Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Archive 40

Parity of presentation
The previous wording did make it clear that we should not present a supermajority view as though a tiny minority view was equal to it. The move to remove the Holocaust as an example removes that clarification, and Darwin versus Keith's mum presents an inaccurate and ambiguous caricature of positions rather than anything realistic. I've substituted something more topical:
 * 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. 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, these may be too insignificant for detailed coverage in main articles on the subject. Consider writing about those views in articles devoted to them, as long as there are reliable secondary sources to support inclusion, and the majority expert view is shown as such in these articles. It would give a false impression of parity to state that "according to Gavin Schmidt science demonstrates global warming, but Jim Inhofe says it is a hoax", assigning both the clear majority view and a tiny minority view to a single advocate of each view.

This also reorders things to make it clear that we're talking about a tiny minority view among experts. If we want an example of a mainstream versus a significant minority view, examples could be found but the contrast would be less clear. . . dave souza, talk 19:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Good in principal, but not ideal yet: people not involved in the details of the GW debate will not understand who these people are, and so will miss the point (unless they got it anyway). Stephen B Streater (talk) 19:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Dave, (1) Parity is from the FRINGE guideline and we can't give it the status of policy; (2) the example is unclear; most people won't get it; (3) it is wordy. It would be good to keep the policy really tight, and make every word count. I deliberately chose an extreme example so that everyone would get it without having to stop and think. Global warming is a bad example to use at the moment, with the recent controversy. SlimVirgin talk  contribs 20:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * SV, that was restoring something already in the policy, so this represents a significant weakening of policy as well as misrepresenting Darwin's argument. It also has the problem that Darwin's views aren't equivalent to modern evolutionary theory, and it risks presenting the stereotype that his views are holy writ. Go for a flat earth example if you want an extreme caricature.
 * Even more significant, undue weight had been rewritten as a charter for minority viewpoint articles presenting an in-universe view on the basis of lack of mainstream sources on the specific minority view. That's already a serious problem despite the current policy, which I've restored in part. Brevity is nice, but dramitic shifts in policy and the effects of policy are not good. . . dave souza, talk 20:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Dave, I am not sure I get your point. Currently, the policy states this: "Neutral point of view requires that articles fairly represent all majority and significant-minority positions that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each. In determining appropriate weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence within reliable published sources, not among Wikipedians or the general public." which I think really says it all.  Above, Elin suggests that we have a separate page for various examples. That strikes me as a very constructive idea, it would serve the function that many auxiliary pages (like FAQs) serve - provide illuminating information for people who need examples, without cluttering up the policy with examples that would require a lot of verbiage to explain the application of the policy in that context clearly, or, if presented concisely, would be meaningless to most Wikipedians.  We have tried that in the past and the result is whenever anyone gets into an edit war they add their own example to the policy and it gets more and more overwrought and muddled.  Elin's suggestions seems eminently practical. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 20:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Good idea, better no example than a bad example, so removed it. . . dave souza, talk 21:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Dave, I didn't catch your point here: "... undue weight had been rewritten as a charter for minority viewpoint articles presenting an in-universe view on the basis of lack of mainstream sources on the specific minority view." Can you rephrase? SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 21:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * My edit restored earlier wording in place of "In articles about a minority viewpoint, the majority view should also be explained, so long as the distinction is discussed by reliable sources, so that the reader understands how the minority view differs from it." That now removed wording would invite a situation where a fringe viewpoint is promoted by a newspaper, but not discussed in reliable sources giving the views of any experts on the mainstream view, and so an in-universe article is written showing only the minority view. This happens. . . dave souza, talk 21:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the first sentence of the fourth paragraph of WP:NPOV, which was entirely redundant with the statement about weight in the first paragraph. . I incorporated the link to WP:Undue weight into the following sentence and adjusted the syntax accordingly. I also want to say this is a bit troublesome undergoing such a major revision of this core content policy in such a short period of time--that long bit about "facts" had seemed to be stable for quite some time. Sure hope there are enough eyes on it among experienced WP users. ... Kenosis (talk) 22:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Fully agree, even at a cursory inspection significant parts of the policy were considerably changed or weakened, and as discussed below the rewording was not always as clear as the original. Detailed review is needed. . . dave souza, talk 22:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I also removed the bit about mass attribution, which linked to a style guideline. In a section this short, it's picking nits. May as well bring it back to the original intent of WP:ASF and again rename it back to "a simple formulation". This of course assumes the possibility that there might turn out to be community consensus for such a major rewrite. ... Kenosis (talk) 22:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That trimming in itself is reasonable and in line with the recent approach. However, by ending the paragraph with a requirement that all controversial views be attributed inline, for example to "John Smith writes that", it suggests attribution to individuals even where that's inappropriate. The old formulation was wordy, but did cover the point:
 * "In attributing competing views, it is necessary to ensure that the attribution adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity. For example, 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" would be to give apparent parity between the supermajority view and a tiny minority view by assigning each to a single activist in the field.
 * It is not sufficient to discuss an opinion as fact merely by stating "some people believe...", a practice referred to as "mass attribution". A reliable source supporting a statement that a group holds an opinion must accurately describe how large this group is. Moreover, there are usually disagreements about how opinions should be properly stated. To fairly represent all the leading views in a dispute it is sometimes necessary to qualify the description of an opinion, or to present several formulations of this opinion and attribute them to specific groups."
 * Accepting for the moment SV's reluctance to include the piped link to WP:PARITY, I've summarised the most significant aspect in this context as "When attributing competing views, ensure that the attribution adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity between a majority view and a small minority view by assigning each to a single individual." It's less nuanced, but at least avoids the obvious pitfall. . . dave souza, talk 05:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The prior sentence that I removed here was inappropriate, overly specific for such a short summary of the policy, and linked to a style guideline . This edit by Dave Souza is reasonable and expresses the accepted principle well. ... Kenosis (talk) 11:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what to do with this sentence, the last sentence in what's currently titled Explaining the neutral point of view."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."Seems to me it's downright misleading advice in such a short section, proposing that users create new articles on fringe views, as opposed to a brief treatment in the article on a given topic in accordance with WP:WEIGHT. The advice may apply to, say, "flat earth" where the view is extremely fringe though very notable, but there are countless topic areas where editors should be discouraged from starting whole new POV forks for a particular fringe view. A few secondary sources for a fringe view hardly qualifies most tiny-minority views for a separate article. ... Kenosis (talk) 13:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * This has been the advice and practice for years, K, following Jimbo. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 15:00, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, WEIGHT has been the advice and practice; encouraging POV forks for fringe views has not. Where's it archived that Jimbo advocated this? ... Kenosis (talk) 15:26, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Since the paragraph attempts to summarise Weight, I've tried to give a brief description that avoids potential misunderstandings: "If the topic has attracted fringe or tiny-minority views, these need not be mentioned in main articles on the topic, but provided they are described by reliable third party sources independent of those supporting the views, articles devoted to these views can be based on such independent sources. Such articles are to also show the majority view, giving it due weight, and describe how the minority view has been received by those holding the majority view."

Think that covers the basics. . . dave souza, talk 16:36, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree. Fringe views in an article are traditionally forbidden.  But a separate article is actually not a POV fork, because it is not intended to provide an article on the object of the view (e.g. why are there different forms of life on earth). it is to provide an article on that particular, fringe, view. This may seem pretty subtle but it is an important distinction. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 18:07, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, in general. Part of the problem I have is with over-representing WP:FRINGE in such a compact version of WP:NPOV, when it's already explained in WP:WEIGHT a bit farther down on the page. The "simple formulation" section now titled "Explaining the neutral point of view" (intended mainly for previously unfamiliar users and for reference to help guide users through the basic principles to be used in dealing with POV content disputes) should be tight and to the point, leaving the peripheral points to be explained elsewhere. That's what the radical truncation of this project page from 33kB to about 19dB was about in the first place, right? Anyway, Dave souza's sentence seems reasonable and adequately to the point regarding WP:FRINGE. And so long as the sentence doesn't imply to unfamiliar users that they should just go ahead and create an article for every fringe view (WP:AfDs tend to be increasingly lax these days, stretching the idea of WP:Notability farther and farther with time), I suppose it's reasonable in that section. ... Kenosis (talk) 21:03, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, as far as wording goes, would "multiple attribution" be better than "mass attribution?" There should be a simple way to convey that what is expected are multiple distinct sources, and not weasel words. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 18:07, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

In text attribution
This paragraph adds "When verification is required, it is not enough to provide a citation for a claim. One must identify the source for the claim in the sentence that introduces the claim." As far as I can see, an inline citation link is generally sufficient, and meets WP:V. The reference in the guideline WP:CITE is more specific, "The need for citations is especially important when writing about opinions held on a particular issue. Avoid weasel words where possible, such as, "Some people say ..." Instead, make your writing verifiable: find a specific person or group who holds that opinion and give a citation to a reputable publication in which they express that opinion. Remember that Wikipedia is not a place for expressing your own opinions or for original research. Opinions, data and statistics, and statements based on someone's scientific work should be cited and attributed to their authors in the text."

Only the last sentence specifically requires attribution in the text. MOS:QUOTE requires in text attribution where necessary, but not when it's clear who's being quoted from the context. Is there another requirement? Don't forget the possible tension between this and the requirement that we do not give a false impression of parity between a majority view and a small minority view by assigning each to a single individual. Should the paragraph be made more specific? . dave souza, talk 20:57, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The paragraph you quote is a mess, trying to say lots of things at once. I don't agree that "data and statistics" necessarily need in-text attributions, nor do statements based on someone's scientific work. Not always, anyway. In fact it's hard to lay down general musts and must-nots in this area. The more contentious something is, the more likely it is that in-text attribs are appropriate. Where contentiousness might result from disagreement between reliable sources, the imperfect reliability of the sources, and/or the subjective nature of the statement itself. (Or something else I haven't thought of.) --Kotniski (talk) 21:10, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with what Kotniski is saying. Moreover, based on discussion above, it looked like Kotniski, Dave, and Joshua agreed that this has been expressed in the NPOV policy before Slim Virgin's edits.  My adding the following:
 * When verification is required, it is not enough to provide a citation for a claim. One must identify the source for the claim in the sentence that introduces the claim.
 * as a way of putting the principle back in. We already say that the more controversial the claim, the more it is necessary to require attribution, so I think this follows logically. If Crum has a problem with this, I wish he'd explain why here on the talk page - and give Kotniski, David and Joshua an opportunity to respond. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 21:46, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Other suggestions
I've read through the text, fixing all the obvious mistakes and other changes which don't change the meaning. Here are my additional suggestions for approval/rejection:


 * 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.
 * Most people think disinterested means uninterested. Should we link this word or otherwise guide these people?
 * Prevalence in the sources sounds like weighing the amount of paper used to print it. It is the content which should be weighed, and more reliable sources should carry more weight. Also, a story repeated in a hundred tabloids probably is based on a single source, so quality is important when applying the balance criterion.


 * Neutral point of view requires that articles fairly represent all majority and significant-minority positions
 * This text appears many times. This indicates there is still a large element of repetition in the text.


 * In determining appropriate weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence within reliable published sources, not among Wikipedians or the general public.
 * Is the quality of the sources also important?


 * Undue weight can occur in several ways, including depth of detail, length of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements. The same principle applies to images, wikilinks, external links, and categories.
 * We could also include formatting such as bold/italics, spacing, ordering of information.


 * All material added to an article must be attributable, which means that a reliable published source must exist for it—otherwise it is original research.
 * Is it worth mentioning that it might be false too? It might just be a typo or a misunderstanding.

The current wording doesn't make sense to me. Stephen B Streater (talk) 21:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except in articles devoted to them, as long as reliable secondary sources exist that describe those views.
 * I think this looks like it is saying views of tiny majorities should not be included as long as reliable sources exist.
 * I think it is supposed to say:
 * The views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except in articles devoted to them, unless reliable secondary sources exist that describe those views.


 * It doesn't mean that last example you gave. It said before: "The views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except in articles devoted to them, and only then if reliable secondary sources exist that describe those views." SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 21:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * So it means they cannot be included at all if reliable secondary sources exist? That's very odd. They can only be included if there are no secondary sources? Or does it mean that the articles about them can only exist if secondary sources exist? But that clarification was reverted. Stephen B Streater (talk) 21:33, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * OK - I see that what I wrote isn't what I meant. I still think the current version is wrong because the negative and positive words don't match up in the right way. Stephen B Streater (talk) 21:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * See this comment. Stephen B Streater (talk) 21:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmm - perhaps I'll get some sleep and then come back tomorrow. Stephen B Streater (talk) 21:39, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your various comments. Stephen B Streater (talk) 21:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's getting better. My problem is that the way I read it the condition "and only if" applies to the verb, which is in the first bit, not the bit in commas. You can not do x,, only if y. I would prefer it to say You can not do x, except in case y, and only then if z. Stephen B Streater (talk) 21:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The earlier wording was clearer, so I've adapted that. I've also reintroduced WP:GEVAL which clarifies a specific aspect. . . dave souza, talk 22:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I understand that now. Stephen B Streater (talk) 05:03, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Per WP:SOURCES all articles have to based on reliable third party sources, which I've linked in a separate sentence to make the issue clearer, and Crum375 has also tightened the paragraph a bit. . . dave souza, talk 21:57, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Last point: It mention "resume", which I suppose means "resumé". Is there an alternative example, as this is American English which may not be familiar to other English speakers? Stephen B Streater (talk) 05:03, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That's in a footnote, any objections to adding the accent? . . dave souza, talk 20:57, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I recall from years ago when I started employing US staff that a résumé in the US has a different standard form to a CV in the UK. So a comparison to a résumé may not be easily understood by people in the UK. As I can't remember what all the differences were, I couldn't comment on whether this is in fact a problem, but I think, if no one knows better, we shouldn't assume this will be understood correctly by UK readers. Stephen B Streater (talk) 16:57, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

RfC on merging Words to avoid into Words to watch

 * Wikipedia talk:Words to watch. There's a proposal to merge several pages as part of a project to streamline the MoS. One part of the proposal is to merge Words to avoid, Avoid peacock terms, Avoid weasel words, and Avoid neologisms into a new page, Words to watch (W2W). Fresh input would be appreciated at the RfC. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 00:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

A much more radical trim
Good work, Slim, for tightening the wording as described above. But for those with more radical ambitions as regards making policy short, clear and accessible, I invite comments on User:Kotniski/Neu, which is intended (when ready) as a replacement for this page AND WP:NPOV AND WP:V.--Kotniski (talk) 09:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I burst out howling there, K, at the sight of your bravery. I've long wanted to do that, but had to stop after ATT didn't get through. Haven't looked at your page yet, but will do shortly. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 09:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * What to do about opinionated statements such as "In 1982 the Israelis allowed genocide to be committed in Lebanon (UN citation given)" when a more neutral statement would be "On December 16, 1982, the United Nations General Assembly condemned the Sabra and Shatila massacre and declared it to be an act of genocide. (UN citation given)" the previous wording of ASF covered this issue, what pithy sentence to we point POV warriors to if ASF is to go? -- PBS (talk) 10:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What was the pithy sentence that you would have pointed them to before?--Kotniski (talk) 10:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec) That we write in a disinterested tone, and that the NPOV neither sympathizes with nor disparages; see here. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 10:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, why not be a little blunter. "Do not add your own opinion to the article, and do not present information in a biased or opinionated way. Use the most neutral language possible, even if you have strong feelings about the matter."  Let's be straight up about it - this is the NPOV policy after all.  Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * On a separate note, I'd be in favour of pulling all examples etc out into a separate WP:Guideline to NPOV, similar to how the non-free image policy and guidleine are split.Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:53, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think this is a very constructive suggestion. One thing that wrecks a policy is when people get involved in a conflict, thy then rush to some policy and add their own example.  Policies are not quite the same thing as case law!! Slrubenstein   |  Talk 12:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

These changes are more like the level I was thinking of :-) I'll have a look at K's page too. Stephen B Streater (talk) 11:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * In general, I appreciate Slim's editing very much. I also think Elen's summaries about the discussion, aove, are helpful.  I have only this to add 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?


 * Here is my own proposal, to clarify the relationship between NPOV and V - I admit it can be improved upon, but I ask any other edit to bear in mind that any changes should be to make my proposal accord more closely with NPOV as in the summary I quote aboe.:
 * All views must be attributable, that is, verifiable. Some views are so uncontroversial and commonly accepted that no one expects or asks for attribution (these views are often called "facts."). But they remain attributable, and if there is the slightest controversy, these views should be the easiest to verify.  The more controversial a view, the more important it is that we provide attribution, and in many cases multiple attribution.  Ideally, controversies on talk pages are indicative of controversies in the real world, so any time here is a conflict on the talk page it is critical that editors provide verification from reliable sources.
 * Well, just my .02 Slrubenstein  |  Talk 12:02, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I would say "all material added to the article must be attributable - an editor must be able to verify it with reliable sources. Some information is so uncontroverisal and commonly accepted that no one expects or asks for a source - but there must be one, and it must be provided if there is even the slightest controversy.  The more controversial a view, the more important it is that we provide attribution, and in many cases multiple attribution.  Ideally, controversies on talk pages are indicative of controversies in the real world, so any time here is a conflict on the talk page it is critical that editors provide verification from reliable sources.

Same really, just removed the 'called facts' component, as I still think this confuses things.Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No complaints from me. If a couple o othe edits think it is an improvement, or want to tweak it, perhaps then we might replace the first paragraph if "Neutrality disputes" with this? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 12:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Results so far
I haven't edited the "Neutrality disputes and handling" section yet, but so far we're down to 1,507 words readable prose (the script I used hasn't counted the Commons objections section because of the indents, so it's a bit more than that). Previously it was 3,344 words, but I don't think we've lost anything apart from 1800 words. This takes us closer to the lengths of NOR and V. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 12:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * All good stuff. Thanks Slrubenstein too for the background. I'll have a fresh look this evening after work, and put my suggestions (if any) down in Talk then. Stephen B Streater (talk) 12:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * When the alterations have been finished, I'll give it a proofread. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I merged what Slr and Elen wrote, regarding the section that was called "Attributing and specifying biased statements" (now called Attribution), and came up with:


 * "All material added to an article must be attributable, which means that a reliable published source must exist for it&mdash;otherwise it is original research. But not all material must actually be attributed. Some statements&mdash;such as 'Paris is the capital of France'&mdash;are so commonly accepted that no one expects attribution. But they remain attributable, and if there is the slightest controversy, they are easy to find sources for. The more controversial a view, the more important it is that we provide attribution, and in many cases multiple attribution. Controversies on talk pages are indicative of controversies in the real world, so whenever there is a conflict on the talk page it is critical that editors provide attribution from reliable sources."


 * Is that what you had in mind? SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 15:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think there's a good reason to emphasise that not all material requires attribution in the article. Digging around on QuackGuru's talkpage, I've discovered that he believes ASF said that you actually mustn't attribute some things, and he even created an 'attribution not required' template.  I'd go from the second sentence with "if something is commonly accepted - "Paris is the capital of France" - then it is not a requirement to add attribution in an article containing it, but if there is the slightest controversy, then a source must be provided."  The key features being that it is not required to add the source unless someone asks for it.  How easy or hard the source is to find is actually irrelevant. I might even say "but a source should always be provided if it is requested." Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:57, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I repeated what the sourcing policy, V, says after this para: "Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, 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." Does that help? SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 16:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I think that two things are important. First, the distinction between attributable and attributed. I think some people just do not get this distinction, and all this talk of "subjective versus objective" or "fact versus opinion" are red herrings that people go fishing for because they do not understand this simple distinction.  So we need to make the distinction clear.  The second point, which I think is close to Elin's point, is that "attributable" does mean that it can be attributed. Which leads to - if someone asks for attribution, it must be provided.  Now, while I do not think that what I am about to say belongs in the policy, I think it is important: this point, that you have to provide attribution if it is asked for, gets to the whole importance oF wikipedia not just as an encyclopedia, but as a community of editors who are involved in a never-ending collaboration to produce the encyclopedia.  The point is deceptively simple: we need one another, to write good articles.  Why?  Because we cannot rely on our own judgement.  I think something is "obvious" so I call it the truth or objective or a fact, and it means I do not have to contextualize it or explain it let alone provide attribution.  It i only because there is someone else who says "well, I do not think it is true" or "I do not think it is a fact" that forces me to realize that my opinion is not the only one in the world that counts.  I as an editor am accountable to other editors.  If they say "no, it needs attribution," well, that is that, I have to provide attribution.  Not everyone thinks the way I do.  That is why if we are going to write an encyclopedia in the worl, everyone has to be able to edit.  "to edit" does not just ean add information or rephrase something, it means questioning the work of other editors.  That makes the community a dynamic process.  Every Wikipedian has to accept this, the semi-anarchic workings of the community, or they do not belong here. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The attributable/attributed distinction is in both NOR and V. We wanted to combine them three years ago into one policy, Attribution, precisely because both revolve around that key point&mdash;that something not attributable is original research, so provide attribution to show you're not engaged in OR. That's V and NOR in a nutshell.


 * Anyway, both policies refer to attribution. V says: "All material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source to show that it is not original research, but in practice not everything need actually be attributed." So people familiar with those policies are familiar with the distinction. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 16:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Kotniski you wrote above "What was the pithy sentence that you would have pointed them to before?" I would have pointed them to "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves." that covers the difference between "In 1982 the Israelis allowed genocide to be committed in Lebanon (UN citation given)" when a more neutral statement would be "On December 16, 1982, the United Nations General Assembly condemned the Sabra and Shatila massacre and declared it to be an act of genocide. (UN citation given)". As I said the previous wording of ASF covered this issue, what pithy sentence do we point POV warriors to if ASF is to go? -- PBS (talk) 22:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * PBS, I do not get your point. "Assert facts" seems pithy but just muddies the water because it can be interpreted and misinterpreted so many ways and certainly does not answer the concern you raise.  You resent two setences as if one is better than the other.  One is not better than the other.  They are not comparable.  They make different claims.  Here are tall the claims:

Three claims and each one is permited by our policy no matter how you write it. Ideally, the article on Sabra and Shatilla should include all three claims and more: (1) the dates of the massacres which are in neither sentence. (2) the UN (and indeed an Israeli commission of inquiry or maybe it was the israeli supremem court) found that Israel was indirectly reponsible as they were in control ov the overall situation and did nothing to stop it. This is in your fist sentence and I have no idea why you have a problem with this. (3) The Un considered this genocide. All of thee are views, all must be attributable. So I see no distinction. Are you really making a distinction? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 22:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In 1982 the Israelis allowed genocide to be committed in Lebanon
 * On December 16, 1982, the United Nations General Assembly condemned the Sabra and Shatila massacre
 * and declared it to be an act of genocide. (UN citation given)".
 * I think most people would see a difference between the claim "there was genocide" (relatively subjective) and the claim "the UN declared there was genocide" (objective). (Of course, the POV warriors wouldn't "see" this difference.)--Kotniski (talk) 06:22, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * My 2cents: I agree with PBS. I quite like 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." As Stephen Streater suggests far above, I would even just keep this and delete the rest of the section.  To my mind, most of the arguments that Crum375 and SlRubenstein present argue for retaining, not deleting this; the passage just says what they are saying.  I've never seen an average editor or newbie have a problem with this formulation, which to me is crystal clear and succinct.  SlimVirgin's (a) above seems to miss the point - this defines what we mean by "fact" here, - what we say in Wikipedia's voice with no qualification. A simple "what is the case" definition of "fact" would be unworkable - WP:TRUTH.  We can't and don't leave aside the complexities that philosophers get into, because these complexities are the same ones that we are embroiled in in writing a neutral encyclopedia and neutrality policy.  I can't understand some of Slim's (b).  What we do at wikipedia is assert facts (as defined above), sometimes cite them, and when there is a disagreement, so no "fact", make factually accurate statements about the disagreement. Seems perfectly straightforward to me. What we don't do is assert (say in wikipedia's voice) opinions (disputed statements) about facts (what is the case), so it seems that part of (b), not the old policy passage, is completely upside down.
 * On a point tangentially mentioned above, not to be disagreeable, but WP:V has only been as rigid as it is now about inline citations for a relatively short time, since this edit. IMHO, the  "Alternative conventions exist" footnote removed with little or no notice or discussion was an essential and wise policy, and I think it should be restored.
 * Last, I agree with Kotniski and PBS and disagree with Slrubenstein just above. There is a very clear, important and I believe well-understood distinction, precisely the one that the "assert facts . . " passage is making - the latter two sentences would be acceptable as is, the first not, as there is a serious dispute among reliable sources.John Z (talk) 08:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I still do not get it. In the first sentence, which PBS has a problem with, an attribution is given (the UN source) - so it is clearly attributed.  Is the point semantic, that in addition to giving the source, it is a good idea to name, in the sentence, the ource?  Well, actually, I agree with this!  But I still do noo see how the "State facts" sentence helps.  It is not just that I have seen people refer to that sentence with confusion, it is also that QuackGuru has been removing sources and citing "assert facts" as his justification - and while I think QuackGuru is wrong, I agree that that sentence does not really address this issue (if my understanding of John Z and Kotniski is correct).  If you guys' interpretation of PBS's issue is correct, I do not think restoring that "Assert facts" is the solution.  It just leads people to try to explain themselves with words like "subjective" and "objective," which get us nowhere because NPOV is otivated by the observation that people with widely divergent views often claim that their view is "objective."


 * I think the solution is a sentence that actually addresses this issue clearly. Something like "When verification is required, it is not enough to provide a citation for a claim.  One must identify the source for the claim in the sentence."  PBS, Kotniski, John Z - is this what youguys are arguing for?  Then why not just say so, directly? I'll add this to the page. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 10:30, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you mean by "when verification is required". --Kotniski (talk) 20:58, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That puzzled me, and I've commented below at . I'm in agreement that this paragraph should be left out until resolved, one way or the other. . . dave souza, talk 21:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I thought we all agreed that verification is required when material is controversial. So that is what it means. How would you word it? I am all open to some alternative. Above, Kotniski provided two examples, oboth with verification (the source provided) and one that named the author of the source and said that that sentence was better. I thought David Souza and JohnZ agreed. So that is what I put in - if verification is needed, naming the author of the source is also likely to be needed. If not this, then what did you mean? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 21:50, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * A citation needs to include author (so I guess that when you say author you mean an author in the text). I don't think that is usually true. For example someone might write "St. Pauls is 365 feet hight" someone else might ask for verification. One would not usually provide an author in the text for a fact such as this because it is not a controversial opinion.


 * In the example I have given, there would be no dispute over the source. The dispute is over the summary of the source. So verification can be put to one side. I still do not know from what has been written here what pithy sentence do we point POV warriors to if ASF is to go. Can someone please point me to it. If not I am going to reinstate ASF. -- PBS (talk) 22:31, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I object strongly to this "ASF." And so far, no one can explan to me what it means, that is not already in the policy.  What point do you wish to make?  Can you explain what you intend to say, that is not already in the policy? What do you man by "the dispute is over the summary of the source?"  In Kotniski's example, the only difference was, in one sentence the name of the author of the source was in the sentence, in another version it was not.  Is that what concerns you?  If it is something else, I fear you have not yet explained it clearly enough to me. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 23:37, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The pithy sentence might be "Where a statement is controversial or subjective, use in-text attribution—"John Smith writes that"— rather than publishing the material in Wikipedia's voice." Perhaps it should be in a separate paragraph, with some attempt to explain what "controversial" and "subjective" mean (I don't think I've seen anyone do this successfully yet). The proposed "When verification is required..." doesn't seem to be a meaningful wording (or if it is, then it means something other than what it's supposed to say).--Kotniski (talk) 06:06, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

@Kotniski: the policy already states this. If you do not believe me, please ask User Talk:Crum375, who deleted my "pithy sentence" twice. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 09:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Slrubenstein lets break it down. Do you agree that this source: "A/RES/37/123(A-F) Adopted at the 108th UN General Assembly plenary meeting 16 December 1982 and the 112th plenary meeting, 20 December 1982." covers both sentences so we can put verification aside? -- PBS (talk) 07:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

@PBS Look, I asked you a question. I would really appreciate an answer. I would like to work in an AGF collaborative way but now you are just playing games. I am trying to understand what you want and have asked you to clarify. Your asking me a new question is hardly clarification. Are you implying that you do not wish to make things clear to me? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 09:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not quite following this, but the three core content policies have to be consistent, and the others don't award a special status to "facts" (quite the reverse). We only have material that we require reliable sources for in the form of an inline citation. When it's controversial or distinctive in some relevant way, we require in-text attribution. The NPOV policy says this, so all is well (I'm not hugely keen on "subjective," but perhaps we can talk about that).


 * "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 that directly supports the material in question. Where a statement is controversial or subjective, use in-text attribution&mdash;'John Smith writes that'&mdash; rather than publishing the material in Wikipedia's voice. When attributing views to individuals, exercise care to ensure that the text does not give an impression of parity between a majority and minority view."


 * SlimVirgin talk  contribs 11:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * How about changing "subjective" to "represents only one view among others?" I think this is the real issue; when there are multiple views the proponent of each view ought to be named in the article. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 11:49, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * My preference would be that we don't get into it, because it's like the facts issue. All views on WP are subjective in some sense; all arguably represent just one view. My preference would be to leave it to editorial judgment and just say something like: "contentious or in some other way distinctive." SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 11:54, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * How about this? "Where a statement is such that identifying the source is deemed beneficial&mdash;perhaps because the point is contentious, distinctive, or represents only one view among others&mdash;use in-text attribution such as "John Smith writes that," rather than publishing the material in Wikipedia's voice." SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 11:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what "distinctive" is supposed to mean. What's wrong with "subjective"? (Or simply "an opinion"?) This is what we mean, surely - it doesn't matter whether other views have been expressed (possibly all the sources that address the matter say that the Nazis were evil or that Boffsville is picturesque), but we don't make such a statement in Wikipedia's voice, just because of the type of statement it is. Isn't this correct?--Kotniski (talk) 16:09, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe in this case "distinctive" may be a way of saying fringe? I could take the word or leave it.  But in reply to Kotniski, Slim Virgin answered your question in her 11:54 comment.  The whole idea of "verifiability, not truth" is that all statements in Wikipedia must be "verifiable."  I am not sure what you mean by "Wikipedia's voice."  But if you mean "Wikipedia's voice" as opposed to say "the voice of ... philosopher Richard Rorty, or ... historian Eric Hobsbawm, or physicist ... Stephen Hawking, or ... chemist Linus Pauling, or ... sociologist C. Wright Mills, or ... Chief Justice John Roberts or ... Prime Minister Gordon Brown" &mdash; well, if this is what you mean, that there is some voice that cannot be attributed to anyone, well, that just violates our NPOV and V policies.  "Verifiable" does not mean that we have to name whose voice it is, and in utterly uncontroversial cases we sometimes do not name whose voice it is.  But "verificable" means "verifiable," it must be possible to attribut it to a person or group of people.  This applies to any claim made in an article.  "Wikipedia's voice?"  "Wikipedia" itself does not claim anything.  It provides accounts of what others claim or have claimed, that is what makes things "verifiable." Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:25, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think SV's above suggestion makes sense. "Subjective" is unacceptable, because it's effectively a pejorative, almost like saying that we think it's incorrect. "Distinctive", on the other hand, only means that it stands out, or is clearly different from the other views. In most cases, the need for in-text attribution boils down to editorial judgment, but SV's wording is a good starting point. Crum375 (talk) 16:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Are people deliberately missing the point here? "Wikipedia's voice" means we say something directly in an article ("Boffs is a good singer", as opposed to "Boffs is described by... as a good singer"). Can we do this? Yes or no? (Assuming that we have reliable sources saying he's a good singer and no sources saying he isn't.) If yes, then OK, I've totally misunderstood Wikipedia's fundamental policy all these years. But if not, then what is it about the adjective "good" that distinguishes it from, say, "English" (where we could happily just say it). A normal educated person might say it's because "good" is "subjective" or "an opinion", whereas English is more "objective" or "a fact". Can anyone say it in a way that will keep the epistemologists happy, while still being comprehensible to the poor people who are going to read this page?--Kotniski (talk) 17:22, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's voice means we just plainly state the material, without in-text attribution, for example, "The Solar System has eight planets. " If it's contentious, we need in-text attribution, "According to IAU, Pluto is not a planet. " Or if it's common knowledge among a generic group, we can say, "Scientists believe that the Earth was formed 4.6 Billion years ago. " If it's a qualitative evaluation of something, which is by definition contentious, we'd say, "According to NYT film reviewer Jennifer Smith, Squiggles was the worst film of the 1990's ." All these formats depend on editorial discretion, but in general, the more contentious the material the more the need for in-text attribution. Crum375 (talk) 18:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Ignoring all the idealism, where all reliable sources agree, I think we should state this in Wikipedia's voice. An article which only states who says what all the time will be completely unreadable. Since I joined a few years ago, I've notices the inline citations breaking up the flow of the text, and making the source code almost incomprehensible where they are densly packed. If we now have to bring information from the cites into the text, we'll break the articles. My other encyclopaedias don't have this. Not every reader will be paranoid about sourcing - they just want to know what the subject is about, and to be pointed which direction to research further where they require it. Stephen B Streater (talk) 17:46, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Kotniski, I think the thing here is that it is really only a small subset of information that requires this type of accreditation. Yes, it is that which has a level of subjectiveness, but it is also information that is correctly ascribed only to one author.  It is I would say quite necessary to attribute David Irvine's views directly to himself at all times, but the majority view should not correctly be ascribed to one person, even if one selects only one reference to source it.  In science topics, conflicting theories can be described without being directly attributed "Tonks thinks....".  It is possible to say "the prevailing theory" "another well respected theory" etc etc, with the attribution being in the reference, not directly in the article.Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well what the page currently says (in the sentence that effectively replaces the old ASF) is "controversial or subjective" (i.e. controversial or subjective statements need to be attributed in the text). Can anyone do any better than this "controversial or subjective"? (Given that the question of what's controversial or subjective is itself controversial and subjective.) PS "subjective" has just been changed to "qualitative".--Kotniski (talk) 18:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What about this? "Where a statement is controversial or otherwise not universally accepted, use in-text attribution—"John Smith writes that"— rather than publishing the material in Wikipedia's voice." Crum375 (talk) 18:18, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I reverted that - that's quite wrong (just because the fact of the Holocaust isn't universally accepted doesn't mean we can't ever say simply that it happened. And a subjective comment might be undisputed in any source we have, but we still wouldn't say it direct.) There must be something like sibjective or qualitative there which is independent of the assertion of any kind of disagreement or controversy.--Kotniski (talk) 18:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, I combined both: "Where a statement is controversial, qualitative or otherwise not universally accepted, use in-text attribution—"John Smith writes that"— rather than publishing the material in Wikipedia's voice." Crum375 (talk) 18:25, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That's still wrong, but just for one of the two reasons this time (the Holocaust one). Anyway, time for me to take a short break from this.--Kotniski (talk) 18:27, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I softened "universal" to "broadly accepted" to cover the gas chambers. Crum375 (talk) 18:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * All statements are either qualitative or quantitative - and this policy applies to quantitative claims as much as qualitative ones. I do not think qualitative is necessary and I think it muddies the waters again.  I removed it - I really think we have the "pithy" statement that was asked for.  I really hope we can move on now. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 19:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not keen on using scientific example in this discussion, because compared to national/political issues they are minor disputes. Very few scientists will kill each other over an idea, but there are opinions expressed in articles about national issues that would get a person killed if they were to express them in certain parts of the world. We have to have wording in this policy that allows us to control the bias that originates from entrenched national opinions. I think the sentence "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves." is extremely useful in that context. AFAICT to date in this conversation no one has suggested an alternative.


 * @PBS: There is no need or the word "opinion" - it merely disrupts any normal conversation, because one man's opinion is another man's fact. So let's stick with WP policy - there are only views. You are saying that there is a view that is particularly controversial.  You want to exclude it from the article.  That violates NPOV.  All significant views from reliable sources must be included in an article, Phil.  You cannot censor an article just because a view is controversial.  What does matter is that our NPOV and V policies require than any view must be verifiable, and if it is controversial it is usually necessary to provide the reference and also to name the person or persons whose views it is.  This is clearly stated in the current policy, as currently worded.  I see no other issues.  If you can show me an issue that I have not covered in my explanation of policy to you, please do try to explain it. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 00:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

SV you wrote "I'm not quite following this, but the three core content policies have to be consistent, and the others don't award a special status to "facts" (quite the reverse)." As we are looking at the content of one of the three content polices I do not see what you are suggesting here. This is about articles having a neutral point of view, and this issue is about how to present information in a neutral way, given that the other boxes are ticked (that there is a source, and the information is not OR or more specifically SYN).

Slrubenstein you have not answered my question if you think that the citation I gave covers both sentences, allowing us to put aside the validation question. If we can agree that then we can address the neutral wording issue, but first we have to agree that the citation I have given does cover both sentences. -- PBS (talk) 23:16, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * @PBS non-sequitor. If the source covers both sentences, then it is the validation. This does not "put aside the validation question," it answers the validation question.  What is your question? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 00:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't quite follow your point, Philip. We don't assert facts; we deal only in verifiability. That means we just repeat whatever the most appropriate sources are saying. Those are the only facts we publish: that A said X. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 00:05, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Random break
Kotniski seems to have the issue backwards here. The point is not that "we can't ever say simply that it happened." The point is that everything must be verifiable. that means that if someone ever asks for verification, they have a right to. If the editor who wrote the sentence - even if it just says "The Holocaust happened" is still around, that editor has to provide verification. This does not have to be "inline citation" (Harvard style), it can be a footnote with a source. If the editor who wrote it is gone, and no one else can provide verification, the editor can just leave a tag asking for a citation. or there can be a discussion on the talk page. Editors may agree that the statement is so widely known and uncontroversial that attribution is unnecessary. But to understand Wikipedia policy, you have to understand the difference between attribution is possible and attribution is necessary. All statements must conform with the first phrase; editors can decide that a particular statement does not call for the second phrase.

There has been a lot of talk. Let me try to focus on the point. PBS raised the matter of "opinionated" claims, feeling that Slim Virgin's edits did not cover thse kinds of claims. Kotniski then asked "What was the pithy sentence that you would have pointed them to before?" My point is that PBS is wrong to use the word "opinionated;" the issue is not whether a claim is opinionated or not - many times, un-opinionated statements need verifiation/attribution. The question is whether the claim is controversial or not. And the "pith" sentence Kotniski is looking for is in fact in the version edited by Slim Virgin, in the third paragraph of the section, "Explaining the neutral point of view." Now we are just talking about whether we can tweak that sentence to make it clearer.

Does this make sense? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 18:53, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I can't see a problem, except that we're not clear on how to word the sentence about in-text attribution (just a point about inline citation btw: it can mean a footnote or Harvard ref). The truth is that when to use in-text attribution (John Smith argues that) boils down to editorial judgment, so we should be aiming for some non-restrictive advice. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 19:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree. Jayjg (talk) 20:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It is presentation that is the issue here. If is not a fact that the Sabra and Shatila massacre was a genocide, it is an opinion, but it is a fact that the UN general assembly passed a resolution stating it was a genocide. This comes down to the use of the passive narrative/editorial voice of the article asserting something, for which there is a dispute.


 * The reason we do not attribute every sentence in the text of articles is because articles would be turgid. However in most cases, it is important to attribute opinions to the source of the opinion and if it is controversial to name the source in the text so that it does not appear that Wikipedia is endorsing the opinion.


 * It is OK to say in the passive neutral voice of an article that "During World War II the millions of Jew died in a genocide instigated by the German government", in an inverse of "undue weight" no one seriously questions it. But "In 1982 the Israelis allowed genocide to be committed in Lebanon (UN citation given)" is not neutral because there are a lot of sources that question the UN resolution, making it clear that in the option of questioners it was a political move designed to embarrass Israel and her supporters/allies. If we use the passive neutral voice of an article to endorse a view we are taking a political position, however if we rephrase it as "In 1982 the United Nations General Assembly condemned the Sabra and Shatila massacre and declared it to be an act of genocide. (UN citation given)" the we are not giving an opinion on the issue we are presenting a fact. I am not wedded to any particular wording as to how we address this issue but it needs to be summed up in one concise sentence at the start of a section and have a link directly to the start of a section as was done with ASF. How about "Do not assert [controversial] opinions in the passive narrative voice of the article."? -- PBS (talk) 01:31, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * There are no "facts", "opinions", "truths", or any other special classes of information on Wikipedia, only bits of material, or views, which must be attributable to a reliable source. One man's "fact" is another's "opinion", all these terms are meaningless for us. All we care about is that reliable source X wrote Y. If it's challenged or likely to be challenged, we include an inline citation. If it's contentious, we present it using in-text attribution. But the bottom line is that we don't try to classify our material beyond the established terms of "likely to be challenged", "challenged", or contentious/controversial. I don't see any situation not covered by the existing text of the policy. Crum375 (talk) 01:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Which sentence(s) in this policy covers the difference between "In 1982 the Israelis allowed genocide to be committed in Lebanon (UN citation given)" and "In 1982 the United Nations General Assembly condemned the Sabra and Shatila massacre and declared it to be an act of genocide. (UN citation given)"? -- PBS (talk) 02:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * First, the editors determine whether the characterization as "genocide" is controversial. Once that's determined by consensus and study of sources, according to the current policy, in-text attribution is needed ("Where a statement is controversial or otherwise not broadly accepted, use in-text attribution".) Therefore, the highest quality source to hold that view is found (e.g. the UN), and the second sentence will be used. The first one, which has no in-text attribution, will fall by the wayside once determination of contentiousness is made, which should be easy when a hot-button word like "genocide" is used. Crum375 (talk) 03:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That sentence is fine by me, (which is all I have been asking for). But it probably needs moving to a more prominent position or highlighting in some way. -- PBS (talk) 07:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * We seem to have got mixed up in a tangle of words here - you won't let us say directly that opinions need in-text attribution, you just want to force the one word "contentious" or "controversial" in and then expect people to know that all opinions are regarded as contentious or controversial. Well if that's the case, and given that people won't necessarily make that deduction spontaneously, why not just take a couple of extra words to spell out that opinions require in-text attribution. I suggest that discussion continue in the thread below, about reinstating ASF.--Kotniski (talk) 06:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I would agree that it needs expanding and explaining but that could be done in guidelines, if people do not want in on the policy page -- I don't care providing the big stick is available somewhere in the policy (To paraphrase "the art of consensus is to say nice doggy while feeling around for a big stick"). -- PBS (talk) 07:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I think I understand the concern now. I think saying "represents a particular point of view" or "a specific point of view" is clear and unambiguous, pithy, and gets right at the heart of NPOV - I think this wording covers the gap you and some others seem to be concerned with. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 09:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Verifiability vs Verifiability
Ha! They look the same, but are different. I am happy to change all the links to Verifiability to Verifiability so new readers of this section are encouraged to investigate and discover the difference between a policy page and an English word. For consistency, I'd also change No original research to be italics. If no objections in 24 hours, I'll do them. Stephen B Streater (talk) 21:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Although I understand the motivation, I think this will introduce confusion and lack of consistency. We have a large body of policies and guidelines, many of which are inter-linked. To pick just a couple and make them appear different would make the rest inconsistent, and readers would start wondering what the differences mean. This is a clear case of all-or-none, IMO, and in this case none makes much more sense. Crum375 (talk) 21:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is necessary to italicize the word... the key is that we link to the policy page and not the article. Blueboar (talk) 21:19, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed. The policy opens with a nod to our NOR and V policies. And we make it clear that we do not mean "neutral" in all colloquial senses of the word, so I think people understand that policy defines its terms specifically and that when discussing the meaning of our verifiability policy, one must go to the policy page and not a dictionary or encyclopedia article on "verifiability."  I think computer programers also take words that have common meanings and then regularly use them in very specific ways. When my computer has a virus, I don't pour tea into the tower! Slrubenstein   |  Talk 22:22, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It occurred to me that most of the people discussing here are extremely knowledgeable and experienced. With only 6k edits, and four years as an editor, I'm probably one of the least experienced here. But the article should be aimed at the new editors too. They may come here straight from the 5 pillars link on their welcome message. I haven't seen much thought directed specifically as to how a new editor would read the page. The problem editors I come across tend not to have issues involving the detail we are discussing, important though that is. It's more that some editors (particularly new and SPA ones) seem unaware of this policy - or at least how it relates to them. To encourage people to read it is one reason that I have been suggesting a significant effort to make the article more concise - which Slim Virgin's and others' efforts have gone a long way to achieve. But I'm suspicious of having dozens of interconnected links between long articles. This was my reason for this post. A concise version, which Kotninski had already started, does not justify verbosity and complexity here. Sometimes more is less. Stephen B Streater (talk) 23:11, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd be opposed to that, Stephen, because the way we use terms can be quite distinctive, and it's the policies we're referring to when we add links, not ordinary English usage. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 02:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree. The way Wikipedia uses verifiability and notability are quite specific to the organisation. In the real world, something can also be verified by test ("its salty"), which would be rejected as original research.Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Words to watch
Some words carry non-neutral implications. For example, the word claim can imply that a statement is incorrect, such as John claimed he had not eaten the pie. Try to present different views without using biased words: for example, John said he had not eaten the pie. Similarly, it is sometimes appropriate to make clear that, for example, Shakespeare is widely considered one of the greatest authors in the English language, but make sure this really is the view of multiple sources, and not only of Wikipedians.


 * See Words to avoid

This wording is in my opinion deficient. There is nothing wrong with the word "claim" on its own. The problem arises when it is placed in juxtaposition with another type of statement. This has been thoroughly discussed on the talk pages of words to avoid.

For example suppose someone writes. "Smith claims that Johnson was at at home on the night in question while Jones claims that Johnson was in Leeds". or "The Conservatives claimed that the government was lying about unemployment figures, while a Labour spokesman claimed that the Conservatives were trying to mislead people in the run up the election." The problem comes when claimed is used with a more positive word: Smith stated that Johnson was at at home on the night in question while Jones claims that Johnson was in Leeds." and "The Conservatives stated that the government was lying about unemployment figures, while a Labour spokesman claimed that the Conservatives were trying to mislead people in the run up the election."

The second sentence is misleading because it is not clear. Surly it is not meant to mean mean do your own survey to determine that multiple sources consider "Shakespeare one of the greatest authors in the English language" because that is OR. What we mean is find one or preferably more sources that state that Shakespeare is widely considered one of the greatest authors in the English language.

-- PBS (talk) 13:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The use of "claimed" in place of "said," "argued" etc is almost always best avoided. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 15:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. Perhaps there should be a list of charged words in one of the links at the bottom. Stephen B Streater (talk) 15:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Personaly I would not make words to be avoided policy. There should be a guideline with a list of such words, and we should have a link here. Editors on the talk page should try to reach consensus concerning the bon mot.  But I think this is guideline not policy stuff. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 20:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think the idea is to alert newer editors that an innocent choice of words can have a subtle impact on neutrality, with a couple of examples, such as "X claims" or "Y denies." But the actual list, which in itself is not a "taboo list" but simply an "alert list", should be linked to as a style guideline. Crum375 (talk) 20:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree. mention there is a guideline on these issues, and leave the specifics out. "Claimed" is a pefectly good word to use, it depends on context. The appropriateness of "claimed", or anyother word, needs a level of explanation that does not belong in a policy. If there is a feeling that there really should be an example word I would suggest using "terrorist". What about the second sentence does it make sense to anyone and if so could they explain it to me? -- PBS (talk) 20:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think "claimed" is actually a better example than "terrorist" (although the latter can be used too) because it is more subtle, and less likely to be obvious to a new (and sometimes experienced) editor. I think there is hardly any need for us to ever use "claimed", since other more neutral words can virtually always replace and improve it. I have yet to see an example where "claimed" must be used. Crum375 (talk) 00:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You are asserting that "claimed" is not neutral, but I think it is, (perhaps it is a dialect issue). It is the context in which it is used. As is true for many other words including "said". "Delorian was accused by the FBI of dealing in drugs. He said he was innocent." does not have read the same as "Delorian was accused by the FBI of dealing but he was tried and found innocent". The trouble is that when an assertion is made and then there is a denial, it almost always reads that the assertion is more positive than the denial, particularly if the assertion is made in the passive neutral voice of the article. This is because in such a context the first statement frames the proposition and the second is a denial. For example "The FBI said Delorian was dealing drugs, but he said he was not" is not as well written "The FBI claimed Delorian was dealing drugs, but he denied it", and trying to say claimed is not to be used, particularly in a policy such as this is not helpful.  -- PBS (talk) 20:47, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

No, the neutral way to write this would be "The FBI accused Delorian of dealing drugs, and he denied the accusation." Both "accused" and "denied" are correct in this context, because formal charges have been filed, and both accusation and denial refer to actual (and presumably reliably sourced) legal process. But the word "claimed" does not belong here. Saying "He claimed" is akin to saying "He said X, but we Wikipedia editors suspect he may be lying." Crum375 (talk) 21:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It may not have gone to court, the point is that "said" can be just a biased as claimed. It depends on usage. As I said before -- the appropriateness of "claimed", or any other word, needs a level of explanation that does not belong in a policy. If there is a feeling that there really should be an example word I would suggest using terrorist -- But I would suggest leaving out all specific words and just mention in general that there is guidance on the appropriateness of some words and phrases and base the description on the section headings of the guideline.

Unless someone has something to say in defence second sentence about Shakespeare I will remove it. -- PBS (talk) 20:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Myth
Editors may wish to comment at WP:VPM. --AuthorityTam (talk) 15:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Objective fact differs from a subjective fact
I explained the difference between an objective fact versus a subjective fact. QuackGuru (talk) 03:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Did you attribute it to yourself? Unomi (talk) 03:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, in the edit history the edit is attributed to QuackGuru. QuackGuru (talk) 04:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know that your statement qualifies as ASF tbh, it reads like a tautology. I think you should self-revert and perhaps stir up some discussion on a proper wording. Just to be clear, any opinion can be asserted as fact, that doesn't make the asserted opinion true or justified. Unomi (talk) 04:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 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."
 * This is already part of policy. You wrote "any opinion" can be asserted as fact. This is not the intent of ASF. Any opinion cannot be asserted as fact. I was clarifiying the difference between an objective opinion and a subjective opinion. The sentence summarises ASF policy. In some cases we assert the text and in other case we attribute it to the source such as so and so said. QuackGuru (talk) 17:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I propose we include this in Wikipedia's WP:ASF policy. Some editors are confused that "any opinion" can be asserted as fact. It is an opinion when the Beatles are the greatest band. But what type of an opinion is it. It is a subjective opinion. Clarifying the intent of ASF by explaining that there is a difference between an objective opinion and a subjective opinion will clear up any misunderstanding editors are having with ASF. QuackGuru (talk) 17:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * An objective fact is an opinion that can be asserted as fact. A subjective fact is an opinion that is possibly attributed.
 * Hmm, could you give examples of what you mean by objective facts and subjective facts as they might be used in an article? I am quite honestly confused by the language, is there a different between a subjective fact and an opinion as it relates to what might reasonably be thought introduced to an article? Unomi (talk) 18:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 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. These are objective facts. I previously gave an example of a subjective fact. ASF policy explains the example. If you are still confused this shows there is a need to clarify policy. QuackGuru (talk) 19:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If by subjective fact you refer to the Beatles are the greatest band then this is what I understand to be opinion, if subjective fact is indistinguishable from opinion then I see no reason to introduce the (somewhat confusing) term and even less for the idea that it should possibly be attributed, opinions should always be attributed, and to my peculiar way of thinking so should facts. Unomi (talk) 04:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. Wikipedia search shows two different definitions of subjective fact, neither terribly definitive anyway. Let's not confuse things. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems extremely confusing. Policy should be simple to understand. DigitalC (talk) 14:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree it is confusing. I used wikilinks to specific articles to make it simple to understand. QuackGuru (talk) 07:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

An objective fact differs from a subjective fact

 * An objective fact is an opinion that can be asserted as fact (without simon-says inline-text phrasing). A subjective fact is an opinion that can be attributed (so-and-so said).

Any opinion is not an opinion according to ASF. There is a difference between a subjective fact versus an objective fact but ASF is too vague in explaining or clarifying the difference. When a person reads WP:ASF policy it should be distinguishable what is the difference between an objective opinion compared to a subjective opinion. It is somewhat confusing when it is confusing and vague the intent of ASF. Let's not continue to confuse things with a policy that does not clearly explain the difference between a subjective fact versus an objective fact. QuackGuru (talk) 07:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This version is MUCH more confusing as what is currently in the policy. DigitalC (talk) 16:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not currently explains in policy. You have not explained how it is confusing or made a specific proposal to improve it. DigitalC thinks it is more confusing than the current version. That means DigitalC still thinks the current version is confusing but the proposal which clears up the confusion is more confusing. How could a proposal that explains the difference between an objective fact versus a subjective fact be confusing? There is nothing confusing about it. The current version does not explain what is the difference between an objective fact versus a subjective fact. QuackGuru (talk) 16:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * In fact, both versions have significant issue. the 'simple formulation' is perhaps a bit over-simple.  what we mean to point out (as I see it) is something like this:
 * it's OK to assert simple, uncontested common knowledge (e.g. 'Mars is a planet' or 'Plato was a philosopher') as is.
 * it's OK to assert verifiable statements (e.g. "Linus Pauling advocated the use of Vitamin C as a panacea' or 'Newtonian physics treats gravity as a force'), with proper attribution.
 * it's OK to assert verifiable opinions (e.g. 'Einstein said "God does not play dice with the universe" in opposition to quantum mechanics' or 'Fox News believes the health care plan is detrimental to society')
 * it is not OK to to state opinions as wikipedia editors (e.g. Einstein or Fox News are right/wrong in the above).
 * Perhaps the way to rephrase it (trying to keep to the 'simple' notion') is to say something like: "Assert what you can attribute, be it fact, opinion, or common knowledge; do not give opinions about what you assert."  Not perfect, but it has advantages.  -- Ludwigs 2  17:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * We don't attribute facts they way that we attribute opinions though. For instance, we don't need to say "World Encyclopedia says that Linus Pauling advocated the use of Vitamin C as a panacea" we do need to attribute opinions, which is why we say "Fox News believes..." etc. DigitalC (talk) 17:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You are mispresenting my comments again - please stop. I never said the current version was confusing. I believe the current version is MUCH better than what you have proposed, because what you have proposed makes it more confusing. It is supposed to be "A simple formulation", and getting into "objective fact" vs. "subjective fact" is not simple, nor is it needed. DigitalC (talk) 17:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposal. "An objective fact is an opinion that can be asserted as fact (without simon-says inline-text phrasing). A subjective fact is an opinion that can be attributed (so-and-so said). 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." I propose we include both of these sentences. QuackGuru (talk) 18:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Although Ludwigs2 understands the current ASF is oversimplified I disagree with Ludwigs2 that we need to rephrase the current text. To avoid the continued confusion we need to expand on the current meaning of ASF policy but not change or rephrase it. Rephrasing the current policy will change the meaning and damage the meaning. I want to stick the the current meaning and expand on its meaning the intent of ASF. I think including both sentences will clear up any confusion editors are having. ASF policy needs to be clear when we should attribute or not attribute facts or opinions and what is the difference between a fact or an opinion. My proposal will fix these issues. QuackGuru (talk) 18:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * If I may, nearly the entire book I recommended before, Philosophy of scientific method, deals with subjective vs objective fact. It is extremely confusing and complicated to get into, especially on a policy page. To make this as simple as possible I, personally, would say that facts are attributes. Opinions, on the other hand, are principles, ideas, beliefs or conclusions, which may be subject to dispute.


 * Attributes of a liquid would be fluidity, surface tension, and incompressibility. Pascal's law would qualify as an attribute. An opinion, on the other hand, would be Frenkel's theory. Here is another definition from Reading and writing nonfiction genres By Kathleen Buss, Lee Karnowski


 * Fact versus opinion
 * News might be defined as new, timely information about an event or person in which readers are interested. 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. An opinion also could be defined as what the person feels. A feeling does not make a fact no matter how many people agree with the feeling. Opinions are used in editorials and advice columns. News articles always use factual information, not opinions.


 * To have students better understand the difference, have them look through the newspaper for examples of facts and opinions and share them with the class. The following are examples that may be discussed.


 * Sports can be enjoyed as recreation. (Fact)
 * Most people love baseball. (Opinion)
 * The most exciting sport to watch is tennis. (Opinion)




 * I hope that helps. Zaereth (talk) 18:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Zaereth, this is complicated - much more complicated than policy should be. This is a policy page, not an article, and I really don't think we need to be getting into subjective vs. objective fact here. DigitalC (talk) 23:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Restore ASF lead
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." 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.

I propose the lead to ASF should be restored. ASF was rewritten and is still confusing. See Neutral point of view. QuackGuru (talk) 07:57, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I restored the ASF lead, added a sentence explaining the difference between an objective fact versus a subjective fact, and kept one of the newly added sentences added to the lead of ASF. See this edit. QuackGuru (talk) 19:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

This edit changed the ASF without any agreement. QuackGuru (talk) 19:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The meaning of ASF policy was drastically changed. This edit does not exactly match the edit summary. Another editor made major changes to the lead without gaining consensus. QuackGuru (talk) 19:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The proposal stood on the talk page for ~ 1 week with no one in opposition and several supporting it. Unomi (talk) 16:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The proposal to restore the lead stood for a long time without any opposition. I restored the consensus version to lead to ASF. QuackGuru (talk) 17:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The editor alleged this is a core policy; pls gain talk page consensus for changes. The editor did not gain any consensus and did not discuss the edit here. Can anyone point where on this talk page there was consensus for this edit that another editor edit warred into ASF policy without discussion or consensus. QuackGuru (talk) 19:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

No specific objection was made to restoring to the broad consensus version and no editor was able to point to talk page consensus for this edit repeated in edit war again here. QuackGuru (talk) 01:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree with your recommendation. First, your definition of objective and subjective fact is incorrect. Please see the sources I recommended above. Encyclopedias deal in journalistic writing, not scientific (OR/SYN) type writing. Second, I am of the firm opinion that simpler is better. Every book on writing that I've read seems to agree with me. Third, the idea that "Plato is a philosopher" or "Mars is a planet" is obvious and does not need to be referenced is ridiculous. Not everyone knows who Plato is, or where to find Mars. This information not only should be referenced, but can be with incredible ease. Not doing so is mere laziness. However, information that is obvious, such as "water is wet," does not need a reference. This can be verified by anyone and therefore will not be found in reliable sources. Wikipedia should be no different. But, that's just my opinion. Zaereth (talk) 21:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * That's not the issue here. Take it to another section where a proposal was made for objective and subjective fact. This section is about changing ASF without talk page consensus here. QuackGuru (talk) 01:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Absolutely concur. Unomi (talk) 23:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Something that needs to be said: The fact that "Mars is a planet" needs to be Verifiable... it does not necessarily need to be verified.  It is this distinction that allows the sentence "Mars is a planet" in an article to remain unreferenced. Blueboar (talk) 00:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, but is that endangered by this edit?. Unomi (talk) 18:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Editors are commenting about the wrong issue here. This might confuse other editors. QuackGuru (talk) 01:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * ASF lead changes without discussion or consensus

''The editor alleged this is a core policy; pls gain talk page consensus for changes. The editor did not gain any consensus and did not discuss the edit here. Can anyone point where on this talk page there was consensus for this edit that another editor edit warred into ASF policy without discussion or consensus.'' QuackGuru (talk) 01:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Please comment on the changes made to ASF without any consensus. QuackGuru (talk) 01:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Those were good changes, the specific case of a survey sounds weird and presumably was precipitated by a specific content dispute, no one seriously disputes is subjective and unclear. Unomi (talk) 06:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You have not been able to explain why the changes were good. I strongly disagree with the changes which were made without consensus. QuackGuru (talk) 17:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Crum375 seems to have changed policy without consensus. Rather inappropriate, in my opinion. BigK HeX (talk) 07:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I haven't seen all the versions recently, so can't comment on which is the original and best version. Both versions have merits, but I prefer the longer because it covers two eventualities:
 * It says not to put millions of unnecessary citations for undisputed facts, which is worth saying
 * I don't quite like the fact=verifiable idea, since almost any opinion will have supporting references - it doesn't make it a fact.
 * Stephen B Streater (talk) 07:48, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * "An objective fact is an opinion that can be asserted as fact (without simon-says inline-text phrasing). A subjective fact is an opinion that can be attributed (so-and-so said). 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." Stephen B Streater, I made a proposal in the above thread to include these two sentences that you and other editors could have missed. This will make it more clear the intent of ASF. QuackGuru (talk) 17:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, regardless of which is the oldest, I also prefer the version we have on top at the moment (i.e. the slightly longer one). Although it could still be vastly improved (in fact this whole page could - do we really need all this waffle just to tell people to be neutral?)--Kotniski (talk) 07:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think we should keep the current lead of ASF and not rewrite it. It can be improved by adding two sentences I proposed above. QuackGuru (talk) 17:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Adding those two sentences would not be an improvement. Remember, this is supposed to be SIMPLE. The idea of a subjective fact vs. an objective fact is not simple. If it were simple, you wouldn't have needed wikilinks. We want people to understand policy on first read - not go, "what the heck does that mean?" and not understand the policy. Furthermore, a subjective fact can be asserted as fact - "Hitler was evil". This is a subjective fact, but still easy to assert as a fact. An objective fact can also be attributed - "World Encyclopedia says that Mars is a Planet". So putting this information in here doesn't HELP the policy. DigitalC (talk) 21:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

People should be aware that there might be a few editors who are against the broad consensus version and long standing meaning of ASF policy and want to rewrite (or possibly destroy) policy. QuackGuru (talk) 17:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd strongly recommend researching this matter.


 * Ok, to break this down, I'll start with the sentence currently in the article. "By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." This makes no sense. The words are assembled in a correct sentence, but together they offer no meaning. "Hitler is evil." is an opinion, but few people will dispute this. As stated in the source I referenced above, "A feeling does not make a fact no matter how many people agree with the feeling." (Examples of opinions not seriously disputed: The sun is good. Trees are nice. The first mirrors used by people were most likely pools of dark, still water, or water collected in a primitive vessel of some sort.) Just because an opinion is not "seriously disputed," that still does not make it a fact.


 * Now I'll examine the sentence which Carol added. "By fact we mean a piece of information which can be verified." This actually does make sense. Actually, it is the very definition of fact as found in the same source I cited above: "A fact is information that can be verified or documented." I prefer this sentence because it actually has meaning.


 * I do agree that too many references can be annoying. At the same time though, I'd rather see too many than none at all. In example, if writing an article about Mars, nearly every source will start out by telling me that Mars is a planet. There should be no problem sourcing this info. However, it's not necessary to add a cite to every line. If all of the info in a paragraph came from a single source, then I'd simply put one at the end of the paragraph. I would strongly recommend adding at least one source per paragraph. Zaereth (talk) 17:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The sun is good. Trees are nice. Wikipedians are expert editors. These are examples of a subjective opinion. If we included an explanation of the difference between a subjective statement versus an objective statement it would clear up the confusion you are having. See here: "An objective fact is an opinion that can be asserted as fact (without simon-says inline-text phrasing). A subjective fact is an opinion that can be attributed (so-and-so said). QuackGuru (talk) 19:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, this is also the way we normally edit, apart from truly controversial information, we tend to not need to cite information which is attached to a blue link(as long as the target article supports it).
 * ASF, as I understand it, deals with situations where one does not need to offer a RS in order to justify having the text in an article. It does not cover opinion, never has, it covers only that which is trivially verifiable to be the consensus opinion of RS. In that context the text in the current version is plain wrong viz. that a survey produced a certain published result would be a fact, this is in no way covered by ASF as an RS would have to be given for the existence of such a survey and its results. To me it starts to look like a sizable bit of ASF actually belongs in WP:V. Unomi (talk) 18:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I reject rewriting the lead to ASF including "By fact we mean a piece of information which can be verified.". Anything that can be verified is not considered a fact according to ASF. When there is a serious dispute (among reliable sources) it is an opinion according to ASF. When it is an opinion we attribute the opinion to the source. However, we can include a new sentence about verifiability. QuackGuru (talk) 19:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I concur with QuackGuru's sentiment here -- for the most part. It seems there are an endless number of exceptions to any of the rules discussed here.  BigK HeX (talk) 20:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * My view is completely the opposite. According to what QuackGuru has said above, an opinion is a fact if there is no dispute in reliable sources. So, if one source says "Hitler is evil", and there are no reliable sources that dispute this, then it doesn't get attributed. This is a problem because even without any sources disputing the "fact", it is obvious that it is an opinion. DigitalC (talk) 00:51, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Here are some diffs showing the QuackGuru indeed believes that unless there is dispute among reliable sources, an opinion does not need to be attributed -, , . DigitalC (talk) 02:20, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * "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." If editors want to include information about which can be verified we can include this sentence. QuackGuru (talk) 19:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I have provided a reliable source for Carol's definition. I am simply challenging you to come up with a source for the one you support. The definition we have makes Wikipedia itself look ridiculous, as if the people making the policy pages of an encyclopedia have never even seen a dictionary, let alone an encyclopedia. This leads me to the question, why should I even bother?


 * There's a domino effect that happens when we start changing the meaning of words to fit our own opinions. Suddenly, they don't fit with the meanings of other words, so we must alter them as well. Now, why would those of us who focus on quality want to stay in an environment where the policies are just a menagerie of made-up terms? Zaereth (talk) 19:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Using a source for Carol's definition on how to write Wikipedia policy is not required as a way to completely change Wikipedia policy. My sources are the blue links to objective fact, subjective fact, and reliable source which are part of my proposal to expand ASF while keeping intact the original meaning and intent of ASF. Instead of improving ASF policy, a few editors want to change the entire meaning of ASF which would render it useless. QuackGuru (talk) 20:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it in no way renders it useless, it simply makes what we mean by it more precise and less open to gaming. The wording you prefer, imo, is much too vulnerable to No true Scotsman and other logical fallacies. The intent of ASF, I believe, was exactly to cover very basic, very limited scope scenarios. Unomi (talk) 20:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * No, it would render it useless if editors changed the entire meaning of ASF.
 * For example, if we changed the lead to add "By fact we mean a piece of information which can be verified." it would change the entire meaning of ASF. A fact is not a piece of information which can be verified. Opinions can be verified too. It make no sense to add "By fact we mean a piece of information which can be verified" because a piece of information that is verified does not make it a fact. There is a difference between a subjective statement versus an objective statement. QuackGuru (talk) 20:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * How can you verify an opinion? For example, following the example "Hitler is evil", how would you verify that opinion? DigitalC (talk) 02:47, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * No specific response was made to the above comments. I assume this got lost with all the other comments or editors agree with me. QuackGuru (talk) 01:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Or it could be that it has only been a few hours. DigitalC (talk) 02:47, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Back to QuackGuru's line: "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." This works for me - in WP:V. It tells editors what to do. I don't think we should try and define fact. I'm also in favour of a much shorter policy and less waffle (as mentioned above). Something along the lines of:
 * Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. I'd replace the entire section with this, tagged onto the Bias paragraph above. If people can't understand a short policy, they're definitely going to get lost in a long one. Less is more. Stephen B Streater (talk) 20:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Less is more confusing. I'm not in favor of replacing the entire section with a shorter version. I'm in favor of keeping the lead paragraph the way it is but include the sentence Stephen B Streater articulated above starting with "In Wikipedia most facts, except the most obvious ones". QuackGuru (talk) 20:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Lets back up for a second and consider why ASF is in NPOV in the first place. Unomi (talk) 21:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll give a couple of examples why ASF is here. To prevent editors from adding in-text simon says so-and-so attribution to every sourced objective fact and to prevent editors from removing in-text simon says attribution when there is a serious dispute. QuackGuru (talk) 21:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * All good stuff. But why is ASF here. Verifiability is not the same as NPOV. I would just direct people to WP:V for that information. Stephen B Streater (talk) 21:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Or we could rename it ALF - it's slightly lost its purpose as its now one of the longest sections. It's another example of trying to created mappers out of packers by reams of instructions. Stephen B Streater (talk) 21:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * ASF is not about verifiability, which is why it is here. To maintain a NPOV, we don't take sides in disputes, and we don't endorse opinions as facts. DigitalC (talk) 22:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * In science Dr. Asimov says that if you charge an electroscope, the leaves will separate, because they repel each other. I suggest that in this statement that they separate is an observable fact, but that they repel each other is an opinion. That's the trouble with scientific information. It's partly about disagreements about facts.WFPM (talk) 22:53, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * DigitalC seems to disagree with including information about verifiability for this policy. Am I correct? QuackGuru (talk) 01:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No, you are not correct. In fact, I think wikilinking to WP:V is probably good. However while WP:ASF is related to verifiability, it is not ABOUT verifiability. DigitalC (talk) 02:47, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * To everybody, if you leave a response somewhere in the middle, chances are that I'm not going to go back and hunt for it. I disagree with the notion that that policies are independent. A flaw in one policy affects the integrity of the entire structure. It is my personal feeling that all of wikipolicy should be summed up as a whole, to clear-up how everything interconnects.


 * To QuackGuru, though, I do not use Wikipedia as a reliable source for anything I present. Do you have anything else? I have provided a reliable source for objective and subjective fact. An objective fact is based on physical attributes. A subjective fact is based upon feelings (sensory input). However, "the eyes can decieve us" argument is not a part of journalistic writing. We trust in what the reliable sources say.


 * That is not to say that our own judgement as a wrtier/editor is not of value. If source "A" says Columbus sailed in 1496, yet every other source says 1492, we should assume an error. If, however, two sources totally disagree on facts, and neither can be backed-up by a third, then both should be presented as possibilities. In example, if source "A" says Louis Quenault was the first person to shoot down an airplane from another aircraft, but source "B" says it was Poncho Villa, I'm going to look for the facts. In this case, the question of when should be settled by the dates. If both happen to say October 5, 1914, then it's time for the so called simon-says attributions. For this, I would definitely use text instead of citations to explain it. (ie: According to source A it was Quenault,[1] while source B says it was Villa in October 1914.[2]) Except in a case of simple human error, most sources will agree about the properties (objective fact) even if their perception of those properties varies (subjective fact).


 * Opinions are based on conclusions (judgements), values (principles) and feelings (emotional response). They are not a part of either type of fact. However, even opinions have facts, as in, who said it? What is it? Etc...Zaereth (talk) 23:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * This is an explanation about what is subjective versus what is objective. But that is not the point I am trying to make. I want to explain when we can assert facts and when we can attribute opinions. I want to keep intact the intent of ASF while giving some direction for editors.
 * "An objective fact is an opinion that can be asserted as fact (without simon-says inline-text phrasing). A subjective fact is an opinion that can be attributed (so-and-so said)."
 * Zaereth, how would you improve the proposal above. So far no editor has made any suggestions to improve it. I assume it is ready to go into ASF and we can start a RFC for other editors to weight in on the discussion. QuackGuru (talk) 01:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll weigh in that a lack of suggestions might not really be an indicator that there is agreement. Personally, I'm fairly ambivalent to the proposed wording, though I don't think the proposal is significantly more clear than the current (old consensus) version. BigK HeX (talk) 02:20, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I will repeat my comments above that QuackGuru seems to be ignoring, since he states that he assumes it is ready to go into ASF. This explanation does not improve the policy, and doesn't belong in the policy. The policy is not an article. The explanation about what is subjective versus what is objective is not simple, and does not make the policy more clear. DigitalC (talk) 02:47, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You are not explaining your reasons. You are only disagreeing with me without any justification for over a year straight now all over Wikipedia. I am not trying to explain what is subjective versus what is objective. I am trying to include information that tells editors when to atribute text and when it is not necessary to attribute text. For example, if it is a subjective statement we attribute it to so-and-so said. When it is an objective statement we don't need to say so-and-so said. I explained why this proposal will impriove ASF by telling the reader when to use attribution and when not to use attribution. My proposal does make it simple to understand ASF policy. QuackGuru (talk) 03:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * An improvement would be to use the terms opinion, and fact. These are terms that are clear to everyone, unlike subjective fact and objective fact. DigitalC (talk) 03:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * What may be helpful is to list more examples of facts which it is acceptable to simply assert, versus more contestable assertions which may be treated similarly to commentary/opinions. BigK HeX (talk) 03:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, this is a good idea. I'm sure Zaereth knows what is treated as opinions versus facts. But we still need to explain to editors when it is a fact in-text attribution is not required and when it is an opinion in-text attribtuion is encouraged. QuackGuru (talk) 17:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm opposed to bringing in new unfamiliar terms, such as objective fact and subjective fact. We don't need to use these actual terms if we are going to define them and then use them only once. I am in favour of using examples of the various cases: The simplest of openings followed by couple of examples of each, with the above structure, would make the whole section much shorter and clearer to me. Stephen B Streater (talk) 06:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * A fact which doesn't need verification
 * A fact which does need verification
 * An opinion which needs to be balanced
 * I briefly put up an example here for comparison, which is half as long as the established version. I ask the assembled editors to review the policy page as a whole. Consider how long it would take to read it all, and how many of our 1 million editors will actually do this. It is just far too long, and I think this is a serious issue. In software, we would call it bloatware. Stephen B Streater (talk) 07:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, definitely, and I mainly agree with your attempt to make it shorter. However I don't agree with the distinction between a fact that "needs verification" (like Mandela's birthdate) and one that doesn't ("Mars is a planet"). If there is a distinction to be made here, it's not within the scope of this page - since we insist on having separate pages for V, NOR and NPOV (I think they should all be combined, but anyway) we should keep things which are specifically V off the page for NPOV.--Kotniski (talk) 09:44, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree with destroying ASF policy. There is not a problem with the intro to ASF.
 * A fact which doesn't need verification This is not about ASF.
 * A fact which does need verification This is not about ASF.
 * An opinion which needs to be balanced This is not about ASF.
 * Values or opinions which are subject to serious dispute need balance for NPOV. Balance is about WP:WEIGHT not specifically about ASF.
 * By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute. This sentence is very well written and currently in the article.
 * Let me explain why it is a well written sentence. When there is no serious dispute among reliable sources and it is a fact we don't need to add in-text attribution. In-text attribution is about so-and-so said. In-text attribution has nothing to do with WP:V.
 * Stephen B Streater, ASF is about when to use in-text attribtuion versus no in-text attribution. When text needs verification is not what ASF policy is about. QuackGuru (talk) 17:47, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Forgive me. I misinterpreted the heading ASF. Perhaps a more meaningful one could be put in, such as When to use in text attribution. Stephen B Streater (talk) 19:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * But there is also times when we should not use in-text attribtuion (so-and-so said) too. I don't understand the proposals to rewrite a very well written policy. My proposals are not to change the policy. My proposals are to expand the current policy while keeping intact the original meaning. QuackGuru (talk) 19:47, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you give an example of "when we should not use in-text attribution"? I see no problem of giving attribution to a fact, if the editor so desires. Perhaps you could explain why it is a problem? DigitalC (talk) 00:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

A fact versus an opinion

 * Proposal for ASF. "A fact can be asserted without simon-says inline-text phrasing. An opinion can be attributed to so-and-so said."

After reading comments from other editors I think this simplified version will work. We can also include more examples of facts (objective statements) and more examples of opinions (subjective statements). QuackGuru (talk) 18:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

This newer rewritten proposal was discussed here on the talk page without a specific objection. So I'll go ahead and add it to ASF. I made the change. QuackGuru (talk) 01:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Proposal for ASF. "A fact is an objective statement. An opinion is a subjective statement."

For the examples we can include sentences explaining what is a fact and what is an opinion and give the examples. QuackGuru (talk) 18:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This is sort of right, though sometimes apparently objective statements need attribution too (if sources are divided, or if the sources we have are of limited reliability or neutrality).--Kotniski (talk) 18:41, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Now we're getting to something that is simple enough to be clear. PS You've convinced me about the purpose of ASF, so I'm going to change the heading to something more meaningful. Feel free to revert if I've missed something. WP:ASF is also a meaningless abbreviation, but we can address this as a separate point. Stephen B Streater (talk) 19:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * OK - forget that. The section as written is not just about in text attribution. It's about achieving neutrality. Stephen B Streater (talk) 19:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * While I agree that this is better, I still think it's a slippery slope to merely describe an opinion as subjective and a fact as objective. What most books on journalistic writing do is describe the difference clearly so that writers and editors will know how to present information in an unbiased manner. Since QuackGuru asked, the following is more along the lines of the wording which I'd aim for:


 * Use facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information which is verifiable." Facts are physical attributes, covering the “what,” “where,” “when,” “who” and “how” of the article. Facts can be verified in a reliable source, and double checked using multiple sources.


 * Examples of facts:
 * Stealing is a crime in most countries.
 * The Beatles were a British rock band.
 * The United States is the only country to have used a nuclear weapon in wartime.
 * Gravity causes things to fall.


 * Facts are inherently neutral. Facts only need to be attributed to their sources using in-line citations. For undisputed facts, a citation at the end of the paragraph is sufficient, but for disputed facts, one to three concurring sources should be used.


 * By value or opinion,[1] on the other hand, we mean "a belief, principle, idea or conclusion, which may be subject to dispute." Opinions are judgments made by individuals which may or may not be based on fact, covering the “why” of the article. Opinions can be theories, hypotheses, conjecture, or ideals.


 * Examples of opinions
 * Stealing is bad. (Belief)
 * The Beatles were the greatest band in history. (Conclusion)
 * Using atomic bombs is wrong. (Principle)
 * Gravity is caused by curvature in spacetime. (Idea)


 * While an opinion is not factual and cannot be verified, we can verify the facts surrounding the opinion. We attribute the opinion to its origin, describing who has this opinion. We can describe what the opinion is, where it came from, and when.


 * For instance, rather than asserting that "The Beatles were the greatest band ever", locate a source such as Rolling Stone magazine and say: "Rolling Stone editor Matt Taibbi said that the Beatles were the greatest band ever", and include a reference to the issue in which that statement was made. Likewise, the statement "Most people from Liverpool believe that the Beatles were the greatest band ever" can be made if it can be supported by references to a particular survey; a claim such as "The Beatles had many songs that made the UK Singles Chart" can also be made, because it is verifiable as fact. The first statement asserts a personal opinion; the second asserts the fact that an opinion exists and attributes it to reliable sources.


 * Opinions are inherently biased. Often, there are opposing opinions. In attributing competing views, it is necessary to ensure that the attribution adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity….


 * Not perfect, I know, but I haven't taken my usual time in crafting the writing. I'll just throw that out here for everone to examine. Have a good weekend everybody. Zaereth (talk) 19:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I'll digest that and give feedback later. Stephen B Streater (talk) 19:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Use facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information which is verifiable." Facts are physical attributes, covering the “what,” “where,” “when,” “who” and “how” of the article. Facts can be verified in a reliable source, and double checked using multiple sources.
 * I reject rewriting the lead to ASF including the part about "By "fact" we mean "a piece of information which is verifiable". Anything that can be verified is not considered a fact according to ASF. When there is a serious dispute (among reliable sources) it is an opinion according to ASF. When it is an opinion we attribute the opinion to the source.
 * The examples of facts and the examples of opinions are useful for ASF. I don't see a need to rewrite ASF policy but adding a few more examples could be helpful. QuackGuru (talk) 19:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * "Facts are physical attributes, covering the “what,” “where,” “when,” “who” and “how” of the article."
 * This seems to be a dangerous statement to use, especially with regards to "how," which is often a contentious discussion for a variety of topics -- to use the examples from above, "how" gravity causes things to fall is labeled as an "idea" above. BigK HeX (talk) 07:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Zaereth's suggestion above seems pretty simple to understand; however, it also 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 discussion [probably an RfC] specifically on that topic first.  Of course.. this is all irrelevant if there has already been an RfC on the ASF policy, and I simply missed it.  BigK HeX (talk) 07:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think this is getting very confused. There are 2 different types of distinctions here:


 * 1) Questions
 * 2) questions of a factual nature
 * 3) questions about values
 * 4) questions of interpretation
 * 5) very likely others
 * 6) Answers
 * 7) (nearly) all reliable sources agree
 * 8) there is serious disgreement among RSs

Peter jackson (talk) 10:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, BigK, the question is not how but why. The answer to how gravity works would be "unknown." No theory, as far as I know, offers a mechanism for gravity. Also, it's a fallacy to think that, because something has always been done a certain way, there must be nothing better.


 * To, Peter, all inquisitive questions can be boiled down to these seven: What, where, when, who, how, why, and does/do. We can not always answer every question, but for the ones we can, they should be answered in the order of importance, as I've listed them. The first five ask for facts. The answer to these will either be right or wrong. The last two ask for opinion. When examining any information, it is important to ask ourselves what question is being answered.


 * Here is an example:


 * A deadly collision, between a minivan and a tractor-trailer, occured at mile 47 of the Glenn Highway, at 2:30 P.M. today. The semi, driven by 25 year old Joe Blow, crashed into the minivan, driven by 36 year old Bob Cobb. Blow was traveling southbound when he lost control on the ice, crossing the center divider. The two vehicles collided head-on, killing Cobb instantly. Witnesses state that the semi-truck was traveling too fast for conditions. The police report that alcohol does not appear to have been a factor.


 * The first sentence answers what, where and when. The second answers who. The third and fourth sentences answer how. The fifth sentence answers why, while the last question covers do/does. These last two are opinions, and are therefore attributed to their sources. As I've said, all of this information about writing is readily available to anyone who cares to look. Zaereth (talk) 17:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Two points I'd like to make with Zaereth. First is that, yes, there are examples of explaining "how" something happens which are not contentious, however, as mentioned above, this is not always the case; above I provided a counter-example which seems pretty sufficient for making that point.  When discussing "how" in relation to "how things work," the answer is going to be theoretical, though some theories are far less contentious than others.
 * As for any "that's how things have been" fallacy -- I've stated no such advocacy here. I stated my opinion that *if* such a substantial change in the policy is being contemplated, an RfC should be conducted. BigK HeX (talk) 23:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I'd have to disagree with that. I edit mainly technical articles, where how is the primary concern. When taliking about causality, we're discussing the reason for something; the why. When discussing the manner in which something occurs, we're talking about process: the how. The example I gave above does not describe how things fall. (No process is described.) The closest we could get is, from up to down, accelerating at a rate of 9m per second squared if on Earth. That describes how things fall. Curvature in spacetime describes the reason for gravity, or why it exists. The theory does nothing to describe how it operates.


 * It's perfectly valid for you to do so, but creating such a distinction between "how" and "why" is largely a personal decision, since common parlance allows uses of "how" without such a clear distinction. A testament to that is the fact that I can ask the question, "How does gravity work, according to Einstein?" and expect for any general English-speaking audience to understand that I am asking for an elaboration of a theory.  So, I would still be leery of possible misunderstanding that the proposal above might generate if it asserts that, "Facts are physical attributes, covering the “what,” “where,” “when,” “who” and “how” of the article." BigK HeX (talk) 00:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I apologize if I have misread you. Personally, I have no intention of making any changes to policy myself. The changes I recommended above are merely more along the lines of what reliable sources say on the matter. I'd be happy if an RFC is conducted. I'll be ecstatic if just one person looks into the sources I've provided. Zaereth (talk) 00:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, you make a valid point. I wasn't very happy with the language either. I was just thowing that out there in a rather hasty manner, per QuackGuru's request. It could definitely use clarification. For instance, some of the confusion you're experiencing appears to be from looking at the wrong definition. If you'll notice, I'm using the terms as nouns. If you look for those defs in your online dictionary, perhaps that would help clear it up. Zaereth (talk) 00:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The following line is from above, by WFPM. "In science Dr. Asimov says that if you charge an electroscope, the leaves will separate, because they repel each other. I suggest that in this statement that they separate is an observable fact, but that they repel each other is an opinion. That's the trouble with scientific information. It's partly about disagreements about facts.WFPM (talk) 22:53, 18 April 2010 (UTC)"

I've been waiting for someone to touch upon this aspect of opinions, for to me it seems to be the very core of what QuackGuru is trying to point out. Not all opinions are seriously disputed. Very few people will disagree that magnetism accompanies electricity. This is almost accepted as fact, even though there is no way to prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt. The example I gave above, about the first mirrors being pools of water, (which is the first line from the mirror article), is another similar opinion. Undisputed theories are often presented using citation only, preferrably with links to articles, such as electromagnetism, that will expand on the theoretical nature underlying the subject. The article electroscope is a good example of undisputed theories backed up with undisputable observations (facts). The laser pumping article is full of these. The line from the mirror article is a good example of an undisputed theory with little to no evidence.

However, many opinions are disputed. It's not so much a disagreement about the facts, but about the interpretation, or, the meaning. In science as well as religion, the unanswerable question why is the primary goal. Everytime we answer this question, it leaves us with two more whys. (I'm sure we all remember discovering, around the age of four, that we could torture our parents with this question.) The important part, I think, is understanding that opinions require reasoning on the part of an individual, whereas facts are indeed undisputable observations. They are verifiable in reliable sources, and if accurate, by the reader who comes to experimentally test our information, say, by pumping their own laser.

The only thing we can ever verify about an opinion is that it exists. Understanding this not only helps us present information in a neutral way, but also with accuracy. Zaereth (talk) 01:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

A clear example
This proposal is for ASF. "An objective observation expresses a fact. A subjective interpretation expresses an opinion." We made this proposal based on this comment. QuackGuru (talk) 05:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your work on this. As I made clear above, I have a more general issue with the length of the policy. Changes tend to make it longer and longer over time. I doubt very many editors have actually read it. This is a bigger issue though, and not only relevant to this change. Stephen B Streater (talk) 06:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll admit that your suggestion does look better, QuackGuru. I still have reservations about using the terms objective and subjective, because it leaves too much room for interpretation. These are not common phrases known to general audiences. This will require defining the terms in depth, (which took one source nearly an entire book), and that leads me straight to Stephen's fears.


 * I'll take a little while longer to mull this over in my subconscious, and see if I can help come up with some wording that is not only short, simple, and clear to a general audience, but also covers everyone's concerns. Zaereth (talk) 02:06, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * For clarification I added wikilinks to both objective and subjective. This keeps the text short while defining the terms. QuackGuru (talk) 02:41, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I really dislike linking to articles in our policy... but I have to admit it does help. Blueboar (talk) 02:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I made the change in accordance with consensus. I slightly tweaked it to make it more clear. QuackGuru (talk) 03:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Different ASF template
It was suggested that a template for ASF is helpful. This edit suggested we need a template when a serious dispute exists among reliable sources. QuackGuru (talk) 00:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I made this change since no specific objection was made. Silence equals consensus. QuackGuru (talk) 04:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Undue
I'm concerned about some of the editing of this section, which strikes me as contradicting the policy. I've removed some repetition, but also this:


 * "The majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader may understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding parts of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained."

This is almost encouraging WP:SYN violations. To make up an example, if we create an article based on some newspaper reports that drinking lavender tea has helped some cancer patients, the sentence above says we have to have even more material in the article about what some doctors might think is the standard treatment. That would be classic SYN. SlimVirgin talk  contribs 21:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm also moving this here:


 * "In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more widely held views ..."

I've never heard of this principle before. It would surely depend on the context, the sources, and the willingness of editors to add material. Note this isn't about tiny-minority views, but about significant-minority ones. Having this in the policy strikes me as a way to exclude material about minority positions, which this policy is actually here to defend. SlimVirgin talk  contribs 22:01, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In regard to the second point, I think the spirit of the wording is to prevent the minority points of view from overwhelming the majority point of view. Also, I don't think it is always clear cut when a point is a tiny-minority point of view and a minority point of view.


 * We need to guard against adding loads of easily available content from sources with a minority point of view just because they are more easily available than the works from scholarly sources that present the majority point of view. A recent article published about the quality of Wikipedia FAs raised the point that Wikipedia articles choice of sources for articles could skew the content in ways that captures the topic differently than most works of reference do. I think that this wording is attempting to prevent that from happening. Maybe we could make it clearer. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 22:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * There's a significant problem of in-universe fringe articles on topics with little attention from mainstream sources – our articles should show that these are tiny minority views and how they differ from the mainstream view. If no sources can be found, then there's a lack of appropriate third party references and it's questionable if they're notable enough for coverage. Syn isn't encouraged, balance is encouraged. I've restored a trimmed version of the wording to weight, but once again there's a danger of changing policy in cutting the words. The summary in the Explaining the neutral point of view section aimed to cover that – it's misleading to cut that back as was done by SV and thus suggest that fringe in-universe articles are ok if sources can be found, so I've removed that altogether. The detail belongs in the Weight section. . . dave souza, talk 23:44, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec) I think the intention is honourable, so let me make that clear, but I also think it's causing problems. The UNDUE section was largely developed over the years by editors who were keen to keep pseudoscience out of our articles, which I mostly support, but I also think it went too far, and the way the policy was worded allowed that.


 * It also makes no sense at a practical level to insist that articles always point out what the majority view might be, and that they give the minority view less space. When writing about Otherkin must we make clear the majority view that human beings are not, in fact, fairies or werewolves? When writing about animal rights do we have to make clear whatever the majority view is (and where would we find it)? Someone did try to do that once by adding an opinion from the American Cattlemen's Association to the lead! If we're not allowed to give minority views as much or as detailed a description, must we add 8,001 words from the cattlemen and similar to balance the 8,000 words about animal rights? Looking at a page I'm currently editing, Christ myth theory (the small-minority view that Jesus did not exist at all), must I add thousands of words explaining the majority view of biblical scholars that yes, of course, he did exist?


 * My worry about this section of NPOV is that it was developed by a small group of editors for a very specific purpose, and that it doesn't reflect how the policy is applied and understood most of the time. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 23:54, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I removed this verbiage because I believe this would violate NPOV and possibly NOR. Imagine we have a small religious sect, and we are writing an article about their beliefs. Do we need to explain that even though they believe man came from frogs, the majority doesn't accept that view? And as we try to juxtapose their beliefs with the majority, unless it is sourced directly to a reliable source, we would probably violate NOR and SYN. When we write about a minority, we focus on the minority, using the available reliable sources. If there are good secondary sources directly comparing the minority to the majority, they should be included, but we can't mandate this information unless we have the sources which make the direct comparisons for us. Crum375 (talk) 00:16, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Context is key. While the article about said minority probably should focus on it, NPOV also demands that the information isn't presented out of context:  if something is a minority, then it needs to be clearly stated to be so, at a minimum by pointing back to the majority view, otherwise we're making it look as though that view has more prominence that it really has.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 06:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The longstanding wording covered that point by noting that a brief mention of the majority view will often suffice, as in the case of the flat earth. I've therefore restored that wording. If all the available "reliable sources" referring specifically to a new "cult of flat earth" are part of that cult of flat earth, a very strict reading of SYN makes it difficult to show the mainstream view, but it is still needed to avoid misrepresenting the status and prominence of flat earthism to readers of that article about a tiny minority viewpoint. This is a serious problem, even with the longstanding policy, and the answer is not to remove the requirement to show the majority view in sufficient detail. . . dave souza, talk 07:11, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In some cases, we would be running into WP:FRINGE territory here, and FRINGE has plenty to say. My own opinion is that if a NEW religion pops up, particularly a new Western religion, I would follow the line that it must also contain the majority view (so MHO the article on Wicca should pooint out that although some Wiccans believe their religion goes back to the days of the prehistoric matriarchs, there's actually very good evidence that it started in the 1930s).  For old religions which are still going today, it is enough to say that "the traditional belief that the earth is carried on the back of a giant turtle is still taught" - because there's usually also info such as "alongside modern classes in geography and biology". Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:18, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I added a caution about potential NOR violation when comparing the minorities to others, to address the issue I raised above. Crum375 (talk) 10:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Worthy and correct on a strict NOR interpretation, but elevating NOR above neutrality. "Comparison of the minority views with others should be based on reliable secondary sources which directly make that comparison, to avoid introducing original research."
 * The essence of Weight is that majority views be shown as such, and extreme minority views need not be shown at all. The exception allowed to this is that extreme minority views can be shown in articles devoted to them which show that they are minority views in relation to the majority view. If all the reliable secondary sources promote or present the fringe view without stating or fairly describing the majority view, the article is automatically unbalanced. Sources might be readily available showing the majority view, but can't be used on this extreme reading of SYN. To take an example, the Daily Telegraph informed us that an electronic device called the Quantum QXCI can scan humans for vitamins, minerals, food intolerances, toxicity, organ function, hormone balance, parasites, digestive disorders and stress levels. Taking that as a reliable source, as is commonly argued, could justify an article on that fringe idea, and the mainstream view of such quackery would have to await a more reputable analysis, if it ever came. There are more serious examples actually occurring. For all its wordiness, the longstanding wording of this and other related sections at least set a higher barrier against such imbalance, and a complete restoration of that wording would be less destructive than this changing of core policy on the hoof without wider consultation. . . dave souza, talk 18:46, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * An article can only be created once it passes WP:N and its various sub-specialties. If it seems WP:FRINGEy, it will likely end up on AfD, where notability will have to be clearly shown, based on non-trivial mentions in reliable secondary sources, etc. Let's assume the article is on a small religious sect, which believes that the Moon is our god and creator. Assuming there are good secondary sources describing this religion, but none comparing it to other religions or criticizing its beliefs, do we then add, on our own initiative, verbiage and sources showing that the Moon was created 4.5 billion years ago, and it's made of essentially same stuff as Earth, and that according to most people's beliefs, god is not an orbiting rock? Who is going to write this? Would this really "preserve NPOV"? We should certainly clarify that this is a small sect, and include anything else relevant we can find in the secondary sources describing it. But to conjure together sources which do not address the article subject directly, in order to trash a minority, would clearly violate NPOV and NOR. Crum375 (talk) 02:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

In an extreme example, that applies, and the aim is to give due weight to mainstream views, not to trash a minority. Even in the case you set out, what if none of the reliable sources mention that it's a small sect? For a wider example, in a well debated area a book promoting a minority or fringe viewpoint might only attract reviews which don't mention the mainstream view, even though a dispute between the mainstream and fringe viewpoint is well covered in other reliable sources. Does that mean that it's non-notable, or do we present an unbalanced in-universe article on the book until some reviewer mentions the mainstream view with specific reference to the book itself? This is more obviously a problem in science subjects than in relation to religious views where there's a less defined mainstream. The principle of avoiding synthesis stands, but it's in tension with the need for due weight in articles on little-discussed small minority views. . . dave souza, talk 20:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This is where it is appropriate to gather as many sources as possible. "New Age" books are usually only reviewed in "New Age" periodicals, so I can see it happening that an author, book or school of thought is notable but the sources are all 'in universe'. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm very disturbed by the recent cuts made to policy described in WP:UNDUE. I feel very strongly that such long standing policy should not be arbitrarily cut without a widespread referendum on the issue. Wikipedia must present first and foremost the mainstream scientific view. The recent cuts have made it that much harder to fight minority POV pushers. If anyone wants to change the policy, please hold a RfD on this issue first. LK (talk) 08:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Slrubenstein reverted my edit on style grounds, and asked for a better explanation of my edits. I will reinstate with a shortened, and hopefully stylistically better version, and also explain what I'm doing.
 * First, this sentence was a recent introduction, it significantly restricts the use of majority literature in minority articles, and afaik, was introduced without discussion. I have removed it.
 * Second, we need to spell-out that more weight should be given to majority views, except in articles about minority views. Although it is a logical consequence of the previous paragraph, people will argue about it. Also, the sentence about 'tiny minorities' doesn't stand very well by itself. I have changed it in this edit.
 * LK (talk) 10:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * @ Crum who has just reverted me. I am reverting to wording from an old consensus version that was long standing, and was only changed last week. If consensus is needed for my one sentence reversion, I would rather suggest that consensus is needed for the wholesale cuts that have happened in the last week. I would like to propose a reversion to the version from before the wholesale cuts, and a AfD on this issue before going forward. LK (talk) 12:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Relevance and quality
We seem to be lacking a resolution on the issue of relevance and/or quality. Personally, I'm up for relevance and quality, for reasons we can discuss when we've resolved the relevance question. Crum375 was saying that we'd have to define relevance in WP:SOURCES first, so we could do that, then include relevance. Then talk about whether to include quality. Does this seem a productive course of action? Stephen B Streater (talk) 21:12, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * There has to be some room for editorial judgment, Stephen. Editors tend to interpret the policies very literally (especially when it suits them), so it's important when writing policy to tread lightly, and to use ambiguity deliberately, not by accident. The more words, the greater the danger. V already says of "relevance": "The appropriateness of any source depends on the context." I don't think we should go beyond this. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 21:19, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Before the copy edit, the policy didn't say anything about relevance or quality of sources. It said "How much weight is appropriate should reflect the weight that is given in current reliable sources." And "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public."  SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 22:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "neither 'quality' or 'relevant' appears in 'WP:V' but both appear in WP:SOURCES and in other places in WP:V and neither is explicitly defined. -- PBS (talk) 12:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)" -- PBS (talk) 23:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is any need to define them but given the example I gave above about Leo Kuper and Telford Taylor and international law, it is relevance not quality which better in the policy sentence under discussion. -- PBS (talk) 23:10, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:SOURCES is V, so I don't know what you mean by writing as though they're two pages, and "relevance" doesn't appear there, nor did it appear in NPOV before (or since) the copy edit. And "quality" didn't appear in NPOV or V either in the sense you're trying to use it now. So this is an entirely new thing you're trying to force in. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 23:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Philip, can you say where they are in WP:SOURCES? SlimVirgin talk  contribs 23:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not sure why you say I am trying to force in quality. It was not I who introduced the sentence or the word (see this edit by Crum375) I am trying to replace quality with relevence for the reasons given with the example of Leo Kuper and Telford Taylor.
 * I made a distinction between WP:V and WP:SOURCES because SOURCES is specific to the section in WP:V called "Sources". A search on WP:V shows the use of the term:
 * the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications
 * English source of equal quality can be found that contains the relevant material.
 * claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community
 * footnote 2 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.
 * So we use relevant in WP:V in the sense I an using it here. -PBS (talk) 23:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * But none of those are how you're using the word "relevance" here, as you surely know. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 00:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I was the one who introduced the word "quality", and it gained consensus on the talk page. My reason for it is that there are several "reliable source" attributes mentioned in WP:SOURCES which can make a source "count more" or be preferred to another, such as a seminal article in Nature vs. a local story for a scientific discovery. The point as I see it is that although neutrality involves presenting each view based on the "prevalence" or quantity of sources supporting it, we also want to emphasize and encourage the use of higher quality sources, for any of the individual views. Relevancy is just one aspect, but so are appropriateness and the number of vetting layers of the publisher. All these terms are quite vague, but "quality" is a bottom line which enhances mere "quantity". Crum375 (talk) 00:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Where did it gain a consensus? How does the use of the word "quality" address example of Leo Kuper and Telford Taylor? It will only work if you argue that TT is better quality source that "LK" which on issues of international law he clearly was, but quality in this case only works if one ignores the difference between a university published book and a a newspaper article. -- PBS (talk) 00:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the edit history of the sentence I would suggest going for the minimalist approach and strip it down to "In determining appropriate weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence within reliable published sources." and rely on a reading of WP:V for the details. -- PBS (talk) 00:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I can support that. Crum375 (talk) 00:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Me too. I thought "quality" had been added for Philip's benefit in the first place. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 00:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Although I didn't add the wording myself, we were aiming for some element of weighting of the sources themselves. Something may be simplified or "dumbed down" in many low grade reliable sources, but the precise meaning may appear in relatively few high grade reliable sources. I wouldn't want the prevalence in low grade sources to necessarily outweigh the high grade sources. Stephen B Streater (talk) 06:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't mind retaining the quality issue, but to add relevance would be problematic, because we have no idea what we'd mean by it. The point of the copy edit was to tighten NPOV and to make sure it's working in harmony with V and NOR, and not contradicting them. But we shouldn't be introducing new ideas over and above what's already in those policies. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 10:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Relevant, is no more of a new idea than introducing quality. SV I did not bother to answer you question before, as I thought we had put this issue to bed, but clearly the way that relevance is use in the V is the way I am using it here, therefor it is not a new concept. Before I give an example I want to make it clear that the discussion of sources is bound by the definition of reliable sources (so that we do not get detracted by arguments about the difference of reliable and unreliable sources). There can be two articles of the same quality (they could be published in the same journal and written by the same person) but if one only mentions an topic in passing while the other mentions it in detail, clearly the more detailed one is more relevant than the one that mentions it in passing. So the issue is not quality but relevance. Quality becomes misleading attribute when considered in the context of the Leo Kuper and Telford Taylor example I gave above. -- PBS (talk) 21:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

SYN
Lawrence, this isn't new. It's the NOR policy. NPOV, NOR, and V work in harmony with each other. SlimVirgin talk  contribs 10:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It's new on this page. And its a new interpretation of Syn above and beyond what the syn page says.
 * IMO, the addition which I have just reverted is an egregious and mistaken extension of the WP:SYN policy. It can be interpreted to mean that in the article about the flat earth society, only sources that specifically address how the flat earth society's theory is wrong can be mentioned on the page. Since almost all geology textbooks don't mention the modern flat earth society's theories, this would exclude the mainstream views almost entirely. IMO, an RfC discussion is needed before it is reintroduced. LK (talk) 13:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This was discussed at some length above. Let's say we have an article about a religious sect which happens to believe that the Moon contains a large core made of gold and diamonds, was created 5,000 years ago, and that it is our God and Creator, which created all life on Earth. Do we then let WP editors add the following? "But scientists believe that the Moon is largely made of the same substances as Earth, and was created 4.5 billions years ago, shortly after the Earth itself. Also, scientists believe life was created by evolution, originating from a primordial gene pool billions of years ago. " Clearly this would violate NPOV, along with NOR. We may write all of this if we have a reliable source which makes these points in relation to this sect. That is a key issue of NPOV and NOR: we may only introduce sources written in direct relation to the topic in question, or else we'd be in clear violation of WP:SYN. Crum375 (talk) 13:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * According to policy as currently written at WP:SYN, in an article called the 'Moon Core Life Creation Theory', it would not be synthesis to contrast the mainstream view that the moon's core is rock, and that life evolved on Earth with the beliefs expressed on that page. It would not be synthesis, since those mainstream sources directly address the topic of the article, which is about what the moon's core is made of and how life started on Earth. In fact, as policy stood up until last week, such mentions would be required by WP:UNDUE to maintain balance. The changes to WP:UNDUE have reversed that policy, standing it on it's head, and now it forbids what was previously required. This is a major change, and should require at least an RfC before being implemented. LK (talk) 14:22, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Since I have been reverted again on this drastic change, I am going to call for an RfC on this issue. I guess it would be too much to ask that the addition be removed until this issue is settled? LK (talk) 14:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I've removed it since &mdash; at least as currently worded &mdash; it says the opposite of what the page is about.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 15:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Time to announce the "new and improved" WP:NPOV to the entire WP community, no?
W.r.t. the current version of this policy: Basically, I personally like it-- though there are of course the inevitable quibbles about how the language might be interpreted and implemented wiki-wide, one of which appears at issue in the section just above. Despite personally liking it "slimmed down", I still do have some significant concerns about what just happened to this policy. Yes, there appears to have been a need to reduce the accumulated bloat, for example as of 17 April 2010. But what's happened here is essentially a complete rewrite, most of it in a single day. Here are among the major things the small number of editors participating here did in less than a day, on 23 April 2010, essentially the work of about three or four editors, with two in particular taking the lead. Remember this is among registered users, many thousands of which I feel sure are familiar with and rely on long-standing policy provisions but don't necessarily check in on the policy page on a regular basis. Here's the diff between the beginning of 23 April and the end of SlimVirgin's edits alone in less than a single day, on: 23 April. Crum375 and Stephen B Streater followed up with further edits, I posted a few minor ones myself, as have some other users (here's the recent edit history). Which ends up with, in less than a week, this diff. And all this comes immediately on the heels of removing WP:RNPOV on 21 April, and reducing/eliminating "Fringe theories" and the link to the guideline WP:FRINGE, mostly also 21 April. I should think it's time to run this entire change by the community. A partial announcement is made by the RfC immediately above. But I think the entire set of changes needs community review and comment. ... Kenosis (talk) 16:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Rewrote the lead and the "NPOV in a nutshell" template.
 * Removed WP:ASF ("A simple formulation"). one of the earliest expressions of NPOV going all the way back to its beginnings in the "Executive Summary" of December 2001 here (scroll down to see "Alternative formulation of the policy: assert facts, including facts about opinions--but don't assert opinions themselves")
 * Removed WP:GEVAL ("Giving equal validity"), also one of the earliest expressions of NPOV going back to 2003.
 * Removed the section on "Impartial tone" (earlier "Fairness of tone" and originally "Fairness and sympathetic tone", which also goes all the way back to 2002, with its roots also in the 2001 "Executive summary".
 * Subsumed the section on "Characterizing opinions of people's work" into a brief summary linking to the guideline "WP:Words to watch". This section too goes back to WP's very beginning. Again, scroll down in the 2001 version to see the section "Characterizing opinions of other people's ... work".
 * Reduced WP:WEIGHT to about half its prior length.
 * There are other things too, but AFAICT these are the main ones.


 * Well, do what you want, but I do not see it the way you do. even people who watch this page (which I grant is a considerable number) do not look at it regularly (which is why we don't have 800 people participating in this discussion right now).  So the fact that the policy page might double in length in a two year period does not to me signify that there has been any real community consensus over the changes.  My point is that as far as I am concerned the deletions and rephrasing of the past few days is in my mind no more or less radical than all the crud that a host of editors, some of them not very experienced, added or changed over the past years.


 * I think it is wrong to characterize this as a rewrite of policy. It is a rewrite of the policy page, but I realy cannot see any place where the policy itself has changed.  We have a modification in form but not in content.


 * Now, if there were a real change in the policy I would completely and enthusiastically agree that it should be announced for community discussion and approval. I just do not think anyone has changed the policy.


 * AM I saying that we should not announce a change? Well if you put it that way I sound pretty devious.  So I am not saying that.  But do we announce to the community that a change was made to this page any time someone edits in?


 * Maybe this is not a bad idea. Maybe anytime someone edits a core policy every registered user should get a message on their talk page notifying them that the page has been edited, so people can check and see if they approve of the edit.


 * To be blunt, here is what I think: I think that if we had such a system, over the years more people would have registered disapproval for one of the countless revisions or additions that various editors have made, than for the version as we now have it. It is just that people do not pay attention to each small change.  We are like lobsters in the pot.  We only notice when all the many little changes cross some sort of threshold.  for lobsters when that happens it is too late.  Here, what happens is someone or group of editors periodically do an overhaul.  It is (multiple metaphor alert) like changing the oil and transmission and brake fluid all at once, and getting a car wash to boot.  Some things that were removed were indeed old, like the line about asserting facts (which was NOT written by Larry Sanger or Jimbo).  SO?  The fact is, back then the whole idea of NPOV was new to most people, I thyink very few editors understood what Larry and Jimbo were trying to accomplish - now there are editors with years of experience who understand the policy and its implications quite well.  So it hardly surprises me that we can explain the policy more clearly (not necessarily more clearly than Larry or Jimbo, but more clearly than early editors when the whole rpoject was new).  Let people comment.  I know already that a diverse group of experienced editors participated in this revision, and the bottom line for me is, I read it and I see no change in policy.  The page has changed, but the policy has not.  SO, well, whatever. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 17:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In other words, Slrubenstein, when were you, or anyone here, planning on telling the WP community about this and inviting comment and criticism? Or was the plan to just let folks happen upon this concise version when they came here in search of quoting a particular provision or section that they'd previously relied upon for years? ... Kenosis (talk) 17:41, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Your question confuses me. When has anyone ever done this?  Any member of the communicy can put this page on their watchlist.  They can see how often it is being edited.  They can see the edits and comment anytime they like.  Isn't this how people monitor edits here?  Look, what you're talking about has happened to me - I have deleted or reverted other people's edits because of what i considered standard practice, and others then told me that I was violating a policy and hey, i had no idea someone had written a new policy.  That is how I found out.  And i am talking about a whole new policy, not just editing an old one.  What you are talking about happens ALL THE TIME here.  I think people who watch this policy, and there are about 800 of them, should check in now and see what they think of the changes.  If they think some are too radical, they should discuss it, as happens periodically when people debate PST at NOR.  MastCell registers some concerns below - fine, that is what talk pages are for, I hope he will act on his concerns immediately or if he wishes wait a day and if no one objects then make his own edits to the policy.  Isn't this how it always goes here? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 17:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * W.r.t. your last question, the simple answer is no --the obligation is to have community involvement in major policy changes, which this undoubtedly is. Call it mere changes to the language if you like, but the fact is that significant changes in the language frequently carry implications that might not always be apparent to a small participating group of editors such as here. As to what you said in your prior comment about WP:ASF, originally "an alternative formulation" ("Cite facts, including facts about opinions . . . ") it was indeed Larry Sanger who submitted it in late 2001, and it's been part of the policy ever since. While I agree with Crum375 when he said it was like an essay within a policy, the core statements ("assert facts, including facts about opinions... ") have been with WP from its beginning. Only the accumulated bloat read like an essay. But as I said, my prime point is that the WP community deserves an opportunity to review these major changes at some point in the process. There's been a week to arrive at the proposed new form, so community attention should be called to the current version and what the changes were, so the community that needs to use the policy can be informed and involved to the extent it collectively chooses. ... Kenosis (talk) 18:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I feel there is some fine tuning to go maybe, which would not be practical if x million people chipped in. I'd rather let it settle for a day or two and then invite comment, if inviting comment is deemed a good idea. Stephen B Streater (talk) 17:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I haven't been following this particular debate, nor do I find policy-page editing a rewarding use of time. But I do think there are significant changes to the policy under discussion, rather than minor tweaks. I am a little concerned by the diff linked by Kenosis. It strikes me as not descriptive, but rather strongly prescriptive, and seems designed to "correct" existing approaches which a small group of editors disagree with. For example, material that is deeply partisan or "POV" is removed as a matter of course. A descriptive policy would note that. Instead, this diff forbids it, in strong language which will enter the wikilawyer's arsenal immediately. Additionally, the section on avoiding a "disparaging" tone needs to be tightened to deal with cases where reliable, mainstream sources themselves routinely adopt a disparaging tone. Any accurate reflection of the content of sources in such a case will end up sounding "disparaging" to some people, and then we get the inevitable charge to water down our language and euphemize the content of reliable sources. As a nitpick, the section on POV forks asserts that they are "deliberate attempts to evade the neutrality policy". I don't think that's true. In my experience, most people who create POV forks don't understand the neutrality policy. They're not trying to deliberately evade it, they just don't get it. MastCell Talk 17:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * MastCell, would you be willing to go through an change the prescriptive statements to descriptive ones, as you suggest? I think your concerns are reasonable which to me is a reason for you to participate actively in this process. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 17:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with this. I mentioned above the difference between defining actions and the end result. The advantage of defining the end result is that we can get there wherever we start from. I've also removed the assumption of malevolent intent in POV forks. Stephen B Streater (talk) 17:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Kenosis, I agree about going to the community, but it's too soon. We need to find a well-written version that all sides on this page can agree with, so we have a before and after to show other people, and it has to be a version that isn't inconsistent with the other policies. Or we need to discover that we can't agree. But the discussion has only just started, so I think it's best we continue talking and tweaking for a bit longer. SlimVirgin talk  contribs 20:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * In the meantime, I also really think the smart thing is to get more and more people who watch this page to join in. MastCell is an example.  But many others watch this page; I assume they have good reason to. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 20:12, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE and sources
In the section on undue weight (WP:UNDUE), there is a disagreement about what mainstream sources should be allowed in articles that describe a minority or fringe viewpoint (e.g. Cold fusion, Climate change denial). Specifically: LK (talk) 14:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Should the policy WP:UNDUE forbid citing majority viewpoint sources that address the same topic, but that do not explicitly address the minority viewpoint?
 * Does citing mainstream articles about the same topic violate the policy on synthesis (WP:SYN) if those articles do not explicitly address the minority viewpoint?


 * Of course not. Neutrality is about context, and depicting a fringe viewpoint unopposed violates that thoroughly; it's not synthesis to present the mainstream viewpoint to avoid ending up with a biased article.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 14:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * To make that clear, the proposed change would not only allow but in fact demand cherry picking of sources &mdash; this is not only unacceptable on principle but would pretty much guarantee that the more outlandish and ridiculous the claims, the fewer sources not in direct support can be used (since the mainstream is vanishingly unlikely to directly address claims as they become less credible). This is obviously the opposite of what neutrality requires.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 15:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No : I agree with Coren above. The fringe view has to be put in context. This was an ambiguity I raised with the previous wording, but the sweeping changes made it moot for a while. Stephen B Streater (talk) 15:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Now think that AfD could be tightened to exclude fringe topics which compete with mainstream topics which are ignored by mainstream sources as non-notable. Stephen B Streater (talk) 17:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Articles on minority or fringe viewpoints must necessarily be placed within the wider context of their field in order to understand why they are considered minority or fringe viewpoints. Therefore any prohibition on quality sources disucssing the "mainstream" point-of-view would be counter-productive. Naturally, quality sources that disucss both the mainstream and a given minority view are invaluable for the highest quality weighted coverage, but one can only cite the sources we have, not the ones we want. To forbid, for example, citing a consensus health organization statement on the causitive relationship of HIV in AIDS at Duesberg hypothesis because it doesn't discuss the fringe theory would be damaging to the project and misleading to readers, in my opinion. &mdash; Scientizzle 15:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No. For policy to explicitly restrict to one view would be POV. Maurreen (talk) 15:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC) Further, this could lead to articles on the most far-out material being the most one-sided. The more that something is on or past the fringe, the less likely it will be to be addressed by reputable work. Maurreen (talk) 15:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment If we allow WP editors to bring in sources which don't directly address the topic, it would conflict with WP:NOR and WP:SYN and allow original research and NPOV violation by Wikipedians. If we want to trash some minority view, we need to use reliable secondary sources which directly do the trashing for us. We can't bring in sources which don't explicitly mention the topic in question, and use them to push our POV that that minority position is contradicted by the mainstream or whatever. For Flat Earth, we must use reliable secondary sources which tell us about the Flat Earth, and put it in perspective for us. We don't bring in sources which don't address Flat Earth to create our own Wiki-brewed view point. Crum375 (talk) 15:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes the sources must address the topic of the article. If you're going to present a mainstream view, you have to do it in a way that doesn't violate WP:NOR, and specifically WP:SYN, which means the source you use for the mainstream view must have addressed the issue in question. Otherwise we end up with the kind of editing we often see (I'm making this example up, but it's entirely typical):"In many cultures, psychopomps such as Hermes conduct the spirits of the dead into the afterlife. [1] A belief in the afterlife was one of a number of positions identified in a 2010 Gallop poll as pseudoscience, according to the National Science Foundation.[2]'" It's exactly that kind of editing that the content policies try to advise against. People have been misusing UNDUE to try to force in what they see as the majority view&mdash;invariably a Western scientific view, often according to some lobby group. I also want to add that I feel the RfC is not neutrally worded; it seems designed to provoke a specific response. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 15:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Your hypothetical is indeed horrid, but not for the reason you state: the claim "In many cultures, psychopomps such as Hermes conduct the spirits of the dead into the afterlife" is irredeemably POV to begin with (though it would be marginaly saved by a properly cited "People of many cultures believe that [...]"). It's poor prose and hopelessly weaselly, and then the NSF quote hammers it in by coming as a non sequitur slapped on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coren (talk • contribs)
 * If some group claim the moon is made of cheese, there is no need to bring in a source that addresses that specific group's claim: a reliable source that states that the moon is made of (anything but cheese) is sufficient and necessary for neutrality.  The mainstream doesn't take the time to specifically address every ridiculous claim out there because they are already completely opposite to the basic knowledge and literature in the field.  To demand that every flight of fancy be specifically addressed when the literature already plainly says the opposite is simple misuse of WP:SYN into a tool to violate NPOV.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 15:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * (Which doesn't mean that a source that directly addresses the specific claim isn't better; it's just not necessary). &mdash; Coren (talk) 15:25, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * What you are essentially saying is that we need to do away with WP:SYN which has been a key part of WP:NPOV for years. The principle of SYN is that we may not bring in sources unless they directly address the topic in question. What you are suggesting would allow anyone to trash any position he doesn't like by digging for sources which don't mention it, but seem to contradict it. We have SYN in place for a reason, which is to prevent original research by Wikipedians. Crum375 (talk) 15:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * (2 x ec) Coren, what you write sounds obviously correct, but out there on the floor, as it were, this is being misused in the way I mentioned above to direct articles toward a scientific point of view (SPOV), something the community has long rejected. And not only SPOV, but SPOV as dictated by lobby groups, with references to their views slapped into leads willy nilly, or particular studies (primary sources) misused to make general points. What's required is common sense and intelligent, nuanced editing, but how do we word that in a policy? SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 15:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * No, what Coren is saying is that in an article about XXX's theory of YYY, the topic of the article is YYY. So, in an article about the Dusty Theory of Redshift, wherein Prof. Dusty claims that redshift is caused by interstellar dust, the topic of the article is Redshift. Hence, it would not be SYN to include a description of the textbook view of what causes redshift. LK (talk) 15:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * We can't legislate common sense or good prose; and the current attempt tries to do so by scuttling NPOV by allowing (demanding, even) that fringe viewpoints be presented unopposed. WP:SYN is meant to prevent novel synthesis as a way to sneak original research in, not as a means to prevent an obvious counterpoint to be presented to maintain neutrality in an article.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 15:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Coren, SYN is not there to only prevent "sneak" POV, but also obvious POV. The plagiarism example in SYN is not sneaky &mdash; it's as direct as can be. And what you are implying is that there is some kind of Higher Truth, and as long as we commit SYN to further that Truth, we'd be protected. But NOR applies to everyone and everything equally. If all Wikipedia policies are applied together, they'll work as we expect them to. See also my reply below about the "moon cheese". Crum375 (talk) 15:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec, reply to Lawrence) And I agree with that. The problem is the misuse of UNDUE, and its misuse is more common than its use, I fear, because good editors don't ever need to read it; they just use their common sense, good sources, and write well. Unfortunately, UNDUE has been misused a lot in recent years to force in the kind of editing I gave an example of above. So the question is: how do we word UNDUE to retain the good and not facilitate the bad? SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 15:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Common sense and careful consideration of each case is always required. Out there on the floor, there are fringe articles being presented with an in-universe perspective, and editors refusing to show the majority view that applies to the broad topic. This can be justified on an extreme reading of SYN when the article is about a subset or, for example, a book promoting the fringe view. In that circumstances, are mainstream sources addressing the specific fringe view inadmissible unless they refer to that particular book? Should Wikipedia host such articles which promote fringe views with no weight being given to majority views of that fringe view? LK's comment makes good sense. . . dave souza, talk 15:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * No – if a minority viewpoint makes claims about an issue which has a clear majority viewpoint, then the majority viewpoint has to be shown in sufficient detail to avoid misleading the reader. In the case of a tiny minority or fringe view, articles should not present an in-universe view. The question of sources addressing the topic to avoid SYN is significant and right, the sources have to address specifically the topic raised by the minority. SYN is an established policy, as was NPOV, and both have to be balanced. That's not achieved by deleting from NPOV any wording that some editors think might possibly lead to a tension between the two. An alternative would be that if no sources mention the mainstream view in sufficient detail, then the fringe view does not justify a dedicated article – the relaxation of WEIGHT by allowing detailed articles to give more attention to such a minority view has long been predicated on the basis that the majority view is adequately covered in such articles. I'm willing to see the previous wording reinstated and a full community discussion on proposals, rather than this drastic pruning which ignores concerns being raised. . . dave souza, talk 15:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Question: So Dave, tell me, how would you present the mainstream view of the beginning of the universe in the lead of Genesis creation narrative, pursuant to your understanding of UNDUE? SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 15:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The lead looks good, due weight is given to various scholarly views on the myth, and in the body of the article due weight is given to the scientific consensus when discussing creationist interpretations that present fringe views of the science. Seems ok to me. . . dave souza, talk 16:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The article on Genesis creation narrative makes clear that it is a religious story, and open to many interpretations. Hence it is not directly about the physical formation of the Earth. However, it would be entirely appropriate to include the mainstream theory about the formation of the Earth in the article on Young Earth creationism which makes specific claims that directly contradict mainstream scientific understanding. LK (talk) 16:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I have seen many mainstream sources debunking YEC. So that won't be a valid example. Crum375 (talk) 16:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, but if the article is about a book called Genesis Fludde Revisited presenting YEC, which has several reviews in sympathetic reliable sources, none of which debunk YEC. Is it then ok to refer to one of the many mainstream sources debunking YEC? . . dave souza, talk 16:41, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Regarding the "moon made of cheese" argument by Coren above, I think we need to realize that an extreme tiny minority position would not even make it into WP in the first place, unless it had reliable coverage by secondary sources. And even then, if it's in an article of its own, it has to be notable to be included, or else the AfD gang will delete it. So if we have enough "non-trivial" mentions in reliable secondary sources about the "moon cheese" theory, there is bound to be reasonable comparison to the mainstream. If not, odds are the "reliable sources" are not all that reliable. But we can't just make up our own comparisons as Wikipedians to push our POV that the moon is made of rocks. Crum375 (talk) 15:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately there are significant subject areas where there are many "reliable sources" in WP terms that discuss detailed areas of the overall topic without showing the majority expert view. It's just not true that "there is bound to be reasonable comparison to the mainstream". . . dave souza, talk 15:59, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Dave, do you have an example of an article which has survived AfD, and has a tiny minority position which is not compared to the mainstream by any reliable source? Crum375 (talk) 16:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm watching The Hockey Stick Illusion which presents a fringe view with no reliable sources directly addressing the subject of the article presenting the majority view. It's not been proposed for deletion, as far as I can tell, so presumably doesn't meet your criterion. . dave souza, talk 16:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm concerned that I might come across a fringe theory in an area I am unfamiliar with and have no indication that it lacks credibility in the field. The good thing about SPOV is that it is internally consistent, unlike NPOV. But NPOV should not ignore completely conflicting mainstream theories which do describe the same things as the fringe theory. As a minimum I would expect a See also section to Moon geology in the cheese case. Stephen B Streater (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I see no problem including a 'See also' to Moon geology, because 'See also' is intended to give readers a broad overview of the topic, with links to related articles. But I have yet to see an example of a moon-cheese equivalent article which has survived AfD without any reliable secondary source available to compare it to the mainstream. Crum375 (talk) 16:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd like to put a marker down for this as a minimum then. I can't give you your missing AfD example. Stephen B Streater (talk) 16:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I can see adding something minimal to NPOV to explain that 'See also' may include all related articles. Crum375 (talk) 16:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: I do not see a reference on the moon being made of rock as a major synth issue in an article about the moon being made of cheese. Is that where opinions differ? Stephen B Streater (talk) 16:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No, the question is what to do if there are no reliable sources comparing cheese to rock moon. I contend that in such a case the cheese article would very likely fail AfD. Crum375 (talk) 16:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Remember, before the policy was hacked about it specifically noted that less attention to the mainstream view would be needed in an obvious case like the flat earth. A nuance that's currently been removed. . . dave souza, talk 16:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean about "less attention". We still say that tiny minorities should be excluded, except perhaps in dedicated articles, if they are well sourced. What is missing? Crum375 (talk) 16:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As of Jan, "How much detail is required depends on the subject: For instance, articles on historical views such as flat earth, with few or no modern proponents, may be able to briefly state the modern position, and then go on to discuss the history of the idea in great detail, neutrally presenting the history of a now-discredited belief." . . dave souza, talk 16:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And where does it say that we may violate SYN to do so? We describe the mainstream view of Flat Earth by relying on reliable sources which describe it for us, as always. Crum375 (talk) 16:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Synth to me is source 1 saying that the moon is made of cheese, and source 2 saying that cheese is yellow - and concluding that the moon is yellow. (It may be black if it is a new moon - the sources refer to different contexts and can't be simply combined). I wouldn't want to guarantee that the dynamic process of AfD was not going to let through fringe articles which don't have sources comparing them to the mainstream. Stephen B Streater (talk) 16:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I think you are missing the point. If the article is about the Moon, and you have one source saying it's white and another it's black, you can present them both with no SYN fear. The problem arises when you have the Black Moon Society article, where an editor tries to include sources which don't mention that specific society to debunk it. The point is that all sources must directly apply to the subject, we can't bring in sources which don't address the subject to debunk it, or advance some position. Crum375 (talk) 16:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "where an editor tries to include sources which don't mention that specific society" is exactly the point. This is not only allowable, but necessary for neutrality.  A rule saying that only sources which address the society specifically are permissible guarantees that the article cannot be made neutral; it's obvious why the members of that society might find this desirable, but it's misleading to our readers, non-neutral and completely improper for an encyclopedia.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 16:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe likely [fail afd] but by no means garanteed. Some fringe stuff is eminently notable without having serious direct coverage by mainstream sources.  No physicist would take the time to publish a paper examining a claim that hydrogen can have seven protons because any basic physics textbook explains clearly why that's wrong by definition; does this mean that we have to allow an article about some crackpot (book/author/theory) that makes this claim to stand without reliable sources to place it in context just because it got enoufh random press coverage to be notable?  (And god knows how insane the press can be about republishing faux-science uncritically).  &mdash; Coren (talk) 16:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * We make policies to cover real life situations. I am still waiting for one example of an article about a tiny minority view, which has survived AfD and has no reliable source comparing it to the mainstream. Crum375 (talk) 16:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking that a See also link would satisfy my requirement that a novice in the subject would have a chance of finding out mainstream views. I'm also moving towards the view that if the subject is notable, it will have a mainstream response. No mainstream mention could make it fail AfD on notability grounds. Stephen B Streater (talk) 16:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Though I could agree with the spirit of these proposed changes, we need to tread very carefully. Even a small change can have unintended consequences. Crum375 (talk) 16:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I've given the example of an article presenting fringe views without a reliable source comparing it to the mainstream, but don't think that justifies such deletion. If you want to try it out at AfD, go ahead. . . dave souza, talk 16:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the need for "significant coverage" by reliable secondary sources should effectively include mainstream comparison in the case of tiny minority views. I contend that if there is "significant coverage" without such a comparison, the reliability of the reliable sources would be in question. Crum375 (talk) 16:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * See The Hockey Stick Illusion and discuss. . . dave souza, talk 16:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think this is a good example. They do include at least one comparison to the mainstream, although it may not be the exact POV you want. Clearly the ClimateGate issue is a highly contentious one, with lots of fur flying, so all that's needed there is adding more sources for more views, the same as any other contentious issue on WP. But there is no "extremely tiny" view here, or else there would be no mention of any dispute at all in the main IPCC article (where the hockey stick controversy is even included in summary style). Crum375 (talk) 17:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, so the tiny fringe of scientists denying the "hockey stick" isn't "extremely tiny" enough for you, so you think we can give that fringe "equal validity"? As for the comparison to the mainstream, check the source. Your argument that the Hockey stick controversy (which gives due weight to the mainstream) is summarised in the main IPCC article fails, the evolution article mentions creationism, which like the views promoted in the book is a tiny fringe view in science. It's going to be very difficult to find the exact example you seek. . dave souza, talk 17:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I included the wikilinks above (and repeat them here) to show that the the hockey stick controversy is included in summary style in the main IPCC article. That means it's not a "tiny minority" by the definition of the NPOV policy, since per NPOV tiny minorities are not mentioned at all in the main article, and certainly wouldn't get summary style coverage. So what am I missing? Crum375 (talk) 17:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The book in question promotes a tiny minority view in scientific terms, a larger viewpoint in political terms and one that therefore gets coverage. By your argument, an article on a book promoting young earth creationism would not need to mention majority scientific views if no mainstream sources referring specifically to that book were found, as the Creation–evolution controversy is significant enough to get a mention in mainstream articles such as evolution. In my understanding undue weight applies to minority views as well as to extreme minority views, you seem to be saying otherwise. . . dave souza, talk 17:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If we have an article on a book, we need to cite the sources which refer to that book. We can't start using sources that don't mention it in order to push our own POV, regardless of what the book says. And yes, UNDUE applies to everything, but the greatest potential for abuse, and what we were focusing on here, is when the view is too tiny to merit a mention (and therefore comparison to mainstream) in the main article. Crum375 (talk) 18:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That merely shows the dangers of a narrow focus when discussing changes with broader implications. There is much greater potential for abuse in promotion of widely publicised fringe views. . dave souza, talk 09:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Per common sense, the goal of our coverage is to honestly inform the reader of the current state of knowledge on a topic. We can't cover fringe views in a vacuum, because doing so will leave the reader with an inaccurate understanding of the subject. I do think we need to be wary of original synthesis. But if you're discussing Inventing the AIDS Virus, then it's not "original synthesis" to mention the scientific understanding that HIV causes AIDS. In fact, it's essential to do so to avoid misleading the reader. Policies should serve common sense, and they should serve our goal of honestly and accurately informing the reader. These proposals will be wikilawyer-bait for approaches that are counter to that goal, so I think they're probably not a good idea in their current form. MastCell Talk 17:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * OMG, the second source in that article is to "Fact Sheets on HIV/AIDS, from the Centers for Disease Control", but does that source directly make that comparison with the book, as required by a literal reading of this amended policy? If not, should that source be deleted as SYN? Worried of Tunbridge Wells, dave souza, talk 17:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Point. Set.  Match.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 18:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with this view, but try telling it to the folks over at WP:OR, which is where this discussion probably belongs (or maybe not - another case that shows the absurdity of maintaining these three separate pages - and note that the consensuses at two of these pages can be contradictory). --Kotniski (talk) 18:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What is the specific clause referring to this in OR? . . dave souza, talk 20:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

If you cite a source which does not mention the topic in question to promote a point of view, even if it's the mainstream view, you'd be violating WP:NOR and WP:SYN, and very likely NPOV too, because you'll be trashing a minority without a reliable secondary source doing it for you. There is no violation of UNDUE to require sources, since UNDUE requires reliable secondary sources to prove that it's UNDUE, it can't be based on editors' opinions or POVs. Crum375 (talk) 18:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * But what is the topic in question? Is it the specific book, or is it AIDS? If the latter, the source is legit. If the former, which in my opinion is an unduly restrictive reading of SYN, then tne article will clearly fail Weight if it promotes a fringe (or minority) view without noting the clear majority view on that specific subject, in sufficient detail as set out in the old version of this policy. Of course "making necessary assumptions" meant that we didn't have to argue the mainstream view of AIDS in detail – but oops, has that gone too? So, if there are no sources giving the mainstream view and referring directly to the book, does that justify deleting the article? . . dave souza, talk 19:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If the article is about a book, then the topic in question is the book. We can always say, the book says X, and reliable sources say A, B and C about that book. If the book says the Moon is made of Swiss Cheese, we shouldn't (and don't need to) introduce sources about the Moon generically, only about that specific book and its specific claims. In a 'See also', we can include links to other Wikipedia articles related to the Moon. Crum375 (talk) 19:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As the AIDS book article clearly shows, you're pushing an interpretation of OR which is not universal practice, or even necessarily standard practice. Policies should reflect common sense and reasonable practice rather than a self-contradictory ideal which taken to an extreme can lead to articles giving dangerously misleading advice on AIDS treatment, in this example. NPOV should apply to all articles, and there shouldn't be a way of evading it for small subjects with little or no mainstream coverage. Are you going to check out and delete that reference from the article if it doesn't mention the book? . . dave souza, talk 20:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Simply put: No. This is simple cherry picking to present fringe view in isolation to "protect" them from the context that shows them as fringe.  I disagree in the first place that SYN or OR stretch that far to begin with, but even if they really did we'd need to fix them because that construction completely destroys NPOV and none of the pillars are supposed to render another moot.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 20:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

NOR and SYN clearly require all sources used to advance a view to directly relate to it. Using sources to support a comparison (even to the mainstream's), which do not directly mention the comparison being made, would clearly violate NOR and SYN. And I believe it would also violate NPOV, since it would be trashing a minority position with a source which does not mention it, i.e. promoting a Wikipedian's own POV. Crum375 (talk) 20:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Simply put, that's not the case. OR is OR if one constructs arguments from the sources. Simply explaining what mainstream sources say (especially in a summary fashion in an article about a minority subject with an appropriate link to the main article) isn't OR, just good writing. If this were OR it would be almost impossible to ever write summaries on any topic. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * UNDUE is overused to suppress minority views on non-scientific topics: "X is a tiny minority view, thus MUST be excluded from the (relevant) article per UNDUE!" is a far more common misuse. Overall, I agree with MastCell's take on the topic. Jclemens (talk) 19:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not an inherent misuse. If there's a clear consensus view that's the way it works. It doesn't inherently matter if it is an area of science or not. History isn't a science but we're  not going to put extreme minority views claiming that the Illuminati instigated the War of 1812 in War of 1812. There's nothing about this aspect of policy that is restricted or should  be restricted to science. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps this could square the circle: We allow sources which refer to the topic directly, but also sources which refer to elements of the topic eg HIV/AIDS in the above case. But we do not present a judgement on the accuracy of the fringe topic, leaving that to the reader. The original wording said we should provide enough information for the reader to investigate and make up their own minds on controversial ideas, if they so wished. Stephen B Streater (talk) 21:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a good point, and it also shows the advantage of continuing to use the original wording until all the bugs are worked out of the proposals. . . dave souza, talk 09:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Reword RFC, there is a difference between the subject or topic of an article and the contents of that article. Sources need to be directly related to the subject or topic of an article and not merely in relation to just any content the article may contain.  NOR/SYNTH is talking about sources that do not talk about the topic of the article. One of the main problems with using sources unrelated to the topic/subject of an article that seem to mention similar or even identical subject matter within that article, is that we have no real means of verifying that the WP article is talking about the exact same thing as does the unrelated source.  If a "tiny minority" or fringe view is sufficiently notable to merit a WP article, then there ought to be sufficient numbers of sources for other views on that topic.  An article on a group that believes the moon is the diamond-cored creator god of the Earth, where there are no mainstream sources that talk about their belief about the moon shouldn't contain OR in the form of sources unrelated to the subject of that article - which is the group, not the moon.  The moon can take care of itself, because it should be wikilinked to the appropriate moon article.  One of the problems is illustrated by the very moon examples on this page...are we talking about the composition of this moon, this moon, this moon - or maybe even something completely different?  Sure, none of them are made of cheese, but really...we can't just assume it's any specific moon from the content of the examples, can we?  The problem is compounded by the fact that some WP editors regularly attempt to use sources not directly related to the article topic in order to advance a position, usually their own POV.  Dreadstar  ☥  21:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree that "Sources need to be in relation to the subject or topic of an article", as discussed above. . . dave souza, talk 09:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Minor change to the wording for precision, to "directly related". Dreadstar  ☥  14:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It's the 'trashing' that's the concern Dave Souza and I had a short discussion on this further up the page . If Dr Z.Y.Goat advances a theory that the Ancient Egyptian civilization was founded by Daleks, and writes a book explaining in this detail, it will take a while before anyone does a serious rebuttal. All you'll get is the odd "Load of cobblers" type comment from the Egyptologists.  You'll probably get more reaction from the group that thinks the Pyramids were built by the Atlantean Dolphin Masters.  But if, in an article on the book, you took every premise, tracked down the opposing raw evidence, and cited that in the article, that surely must violate both OR and SYN.  Properly, the article must include a sentence or two at the top "In the book, Dr Goat puts forward his controversial theory that the Ancient Egyptian civilization was founded by Daleks.  The current mainstream position among Egyptologists is that the Egyptian civilisation was developed among the Nabatean and Berber tribes....etc or whatever, (cite to a couple of mainstream books or papers), and a senior Cambridge professor has referred to Goat's theory as "fantasy." (cite Times Lit Supp reviewer, who rang up Prof Fossil and asked him for a quote).  But it must be Tony Robinson's job, not the Wikipedia editor's, to do a blow by blow trashing. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

And on a side note The Middle Pillar is an example of an article about a minority view that contains no reference to the mainstream, although it gets away with it by giving no details about the content of the book. Lesser ritual of the pentagram is another example - and I would argue that any attempt to include information about how there are 'really no such things as archangels', 'this is pseudoscience', 'it's all in the mind' etc, would be (a) OR, (b) SYN (in the case of the all in the mind) and (c) UNDUE. The article makes no claim that the thing works - or even that the possibility exists that it works. It just describes it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Context is key. WP:NOR is a concern and we should be careful to avoid turning fringe articles into forks of the main articles, but part of explaining what a fringe/minority view is is describing how it differs from the mainstream viewpoint. For example, an article on MOND that fails to mention dark matter would be woefully inadequate. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It's SYNTH. Use articles that address the subject. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Sweeping, unwarranted rewrite
I've watched three or so editors here in the last few weeks drive to a single goal of removing and demoting key clauses in an effort to refactor this policy in a roughshod manner that is not consistant with community guidelines and policy.

This sweeping rewrite was forced through without sufficient consensus, in fact over an equal or greater number of objections, and without sufficient participation from the greater community, as the small number of participants here shows. Particularly troubling is that concerns and objections from respected editors in good standing were ignored and dismissed time and again by the small group here bent on this sweeping rewrite. Attempts at compromise seem half-hearted and end with the original intended changes being made each time. The section above, "From the original policy," is a prime example of this. Other examples are seen above as well. I see nitpicking, shifting goalposts, anything to avoid addressing the issue: lack of consensus.

Much of the removed text goes back to the eariliest formulation of the NPOV policy before it was even and policy, and formed the core kernel of what became this policy that saw Wikipedia through it's largest period of growth. Justifications for the text being removed or demoted center on a claim that there's been a recent problem with it being abused. If true, then the problem is in the application of the policy, not in the policy itself. I suggest that fixing the application of the policy first is a more reasonable approach to dealing with that issue rather than a unilateral rewrite of the core policy, consisting of a substantial deletion of longstanding clauses central to the policy's spirit. To the claim that the policy has been misused and needs a major refactoring, I for one have not seen the issue, nor have others I've spoken with, apparently whatever abuses of WP:NPOV there are were limited to certain topics. Meaning the wholesale removal and deletion of core clauses is unwarranted and overreaching. And it was done over the objections of others. In my opinion the rewrite removes practical examples that served previous generations of editors well and replaces it with ambiguity.

Two of the key clauses, pseudoscience and undue weight, are affected. The former has been demoted to guideline and the latter watered down to the point of meaninglessness. The pseudoscience clause was in the earliest formulation of this policy and was used as an example of how best to handle fringe views by it's origianl drafters. It was spun out as a policy sub-page to Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ in 2006 and was challenged unsuccessfully as policy by one of those making sweeping changes here now. This time this person made a unilateral change to that page removing the policy template over the objections of others.

Is this how Wikipedia's core policy was meant to be rewritten? I don't think so, and I know there are others here who agree. I have a long history of contributing to and maintaining this policy, from 2004 through 2008. I'm going to restore the last version of the article prior to the recent purges and restore the status of the FAQ page to where it stood since 2006. And I also ask that those seeking sweeping rewrites of this policy 1) engage those with objections more meaningfully and constructively, 2) seek wider support for significant changes to the substance of this policy, 3) stop trying to force through substantial rewrites without both 1) and 2). FeloniousMonk (talk) 00:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I couldn't agree more. That's why I was not going to wade in. But now that you have, I'll add my two cents worth. The rewritten version sucks. It's far less clear and far more useful to pseudoscience and fringe POV pushers. I support you restoring the version before all this one-sided rewriting. Good to see you back, hope you stick around. Odd nature (talk) 01:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree, but you missed that the rewrite actually happened around the 20th of May April, I've reverted to this earlier version. I suggest that an announcement be made at village pump before such a sweeping rewrite is undertaken. LK (talk) 01:11, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks Lawrence! I agree, such sweeping changes should not be undertaken lightly. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 01:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And I see the version reverted to was prior to that chosen by Lawerence, so Thanks FM! IMO this might still need a little attention... not sure that's far back enough. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 01:19, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Did you really mean the 20th of May? Maurreen (talk) 01:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * He meant April, as you can see if you follow his link. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 01:19, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * FWIW, I agree with the revert. My own objection was to one specific disastrous sentence because I had presumed that the whole rewrite was a clarity and style rewrite (clear and short is better than convoluted, clearly); I had not examined the changes in detail and had not noticed how sweeping the changes to meaning were; otherwise I'd have objected much earlier and much more vocally. I'm not going to make hypotheses about the intent behind much of those changes, but the result was unequivocally a severe weakening of NPOV in favor of constructing "safe heaven" walled gardens to present fringe as though it was generally uncontested.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 02:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I support the reversion to an earlier version, although I have not yet studied all the differences. Perhaps the editors who have wanted to prune back the policy have become too used to the Wikipedian NPOV concept (and now do not see why more words are helpful)? In particular, the WP:PSCI section is vital if Wikipedia is to be based on science. Johnuniq (talk) 02:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Apparently, not everyone wants Wikipedia to be based on science. Maurreen (talk) 05:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * My suggestion for anyone wanting a major rewrite or condensation is that that should be drafted on a separate page and not implemented unless it is shown to have broad consensus. Maurreen (talk) 05:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Not necessary - people were co-editing constructively in line with ongoing discussion, which is how Wikipedia should work. This "restore some previous version that I happen to like" tactic is highly destructive. People have been putting a lot of work into improving this page; that shouldn't all be lost just because of one minor objection which probably comes down to about one sentence.--Kotniski (talk) 06:24, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Some people were not editing contructively. Mass deletion of core policy was out of control editing. If the WP:TIGERS want to take a bite out of NPOV policy again we may need retrain the tigers on how things should work around here. QuackGuru (talk) 06:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I respect "co-editing constructively in line with ongoing discussion". But there has been a lot going on. For those of us with only moderate interest, it is a lot to try to keep up with. Maurreen (talk) 06:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, bold was always going to get a backlash at some point! I'm in favour of a more concise format, as this version is much too long to be read by most editors. Changes in meaning were being sorted out. Perhaps we should take it more incrementally. Stephen B Streater (talk) 06:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You could start an essay for a simple NPOV version. This could be helpful for younger people to become familiar with policy. QuackGuru (talk) 07:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I did start a much bolder one in fact, but found Kotninski had already started a similar one with the same objective - to explain concisely the main policies in a unified page. Stephen B Streater (talk) 07:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * User:Kotniski/Neu, for those who are interested. I'm not saying the page is complete in its current form, but so far the comments received have been positive.--Kotniski (talk) 07:58, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Missing file


Not sure why it was deleted. QuackGuru (talk) 04:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I read somewhere that it had some exageration or imprecision. Maurreen (talk) 05:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, the policy page in in flux, so the video may need updating. Stephen B Streater (talk) 07:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it added little. I don't support returning it to the page. Odd nature (talk) 15:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

This file was very important for blind people who can't read policy. QuackGuru (talk) 16:18, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Any blind people using WP probably have screen readers or something similar. Maurreen (talk) 14:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Question: which version?
Which version should we work from:
 * established
 * concise


 * Concise: Much work has been done with detailed and varied debate, consensus reached in many areas, and the established version is too long for my liking making it unreadable for its intended audience. Stephen B Streater (talk) 07:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Concise was not so concise. A lot of informative text was lost. I hope we don't go down the wrong road again. Over the next 24 hours will be critical. We need to maintain the same set course and not divert into mass deletion debates. No possibly controversial changes to policy without talk page consensus first. The party is over. Editors may want to look through the edit history and see if anything else was lost. QuackGuru (talk) 07:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Concise. Nothing was lost except empty words and repeated (and often confused and contradictory) ideas. In fact it should still be a lot more concise, and merged with WP:V and WP:OR, since the three pages' material overlaps hugely.--Kotniski (talk) 07:56, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't care which version you work from, but I ask that any major changes be worked out on a separate page and then brought before the wider community. I'm repeating this just to ensure it doesn't get missed. Thanks. Maurreen (talk) 08:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Kotniski, this was not empty words and repeated (and often confused and contradictory) ideas. QuackGuru (talk) 18:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Established should remain as working policy until the full implications of proposed changes are worked out and then brought before the wider community. Per Maurreen, either version can be used when forming a draft for discussion, but these drastic changes were introducing conflicts and consequences that need full community input. . . dave souza, talk 08:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's partly a question of how much this is a living organic document. Stephen B Streater (talk) 09:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The group could start with User:Kotniski/Neu. Maurreen (talk) 09:20, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Is this a serious question? Established, obviously. This is a core policy, one of the earliest policies on WP, and should not be tampered with lightly or in haste. From its earliest inception the point was to prevent POV pushing, whether malicious or not, and the rewrite weakened it immensely, especially against the fringe element which is always an issue and a problem. I myself have no intention of seeing the Flat Earthers given equal footing with the Round Earthers, or the Vudu belief in the afterlife given prominence on the Death article because it can be sourced. Nor am I interested in articles which are already battlegrounds, such as the absurd and discredited Abortion breast cancer hypothesis, which already has too much weight on a bogus bit of nonsense more or less invented by a lawyer in order to make money off a class action suit, becoming a propaganda tool for him to use. No, this was written by Sanger in what, 2002? for very good reason, and it should not be watered down nor edited by some dozen editors into removing core pieces claiming "consensus" because no one was notified that a major policy was being tossed in the can. I cannot stress enough how damaging this could be, and how wrong-headed. As regards clarifying or rewording to be less verbose, take one edit suggestion at a time and talk it to death, with as much input as possible, before trimming - because removal always has the danger of removing core elements, and should be done with extreme care. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 12:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * LOL - That's what a lot of us have been doing - one edit at a time. You can see this in the reams of discussion above. I hope we can bring some of that debate to bear on whatever the current version is. I expect the Sanger 2002 version was a lot shorter. The tendency for perpetually adding more text ignores the overall cost of making the article longer. I will continue to seek more a concise expression of NPOV. In fact, of all the core policies. Stephen B Streater (talk) 12:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I take exception to you laughing at my considered view - are you always this insulting to those with whom you disagree? Laughng in their face at what they think? Intent clarified by sbs. Regardless, your personal desire to shorten core policies is not necessarily incompatible with keeping the meaning intact; however, that is not what was done. Regarding your "reams" of discussion, I note that at most, a dozen or so editors were involved. This is not enough input to justify a fundamental gutting of a core policy of this site. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 12:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I wasn't laughing at your considered view. I was laughing because what you propose is exactly what a lot of us have been trying to do here and thought we were doing here. Debating point by point ways to improve the clarity of the text. I was laughing because we agree. It's good to have more people involved in this discussion, which has been widening steadily since I joined it a few weeks ago, and I welcome your points. I don't think we need to lock down the verbose version though. Stephen B Streater (talk) 14:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * thanks for clearing up my misread, and I apologize for any distress my misunderstanding caused you! regarding the previous discussion(s), I don't think I can explain my objection any better than to point to WP:CONLIMITED; especially as regards policies. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 03:41, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's amazing how many people think that a major change of words equals a major change of policy. What substance do you think is missing from the concise version that was in the "established" version? If we can identify any such things, then they can probably be quite easily re-added to the concise version. without the need to momentarily reverting about 100 mostly productive edits, and without losing the gain achieved in terms of brevity and clarity.--Kotniski (talk) 13:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Outta here. You guys do what you want. When two editors and a known POV warrior can revert a substantial period of careful discussion, there really is no point, is there. ByeElen of the Roads (talk) 12:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The cycle, for those of you who have forgotten, is BRD - bold, revert, discuss. Not Bold, revert, no wait go back to the bold version! A few editors made some bold changes. They've been reverted. If you do not wish to discuss, then feel free to contribute elsewhere - but don't act as though those restoring a previous consensus version over a heavily changed version which had the input of a mere score of editors have done something wrong, or that there is some policy reason to work from the newer, heavily modified, version. This is not the case. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 13:41, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Discussion has been going on all the time, in tandem with the editing. That's how it should be. It's the unilateral reversion back to some allegedly "consensus" past version, ignoring all the productive discussion, that should be regarded as "bold" (I would use a different adjective) in this situation.--Kotniski (talk) 13:58, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Discussion? sure. But for this significant a rewrite? No. When ATT was proposed, for example, 880 people responded. Taking "fringe" and "pseudoscience" out of this policy, removing all history, removing the ASF - I see only two people above stating clearly they think it should be removed - these are not small changes. These are huge changes. They require community input, not just a score of editors tossing the idea around on this page, regardless of how carefully those few editors considered it. You didn't have 880 editors voting on whether to remove all of history, for example. You didn't even have 30. I don't even see a dozen, although I could have miscounted. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 14:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And how many people discussed it when these things were added to the policy? Probably in the region of 1 or 2. If we have a situation where people can keep adding things to policy, regardless of whether it adds anything to what's already there or even makes sense, and then revert war against anyone who tries to tidy all this mess up, we will end up with a situation (sorry, we have ended up with a situation) where our core policies - a key part of the documentation we have on this project - are unfathomable to newcomers and oldcomers alike. We must support efforts to weed this undergrowth.--Kotniski (talk) 14:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you bothered reading the archives? I have. And it was a lot more than one or two. If you want to make sweeping changes to Wikipedia's primary policy, you're going to need to a lot more community participation than what you've been getting up till now. That's why the sucky rewrite got reverted in the first place. Oh, and you'll need consensus, meaning a broad consensus, not a narrow one like what was going on here recently. Odd nature (talk) 15:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Established As I have stated previously, the changes made in the last two weeks are too far sweeping and far reaching to let stand without at the least a discussion at the Village Pump. LK (talk) 14:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I asked above what substantial changes (apart from improved presentation) people think have been made. I'm still waiting for an answer.--Kotniski (talk) 14:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps they haven't answered because they largely haven't looked in detail. They just assume that useful trees have been cut down with the undergrowth. And to be fair, we are still tidying up. But I'm still in favour of separating a concise practical policy for editors from essays about history and repetitive expositions which have built up over time. I'm not saying that these examples shouldn't be available for the tiny percentage of editors who have the inclination to read them. I also assumed that enough of the 1,000 watchers of this page might have noticed and joined in to make this a valuable exercise. You can't draft with all 1,000 people chipping in. Stephen B Streater (talk) 15:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Or perhaps they think this effort is a waste of time because the policy was more than adequate to begin with. Read FeloniousMonk's comment again, I think he was pretty specific. Odd nature (talk) 15:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's beyond me how anyone who has been reading this talk page can seriously claim that the argument has not been made about how recent changes have changed the meaning of the policy. I myself have pointed out how something which was previously required (including the mainstream scientific textbook view about a subject in an article on a fringe viewpoint) had effectively become forbidden. I would suggest that the people who want to push through these changes without wider community discussion stop beating the dead horse. LK (talk) 23:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Established Have you not been paying attention? There is no consensus for the recent rewrite, and there's no consensus that the original version is even too long or that any rewriting is even needed. Odd nature (talk) 15:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There certainly isn't consensus for the page to remain in its present state. And now you've re-added the bizarre ASF section, you've taken it even further away from what the community wants. Why do you prefer the old version - what does it say that the new version doesn't?--Kotniski (talk) 16:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You are trying the patience of the community. ASF policy has always worked for the community. QuackGuru (talk) 16:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Look at the section above, where virtually everyone except you agreed to get rid of it. All the discussion reveals that people don't even understand it, let alone agree with it. But as we know, that doesn't prevent something from sitting around in a policy page for years masquerading as community consensus.--Kotniski (talk) 16:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The editors who wanted to delete it did not given any good reason to delete. If this continues we may need to lock of the WP:TIGERS. Editors do understand ASF. It has been part of the policy page for years and has worked for the community. QuackGuru (talk) 16:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * All right then, everyone understands it, but everyone understands it differently (as the discussion makes abundantly clear). Certainly no-one understands it the same way that you do. All this shows just how totally wrong it is for it to be on a policy page. It could be in a userfied essay or something.--Kotniski (talk) 16:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Eveyone understands it but only the editors who want to delete it alleged they don't understand it. If they really don't understand it they shouldn't be editing this or any policy page. QuackGuru (talk) 16:58, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This misses the point entirely. If even admins here don't find the wording clear, how can a new editor understand it? Are you going to say that normal editors shouldn't edit because they don't understand NPOV? It illustrates my points completely. This policy needs clarifying. This doesn't mean changing it's meaning. Stephen B Streater (talk) 17:11, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The wording is clear. I saw too many WP:TIGERS who need to be retrained. This is not about ASF. It was about editors who prefer WP:IAR. This was a strike against the very core of policy. QuackGuru (talk) 17:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There is not one This. Most editors were not striking against the core of policy. The core of policy (eg from 2002) is a fraction of the current length. There is no need to strike against the core of policy in order to make this policy description much more concise and readable. Those (if any) who think that this policy must be this long are mistaken. Stephen B Streater (talk) 17:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you think this is a concise version of ASF or an appropriate way to edit NPOV. QuackGuru (talk) 17:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not here to criticise other editors. I'm here to discuss ways to improve the wording of the policy. If you want to know what I think are appropriate edits to the policy page, look at my edits to the policy page. I have pointed out here that editors in general are too quick to claim consensus for their particular opinions. Most of my ideas have been implemented by other editors - a good (but by no means perfect) check on "consensus". Stephen B Streater (talk) 17:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you think this version was concise. It that what you are trying to tell me. Or the current version is concise and clear. QuackGuru (talk) 17:56, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Obviously I am going about my proposals in a different way and the end result will be much better than any other version. The first stage is to accept that there is a problem with length, and although a clear majority accept this, I wouldn't say there was consensus as the people opposed are not on board yet. Consensus is not the same as majority or even a big majority. It needs also for there to be no or at least a minimal number of strong objectors. Stephen B Streater (talk) 18:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If anyone thinks NPOV needs to be clarified they can edit the Neutral point of view/FAQ page. QuackGuru (talk) 18:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * So now you seem to be saying that the policy is so unclear that there are frequently asked questions about it which need answering on a separate page. I suggest that the policy page should be worded clearly enough that it doesn't need a FAQ - particularly given its length. Stephen B Streater (talk) 20:26, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Editors for over a week have continued to say something needs to be clarified. I did clarify ASF. If anything else needs to be clarified such as what is the purpose of ASF or what is not ASF that is what a FAQ page is for. For example, ASF is not about V. This can be clarified at the appropriate page. QuackGuru (talk) 06:04, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It sounds like you are addressing that question to me. I have been paying attention to some things, and not others. I have not adopted the role of policing more experienced editors and their actions here. That is not my contribution to this discussion. My aim is to gain the consensus that the policy as worded is too long to be practical for one of its target audiences - new users. Most people involved in the discussion agree with this. I have not got as far as going for a wider consensus, because I had enough to do talking with the experienced editors here about the meaning, requirements and history of this policy. I am not in a hurry to push anything through against consensus, and you will see from my edits on the policy page that my edits have been generally incremental, clearly flagged, uncontroversial and with the flow of the talk page discussions. I think you do the conscientious editors here a disservice by impugning their motives as they work to improve the wording of this policy. Stephen B Streater (talk) 16:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Established version the next time around. I advocate carefully removing accumulated bloat point-by-point while trying to preserve the key summary language of long-standing provisions upon which many users have come to rely. I recommend that if it's the intent of some editors to remove key long-standing provisions, or to combine or eliminate any sections (e.g., WP:ASF, WP:GEVAL, WP:MNA, "Fringe theories", etc.) it should be done only with full community involvement, e.g. by announcing the intentions at the Village Pump and providing drafts of significant proposed change(s). ... Kenosis (talk) 23:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Established... I completely admit that this is a knee jerk reaction... My problem is that there have been so many edits, reverts, un-reverts, re-reverts, reverts of the re-reverts... as well as so many tinkerings and tweeks of the various versions... that I no longer am sure just what has and has not actually been changed and whether these changes also change the meaning. Thus, I prefer the older language (even with flaws) simply because I know and understand both what it says and what it was intended to say.  I would be more willing to accept a re-start of the review if it were conducted in a significantly slower and much more organized process (with smaller changes fully discussed one at a time instead of multiple large changes all being discussed at the same time) and a significantly larger group of people participating (so that we know that there is a true, Wikipedia wide consensus, instead of a local consensus that reflects five or six active editors with occasional comments by two or three others. Blueboar (talk) 01:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Established I like conciseness, but the recent major changes to NPOV have gone way beyond that. For example, removing WP:PSCI and WP:RNPOV after the brief discussion on this page was very unhelpful. The proponents of the recent changes have failed to make clear what their point is: is WP:PSCI redundant? or is WP:PSCI bad? Just how should Wikipedia handle an article on a Daleks created the Pyramids theory (based on a book and talks given by an "expert" in the field)? Johnuniq (talk) 02:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Indeed. I contribute a good bit at Arbitration Enforcement, and given that there was an entire ArbCom case about Pseudoscience, and there were findings of fact, with remedies for which we impose sanctions - seems a bit cheeky to simply cut it out of the policy without, oh, revisiting the Arbcom case, or taking the matter to the pump. But I guess if you want to ensure your articles on how alien ghosts and tea leaves control the stock market, or something, you'd want that gone. Otherwise, I cannot see why anyone would remove it. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 04:58, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it inaccurate to say that WP:PSCI was "removed". It was merged into WP:FRINGE.  Also, that merger was not part of the most recent set of edits (it happened shortly before)... the question of whether to merge it was discussed extensively (look back at the last archive page for more discussion), an RfC was filed, notice was given on VPP, etc, we went slowly and deliberately, one step at a time, and hesitated before actually merging it to make sure that there was consensus to do so. Blueboar (talk) 11:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Which is all fine, but then I recently had someone (an admin no less) argue to me that WP:FRINGE can essentially be ignored as it was merely a guideline and not policy. LK (talk) 17:36, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I went along with the merge strictly because I saw the effort as an attempt to get rid of it entirely. They want to get rid of the use of the word "pseudoscience" at Wikipedia and this was part of their attempt. It's removal from policy makes it easier for them to protect their favorite delusions from association with the pejorative "pseudoscience", no matter how many or how important the RS that make that association. I compromised and chose retaining it in the FRINGE guideline as a better alternative than complete deletion. I have always considered the ArbCom ruling to be very significant and wise. It was created in reponse to serious problems and removing the ruling from NPOV undid the work done to prevent the problems that created the need for the ArbCom in the first place. It was a step backwards to remove it from policy. It belongs back as a clear policy statement. Whether that's at NPOV or somewhere else can be discussed, but such a deprecation of an important ArbCom ruling is symptomatic of the types of subversive policy twisting work done by Martinphi and his remaining allies, whether they are actually connected or not. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sure none of the people behind these changes are into promoting pseudoscience. But this "Fringe" section seems to be spending many paragraphs simply describing when something can be called "pseudoscience" or not. Why does this one word need so much attention to it in what is claimed to be a core policy of WP? Why do different principles apply to it than to other similar pejoratives? Well, presumably they don't - so in a major core policy like this, shouldn't we be setting out those general principles, not discussing special cases ad nauseum just because there was some lame dispute about them?--Kotniski (talk) 17:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * But some of them do promote pseudoscience. They hid it carefully in their discussions, but their history shows they defend how it's described here. It doesn't have to be retained in NPOV, but it should remain as policy. It wasn't a "lame dispute". It was a very significant response to attempts to twist the whole direction of Wikipedia policies to make it easier to promote pseudoscience as fact. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Surely WP:V (plus the general principles on balancing sources which this page attempts to set out) are enough to tell people not to promote pseudoscience as fact? (Whether they obey is another matter.) --Kotniski (talk) 18:21, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The short answer to that is 'no'. The fact that defenders of pseudoscience are trying to get rid of it is prima facie evidence that it is useful and needed. LK (talk) 18:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I'm sure that logical fallacy has a name... --Kotniski (talk) 20:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Established My imperfect understanding of the timeline is: first the material is removed to the FAQ while saying that it should never stop being a policy, then people attempt to downgrade it because of its name, then it is downgraded in the condition that certain important parts are never moved from the main page to the FAQ, now those parts are removed from the main page with re-policying the FAQ page, and now the wording in the FAQ is reduced to almost nothing (I might be missing some parts of this gradual process). Sorry, but this is well-intentioned but it's watering down or removing important principles that were placed there for a reason. (too much, too fast, too little discussion, too little clarity of why this needs to change apart from claiming that it's too long) --Enric Naval (talk) 07:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I come from the other side. The policy is too long. Almost no one has read it in its entirety, or even at all. How can we make it shorter? I'd rather take changes here slowly and thoughtfully. We must be careful though that whatever changes are discussed one point at a time with much thought and debate are not subject to a mass reversion on the grounds that not enough people were involved in the discussion: a mass audience is not interested in a blow by blow discussion. If we are not careful, the undergrowth will continue to grow indefinitely. The policy description will lose its effectiveness. A reason to support the shorter version as a new starting point is that it is easier to edit and add to a shorter version than a longer one, and that the old school people will be happy to improve to this version. It already had dozens of well thought-through improvements before being reverted. FWIW I'm as keen as the next man to ensure fringe views are not given undue credibility on WIkipedia. Stephen B Streater (talk) 09:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Shortening doesn't mean that the important PSI ArbCom ruling needed to be demoted. That was an entirely different issue that happened without many seeming to notice it as a sneaky "rider". -- Brangifer (talk) 17:46, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Established NPOV policy should be kept. The established version is concise and clear. QuackGuru (talk) 17:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC) ( Sweeping changes are being made to other pages. See here and here and here. Small changes like this to combine or condense text could gradually lead to bigger changes over a perioid of weeks. QuackGuru (talk) 17:53, 1 May 2010 (UTC) )