:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The edit summary says it's attributed. It's attributed to the chiropractic source, Chapman-Smith. Don't you know who he is? He's the next-to-the-top dog in the profession. It's his statement.
 * An unattributed controversial opinion is a fact as long as it is sourced? Editors at chiropractic think it is attributed in accordance with WP:ASF and deleting notable conflicting views is WP:NPOV. QuackGuru (talk) 22:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Sound of head thumping on desk. You don't need this mythical ASF to deal with a situation where editors are deleting notable conflicting views.  The whole thrust of the bloody NPOV policy is that you DONT delete notable conflicting views.  It doesn't matter how they want to say it, if there is a notable alternative view, the article has to reflect it.  I think you are just confusing the matter.  If Chapman Smith has said that chiropractors can raise the dead, and the General Medical Council has said that they can't, then WP:NPOV is clear that the article has to find some way of representing both positions.Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * As Elen says, and WP:UNDUE has to be met too. Crum375 (talk) 22:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * So what do I do now when an editor claims an unattributed controversial opinion can be asserted as fact as long as it is attributed to the source and thinks the lead does not have to present notable conflicting views. QuackGuru (talk) 22:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * GROAN! I had totally forgotten about that. Discussing with QG is very frustrating and I sometimes just flee the scene to keep my sanity, leaving others to discuss with him and clear things up, IF it's at all possible. The endlessly repetitive discussions, failures to answer questions, his repetitious use of links to his old arguments (from two minutes before on the same page!) instead of dealing with current questions,..... all of that makes it nearly impossible to deal with him. A "straight answer" isn't in his vocabulary. IF this really needs my input, I'll deal with it, but only after QG has gotten this obsession with ASF out of his head and other, more reasonable editors, participate. Dealing with him alone is pointless. Notify me if I'm really needed. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Start at WP:NPOVN which is specifically for reporting NPOV issues. If he's edit warring to maintain his version, you could report him for it. You could start an RfC. Or try WP:FTN if the view he is promoting is at all fringe. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I would like a RFC started at Talk:Chiropractic. QuackGuru (talk) 23:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Wait a minute...the guy you're wrangling with is Brangifer? Believe me, he is NOT going to be letting anyone get away with asserting opinion as fact.  In fact, having looked at the argument on the talkpage, you seem to be doing what you're doing here - using English in a very peculiar way so nobody can work out what on earth you are saying.  Also, you are editing with a tremendous POV of your own.  Can I just say "get outta here" and recommend that you stop trying to rewrite this page to support your own confused position.Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Crum375 seems to have a clear and consistent understanding of Wikipedia policy, and frankly, i do not understand many of the comments others have made. Above, Zaereth (who I am sure has made countless good edits to the encyclopedia) wrote, "A fact is information that can be verified or documented. It is known to be true. On the other hand, opinions are personal beliefs, views, or judgements." This is simply not true. Yes, facts can be verified. But so can opinions. It is verifiable that Ronald Reagan thought the Soviet Union evil. It is verifiable that George Bush thought Iran, Iraq, and North Korea evil. The distinction is not between one thing that can be verified and one thing that cannot be verified, the difference is between something that may verifiably be claimed by only one person, and another thing that is claimed by all members of the AAAS, and another thing that is claimed by all human beings.

Above, Quack pushes the following absurd policy: "In Wikipedia most facts, except the most obvious ones - like “Mars is a planet” and “Plato was a philosopher” - must be verified through a reliable source regardless if it is a truthful statement." This is not our policy, and if you think it is fixing something, I tell you, it is not broken. According to our Vpolicy, all views in Wikipedia must be verifiable - not verified, but verifiable or as Crum correctly put it, "attributable." Now, which views actually must be verivied? Controversial ones. Controversial where? Well, on the article talk page. The only practical way forward is if we take the people participating on the talk page to represent a community of people with overlapping intrerests and knowledge. If there is something NONE of them consider controversial, it will naturally be added to or remain in the article without a citation. it has to be possible to find a citation, but no one has to. One day someone comes and deltes something saying it is wrong. Yes, they can even delete the sentence, Plato was a philosopher. Suddenly it is controversial. Well, now you have to provide a citation (if it is so obvious, it should be very easy to find a reliable source). If the new editor still claims Plato was not a philosopher, you don't say "Go away!" You follow our policy: ask that person to present a reliable source. If she does, we rewrite the article, to include both (even though they contradict) views: Some say Plato was a philosopher (lots of cites), some say he was not (some cites) or whatever. Thi sis how it works and Quack's proposed policy only takes a clear an dsimple to follow rule and turns it into something that will promote confusion and conflict.

There is no policy on facts and opinions. There is an NPOV policy and this paragraph was added to try to explain it. Whoever wrote it did not do a great job, thus all the wasted electrons here. Delete it, revise it, but let's stick to our actual policies, NPOV and V: verifiability, not truth, and all significant views from reliable sources go in. These are principles all can follow. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 23:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Applauds! There is no need for this ASF. There is a need to emphasise that articles must present a rounded picture, not just one aspect, not only the view of one nation, not an entrenched view etc etc Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Elen of the Roads, you claim I want to rewrite ASF policy when all along you are one one who wants to rewrite or eliminate ASF policy.
 * Slrubenstein, if you think there is no policy on facts and opinions then I suggest you see Neutral point of view. QuackGuru (talk) 23:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not a separate policy. Just because it has a separate shortcut doesn't make it a separate policy.  Read the title at the top of the damn page - the policy is Neutral Point of View.  ASF just stands for 'A simple formulation'.  Someone, a long while ago, wrote a piece about how to present information in a neutral manner, that made clear when you referring to something that was just what some guy said, and that's what this is, and that's ALL that this is. Elen of the Roads (talk)


 * Although it is not a separate policy there is still policy on facts and opinions. Do you want to rewrite or drastically shorten ASF. QuackGuru (talk) 23:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Headdesk! here is the very first appearance of the NPOV policy page.  You'll notice that it explains in a long winded but PERFECTLY CLEAR way what the founding fathers were thinking of with the alternate phrasing.  All of which has NOTHING to do with your argument with Brangifer, since he is using EXACTLY THE SAME principle, only you are editing with a sizeable POV and he (in this instance) is not. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposed removal of ASF
In my opinion, the ASF section as it stands is essentially an essay embedded inside a policy page. As Elen noted above, although its intent was probably benign originally, the end result was unneeded confusion, as can be seen in the above threads. I suggest that we remove this section, and if there is to be any replacement, it should be carefully thought out and agreed upon on this talk page. At the moment, I see nothing in that section which is not covered in the rest of the NPOV page or elsewhere. I believe removing this section will improve NPOV and eliminate many needless arguments. Crum375 (talk) 23:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Crum375, you claim "At the moment, I see nothing in that section which is not covered in the rest of the NPOV page or elsewhere."
 * Can you point where in the rest of the NPOV page or elsewhere ASF is covered. The end result was unneeded confusion? I don't see any confusion. QuackGuru (talk) 00:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, you may not see any confusion, but I see nothing in that section which adds anything to other parts of NPOV and the other sourcing policies. I do see lots of things I don't understand, such as trying to distinguish between "opinions" and "facts", which means nothing to my limited mind, and as far as I know has no bearing on Wikipedia policies, whatever it may mean. Crum375 (talk) 00:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Alternative formulation of the policy: assert facts, including facts about opinions--but don't assert opinions themselves

We sometimes give an alternative formulation of the nonbias policy: assert

facts, including facts about opinions--but don't assert opinions themselves.

By "fact," on the one hand, we mean "a piece of information about which

there is no serious dispute." In this sense, that a survey produced a

certain published result is a fact. That the Mars is a planet is a fact.

That 2+2=4 is a fact. That Socrates was a philosopher is a fact. No one

seriously disputes any of these things. So Wikipedians can feel free to

assert as many of them as we can. By "opinion," on the other hand, we

mean "a piece of information about which there is some serious dispute."

There's bound to be borderline cases where we're not sure if we should

take a particular dispute seriously; but there are many propositions that

very clearly express opinions. That God exists is an opinion. That the

Beatles were the greatest rock and roll group is an opinion. That

intuitionistic logic is superior to ordinary logic is an opinion. That the

United States was wrong to drop the atomic bomb over Hiroshima and Nagasaki

is an opinion.

For determining whether something is fact or opinion in this sense, it does

not matter what the actual truth of the matter is; there can at least in

theory be false "facts" (things that everybody agrees upon, but which

are, in fact, false), and there are very often true "opinions," though

necessarily, it seems, more false ones than true.

Wikipedia is devoting to stating facts and only facts, in this sense. Where

we might want to state opinions, we convert that opinion into a fact by

attributing the opinion to someone. So, rather than asserting, "God

exists," which is an opinion, we can say, "Most Americans believe that God

exists," which is a fact, or "Thomas Aquinas believed that God exists,"

which is also a fact. In the first instance we assert an opinion; in the

second and third instances we convert that opinion into a fact by

attributing it to someone. However, both of those facts are colored by what

evidence supports those facts and the semantics behind both statements: the

first is a statement gleaned from polls and is thus subject to the facts

behind poll-taking; the second is gleaned from the writings of Aquinas, which

are very different from polls. And the conception of God in the modern era

is very different from that of the age of Aquinas. Fortunately, Wikipedia

can have entries on God, Thomas Aquinas, polls, etc., to elucidate these points.

But it's not enough, to express the Wikipedia nonbias policy, just to

say that we should state facts and not opinions. When asserting a fact

about an opinion, it is important also to assert facts about

competing opinions, and to do so without implying that any one of the

opinions is correct. It's also generally important to give the facts about

the reasons behind the views, and to make it clear who holds them. (It's

often best to cite a prominent representative of the view.)

Here is a cut and paste of the version that Elen of the Roads noted above that is PERFECTLY CLEAR. QuackGuru (talk) 23:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think this also is too wordy and confusing. I would say, start with nothing, and if needed, carefully build up only what's required. At the moment I don't see anything critical missing if we remove the section. Just getting rid all that confusing language inside an important policy would be a great step forward, in my opinion. Crum375 (talk) 00:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * What is too wordy or confusing with the original version or the current version? QuackGuru (talk) 00:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Both. Crum375 (talk) 00:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

@Crum375. Agree entirely. You can sum the whole thing up in a couple of sentences - don't say anything you can't verify with reliable sources, and if sources disagree, make this clear in the way you present the information, using in-text attribution or direct quotes. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Elen of the Roads, you claim I want to rewrite ASF policy when all along you are one one who wants to drastically change ASF policy? QuackGuru (talk) 00:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I grow weary of this conversation, so I'm going to go back to what I usually do. Since Crum asked, I will leave this point. Verifiability is synonymous with factuality. Neutral point of view is synonymous with balanced opinion. If you don't believe me, please look it up. I have provided source after source, quotes and everything, and that's all I can do. Zaereth (talk) 01:01, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Support It would be better to delete it and start from scratch as and if necessary. This seems to be the sole domain of one editor who constantly misuses it and we need to remove it and recalibrate. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Zaereth, verifiability on WP simply means that a reliable source has published it. I don't know what you mean by "factuality." The two are unlikely to be related except in the empty sense that it's a fact that A published X. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 04:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

About this whole thread: there is no assert facts policy! The policy is "NPOV." Larry Sanger first imported from Nupedia an explanation of his idea of neutrality, and the policy page actually included the discussion (I do not think we had talk pages back then) about the policy. Believe it or not, the discussion was over whether the NPOV policy was "American-centric." Maybe this is because larry included some examples that refered to the US. The question was whether more explanation was needed to make NPOV intelligible to Brits, Aussies, etc who perhaps use English differently. It was during that time that another editor (Graham somebody) added the stuf on asserting facts explicitly as "another attempt to explain the policy" (and it was crystal clear that "explain the policy" meant "explain the NPOV policy")

This is the original NPOV policy:
 * Basically, to write without bias (from a neutral point of view) is to write so that articles do not advocate any specific points of view; instead, the different viewpoints in a controversy are all described fairly. This is a simplistic definition and we'll add nuance later. But for now, we can say just that to write articles without bias is to try to describe debates rather than taking one definite stand.

Now, I to go back to the spirit of our 2001 discussions, I think adding anything that makes the above easier to understand by people who do not speak American English is a good idea but let us be clear that the above is our benchmark, the question is: do edits to the policy page help people better understand the above, or confuse people as to the above? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 11:53, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I dug out those old pages (see above) - they certainly make fascinating reading. I don't think the aim of NPOV has changed - do not add your opinion, do not write from a particular position, aim for a neutral presentation of all the information, including variant views, in a coherent form. I think it can be written more concisely without losing its meaning.  I also think we could look at creating a WP:Guide to NPOV which held all the examples, which could include examples of particular relevance to the various communities.Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to close the above thread
The proposal to completely remove ASF seems to change (possibly even eliminate) the long-standing policies in the ASF section. If we're going to eliminate one of the purposes of WP:ASF, then I'd think it'd be worthy to have a broader discussion (probably a RFC) specifically on that topic first. So far no logical reason has been given to drastically change or even eliminate core ASF policy. QuackGuru (talk) 00:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose Ridiculous proposalElen of the Roads (talk) 00:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose. There is a propostion above. Don't start this ridiculous proposal to shortcircuit it. That's just plain disruptive. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:01, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think it is a problem with making this thread a subsection of the above thread. This edit was made to separate this thread. QuackGuru (talk) 02:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, it created a problem which you no doubt didn't intend. It meant that editors who wished to place their comments at the bottom of the previous section might inadvertently place them in this one instead. I discovered that problem and had to back up to find the right place. I then made the change in heading level and went back up there and added my comment. Now no one else will have to do that. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Summary would be appreciated
Could someone briefly summarize the discussion? This has always been an odd sentence, but attempts to fix it have met with resistance. "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. By 'fact' we mean 'a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute'."

Two problems with the above:

(a) A fact is simply a true proposition; something that is the case (leaving aside the complexities that philosophers get into). Whether it's in dispute or not is irrelevant.

(b) Most of what we do on Wikipedia is assert opinions about facts, not facts about opinions. I can see what the passage is trying to say (it is trying to say "cite your sources," because it is a fact that A says X, even if A and X are wrong), but it has it exactly upside down.

So it would be good to fix it at last, but I wouldn't want to do anything to weaken its spirit. SlimVirgin talk  contribs 03:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I was advised above that this section was not about citing. My current preferred version is much shorter than the current version:
 * * State information which is uncontroversial within the subject; and
 * * Give appropriate balance where opinions differ.
 * Overall, this policy is much too long. We can't detail every eventuality. Ultimately users will need experience editing here. I'd rather have something short that they read than something so long it is skipped. Stephen B Streater (talk) 05:55, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, absolutely. This thread (and continuous other debates here and at WP:V and WPNOR) prove that even experienced editors don't understand what these policies are trying to say, what matters are covered where, and so on. Time to turn them into essays, and write one clear, compact policy which tells people the things they need to know about how Wikipedia does things. (Policies don't have to be long - or on separate pages - to be effective.)--Kotniski (talk) 07:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin, if you read the 'earliest' version, you can see that what it was trying to say was exactly 'don't say Elvis is King, say Col. Parker says Elvis is king. You can also see that it was put in because the original policy was written by putting together the favourite versions of several people, which is why its a bit of a contradictory dogs breakfast today.

@ Stephen B Streater, too short, too short. "State information which is uncontroversial within the subject" would remove half the information from wikipedia. Also, NPOV is a bit more than 'give appropriate balance.' It requires an editor not to add information in a way that is heavily slanted to one viewpoint, and also to work with others to create a balanced view. Elen of the Roads (talk) 07:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Saying that something can be stated does not imply that other things cannot be stated ie this would not indicated any material should be removed from WIkipedia. This bit is to say simply what can be stated without needing justification in the article. Stephen B Streater (talk) 07:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Clearly "heavily slanted to one viewpoint" is not "Appropriate balance", so you are just repeating what I have said in a more verbose way. Stephen B Streater (talk) 07:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Your point about working with others is an important one though, as no one has a monopoly on the best ideas. ;-) Stephen B Streater (talk) 07:52, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

What we want to achieve is clear policies which people read, understand and implement. Kotniski is right about core policies and essays. Important core policies on what to write should be in a single accessible place, and be brief and concise. All the archetypal debates and long detailed descriptions (which I can guarantee most editors never read) should be put in essays. Avoid instruction creep is worth a read. Stephen B Streater (talk) 08:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with that. This is the shortest I can come up with for NPOV that covers the three central components: This policy applies where there is more than one view on the topic, or on material in the article. The article must contain balanced coverage of the various views. All the information must be sourced, and where there is not one overwhelmingly accepted view, the article must equally reflect all leading views, and includes appropriate mention of minority views. Where there is a mainstream view and recognised minority views, appropriate weight must be given to each view, so that it is clear what status the minority view has. If the topic has fringe views, it may be inappropriate to include these outside of articles specifically about that view. Elen of the Roads (talk) 08:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That's actually short enough to read :-) I could probably suggest a few tweaks, but I like the gist. And we can take out the Fringe section too, as a bonus. Stephen B Streater (talk) 08:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd support removing the section because it reads like an essay, and some of what it says isn't right (e.g. its definition of facts, values, and opinions). We could summarize its essential point with one sentence from V and NOR: "This policy requires that anything challenged or likely to be challenged, including all quotations, be attributed to a reliable source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly support the material in question." Then something about competing views, undue etc.  SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 08:28, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * That's good. It's got the gist of V and NOR in, in one sentence.  Elen of the Roads (talk) 08:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I've added something, partly based on Elen's suggestion:

Verifiability and No original research require that anything challenged or likely to be challenged, including all quotations, be attributed to a reliable source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly support the material in question.

Where there is disagreement about a view, use in-text attribution&mdash;"John Smith writes that ..."&mdash; rather than publishing the opinion in Wikipedia's voice. Avoid mass attribution such as "some people believe": see Words to watch.

Articles should contain balanced coverage of all majority and significant-minority views, but make sure they roughly reflect the relative levels of support among reliable sources for the position in question. Do not write: "Charles Darwin argued that humankind evolved from apes, but Keith's mum thinks we came from another planet." Appropriate weight must be given to each view, so that it is clear what status the majority and significant-minority views have among reliable sources. If the topic has attracted fringe or tiny-minority views, consider writing about those views in articles devoted to them, so long as there are reliable secondary sources to support inclusion.

Thoughts? SlimVirgin talk  contribs 08:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * We have not, so far, required inline citations, and I don't think we should. They are preferable, of course, but in particular for small articles may be overkill. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that inline citations are not necessary, but it is almost possible to verify an article if there are just half a dozen 500 page books listed at the bottom, so I think we should encourage them (see edit on page). Stephen B Streater (talk) 09:01, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec) Stephen B Streater has changed it to read that inline citations are good, but they're not only good, they are required. :) Please see V, which is policy.  SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 09:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Sometimes its hard to keep up with all these changes ;-) Luckily, I been spending hours adding inline citations recently, so now I know why! Stephen B Streater (talk) 09:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes - I must have missed this in the New Year: Stephen B Streater (talk) 09:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Inline citations have been required by policy for a long time e.g. here in December 2007. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 09:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * If they are required by WP:V, there is no need to repeat this here. Moreover, I have my doubt about the breadth of the consensus for that change to WP:V. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There is strong consensus for it, Stephan. It had been required for a long time before it was added to the policy. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 09:28, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Do not write: "Charles Darwin argued that humankind evolved from apes" cos he didn't – he presented an argument that apes and humans have common descent from a shared ancestor. Have restored It would give a false impression of parity to state that "according to Simon Wiesenthal, the Holocaust was a program of extermination of the Jewish people in Germany, but David Irving disputes this analysis", assigning both the supermajority view and a tiny minority view to a single activist in the field. Doubtless other useful and possibly essential nuances have gone missing in these changes, but that struck me immediately. . . dave souza, talk 09:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Best to avoid the Holocaust, or anything not obvious to the average reader. We can tweak the Darwin example, or find another. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 09:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * While I appreciate your comment, it was a good example of a generally understood issue, and Keith's mum is even less significant than flat earthers, hence giving an exaggeratedly simple example. More below. . . dave souza, talk 19:02, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Tightening some more
While I'm tightening, I continued and merged the first few subsections, which were very repetitive. So instead of three very long subsections, it now reads:

The neutral point of view is a way of dealing with conflicting perspectives. It requires that all majority- and significant-minority views as found in reliable sources be presented in a disinterested tone, and in rough proportion to their prevalence within the source material. Material should not be removed solely on the grounds that it is "POV".

The neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject. Unbiased writing is the disinterested description of all significant sides of a debate as found in reliable sources. Articles should describe different points of view without endorsing any of them. It may describe the criticism of particular viewpoints found in reliable sources, but it should not take sides.

Verifiability and No original research require that anything challenged or likely to be challenged, including all quotations, be attributed to a reliable source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly support the material in question. Where there is disagreement about a view, use in-text attribution&mdash;"John Smith writes that"&mdash; rather than publishing the opinion in Wikipedia's voice. Avoid mass attribution such as "some people believe": see Words to watch.

Articles should contain balanced coverage of all majority and significant-minority views, but make sure they roughly reflect the relative levels of support among reliable sources for the position in question. Do not write: "Charles Darwin argued that humankind evolved from apes, but Keith's mum thinks we came from another planet." Appropriate weight must be given to each view, so that it is clear what status the majority and significant-minority views have among reliable sources. If the topic has attracted fringe or tiny-minority views, consider writing about those views in articles devoted to them, so long as there are reliable secondary sources to support inclusion.

SlimVirgin talk  contribs 09:28, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Side by side
SlimVirgin talk  contribs 09:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)