Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Archive 41

From the original policy
I am not a fundamentalist in the sense that I think that everything Larry Sanger said is gospel. But it might be clarifying to recall the priginal policy.

Jimbo summed it up like this:
 * Perhaps the easiest way to make your writing more encyclopedic, is to write about what people believe, rather than what is so. If this strikes you as somehow subjectivist or collectivist or imperialist, then ask me about it, because I think that you are just mistaken. What people believe is a matter of objective fact, and we can present that quite easily from the neutral point of view. --Jimbo Wales

I bolded what for me is the essence ... he is clearly arguing against using the word "fact."

Why Jimbo would argue against using the word fact is I think made clear in a comment larry made around that time: In a discussion with one interlocutor who had many doubts about the policy, Larry wrote,
 * Maybe you understand the following perfectly well--but it can't hurt to say it one more time. As far as we on Wikipedia are concerned, to speak of a lack of bias, or of neutral writing, is not to speak of a single viewpoint that is expressed in an article. The neutral point of view, as conceived by myself and Jimbo and many others, is not the view from nowhere. It is not "the truth," enunciated from "a neutral standpoint." In an encyclopedia at least, that's a silly fantasy and a total misunderstanding of what unbiased writing is like. Instead, where there is disagreement on a topic, one takes a step back to characterize the controversy--rather than to as it were engage directly in the controversy by taking a position, or by trying to find some bogus "middle" position that is the official view of the encyclopedia. Therefore, the notion of a neutral point of view that is "neutral in the U.S." really makes no sense. (Maybe you realize this, though, and you're just accusing some Americans of having this misunderstanding.)

I have bolded a portion that I consider especially important because as I interpret it it really calls into question what many call "the voice of Wikipedia."

Now, Kenosis claims that the "Assert facts" was in the Larry Sanger formulation. I honestly have to say: I do not remember it that way. I think it was another editor who added it, maybe the Cunc, maybe Taral. These guys have been around a long time and I do not dismiss their views out of hand. But whichever one of them added it, I think it has caused far more confusion than it ever cleared up. I think the quotes from Jimbo and Larry above are pretty clear. I selected them because I find them so clear. Obviousl larry wrote more, Jimbo too, but the original policy was like two paragraphs long. Then there was a lot of discussion and please remember that back then there were NO talk pages - all discussion occured on the policy page. So this stuff about facts and so on was in the context of a discussion among the most active editors at the time. Those were the days when policies were few and "be bold" really was more important, so I think we need to read what was on the NPOV page in this context. You see a lot of people saying what they think and Larry responding, often disagreeing - much like what now happens on the talk page. If you want to claim that this "assert fact" thing was larry's idea, please provide an appropriate edit diff. I am not trying to be a jerk here, I really do not think he ever said this or would have said this. I do not think it is consistent with the quotes I provide above. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 20:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * My guess is that Larry (a philosopher) was trying to find a simple way of presenting the fact/value distinction in philosophy, and it got misinterpreted over the years. But regardless of where it started, as it was being used and understood it was wrong. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 20:12, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The fact/value distinction was introduced by sociologist Max Weber. I don't think Larry accepted the fact/value distinction at all. He claimed to be an objectivist but i think he was working in the pragmatist tradition. I think he genuinely believed that people could not agree about facts, but could agree about what different people believe. He and Jimbo were trying to create a basic framework for an encyclopedia edited by all people and NPOV was the principle for a process, not an epistemology. My recollection is that Larry always evaded or rejected any discussion of epistemology or metaphysics. His line was always "You can't claim it is a fact. You can only claim that certain people think it is a fact." Slrubenstein  |  Talk 20:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I took a look through some early NPOV edits the other day, and some of them did seem to stem from Larry Sanger&mdash;possibly him writing what he thought others wanted to see, because there were no talk pages back then. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 20:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I am just asking for the edit diff, as I would in any such case. I know it was not in the original policy.  I do not dispute that it was added early on.  But unless you can provide me with an edit diff I do not believe LMS added it. It does not square with either wuote above, and larry was pretty unyeilding.  Larry and Jimbo would yeild to someone else's edit if it has general support but I never saw them compromise on their own position.  they were just committed to the idea that "everyone can edit" (which is what you are doing right now)! Slrubenstein   |  Talk 20:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I already provided a link to Sanger's submission entitled "Executive Summary" in December 2001 (the last of several edits by Sanger that month) in my opening comment in the section above. Here it is again (scroll down to see "Alternative formulation of the policy: assert facts, including facts about opinions--but don't assert opinions themselves"). Here are the original edits to the policy. The words "assert facts, including facts about opinions--but don't assert opinions themselves" have verbatim been a featured part of the policy continuously ever since then-- most recently as the opening sentence of the section "A simple formulation"-- until the major rewrite on 23 April 2010. ... Kenosis (talk) 21:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC) As well, if you look at the Executive Summary in the 27 December 2001 edits, you will see that the recently removed section on "Impartial tone" (earlier "Fairness of tone" and originally "Fairness and sympathetic tone") also goes back to the original Executive Summary. It too has remained a section in this project page continuously since then, until the major rewrite on 23 April 2010. The removed section on "Giving equal validity" has been a part of this policy continuously only since 2003 (link provided in the section above). ... Kenosis (talk) 21:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry Kenosis, you have provided a link to a version of the page LS edited, but you have not provided an edit diff showing that he h=added thephrase in question. Look, there is anb article, it says lots of stuff, I make an edit, and many years later you call up that version that I edited.  Does that mean I wrote every word in the article?  We both know, the answer is no.  Many people have edited NPOV.  Your link just shows LS was one.  I don't see that he was the one who added this passage.  Or are you just saying he did not delete it?  Well, yeah, I afess irh rhar.  But that doesn't mean he added it. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 22:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the Cunctator wrote the "Assert facts" stuff,. I still maintain that the two quotes I provide above are the core of NPOV.  That doesn't mean that ehey say if all, and Kenosis - an editor by the way whom i admire grately - raises some good issues.  But when we say NPOV is non-negotiable, I think it is what those two quotes from Larfy and Jimbo say that are the non-negotiable essense of the polby.  Just my opinion. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 23:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does appear The Cunctator submitted the "Executive Summary" here, on 24 December 2001, followed by multiple edits by Sanger on 27 December 2001. So I stand corrected on the issue of who first submitted that text. (Here's the history for that month again). You'll note that the two sections I mentioned just above originated right at the outset in 2001, and if you check the history, say for each year since then, you'll note that as I also said above, they have remained part of the policy continuously since then. I'm not saying it's necessarily wrong to remove these sections, or the three other long-standing sections that were also removed on 23 April 2010. I am necessarily saying it's not just a tweak of the wording, but rather a major change in the policy page about which the entire community should be conspicuously informed so as to allow comment, support for and/or criticism of each significant change. ... Kenosis (talk) 23:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Kenosis, I do not mind inviting community consideration of the changes being made. And if others think an RfC is the way to do it, that would be fine with me.  It is true that many changes have been made over a short time (although I still believe that most of these were not substantive, but either style or making elemenst of this policy consistent with other policies and guidelines) - it might be better to break it up into multiple RFCs, perhaps a separate one per section.  My point is that I really do think that the more editors collaborating on editing this articl, the better.  As for this specific example, I guss you and I just see it diferently. In the first year of WP most editors were IT people who were trying to make sense of Larry Sanger's vision and apply it to the kinds of articles they were writing.  I see this particular section as Cunctator's attempt to translate Sanger's ideas into a form he could understand. I think he was trying to explain to people that "opinions" were encyclopedic because all WP is claiming is that "it is a fact that people have this opinion."  Fair enough.  Bu that is not the same thing as making it core policy.  And the thing is, over the years as we have attracted a more diverse group pf editors working on a more diverse set of articles - but also as the growth of the community outpaced the ability of long-standing editors to explain NPOV to newbies (combined with LMS's departure), I think that this particular part of the policy actually causes more confusion than clarity.  I think the core policy is in the relatively brief passages I quoted from Jimbo and LMS, above.  It is clear that they did not want "truth" to be a standard, and even resisted the idea of "Wikipedia's voice."  But people are interpreting this passage to say that WP has to provide facts, and facts do not need to be sourced (since they are not opinions) and this brings us right back to the idea of "truth" LMS was trying to abolish.  Now, if you are saying you think I need to justify this to the community through an RfC, well, okay, I am willing to do that - you do know that even if we disagre I respct you as a fellow editor.  But I want to be clear: some people who contributed to this page a long time ago did not come up with perfect wording, and my only intenton is to help clean up this page so that the real policy stands out clearly. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Removal of WP:RNPOV and "Pseudoscience and related fringe theories"
RE this edit, removing "Pseudoscience and related fringe theories", and this edit, removing WP:RNPOV. In WT:NPOV I see only minimal discussion proposing removal of WP:RNPOV and "Pseudoscience and fringe theories", with little or no consensus demonstrated except for three people agreeing to remove it and three people indicating some degree of apparent reticence to remove these two sections. The only thing I see at Village Pump is this discussion in which someone mentions on 21 April, in the context of being asked for an interpretation of RNPOV, that they think RNPOV was just deleted. I was unable to find anything about this in the recent VPP archives. I see a section started just today at WP:VPP. Was there anything else I missed? ... Kenosis (talk) 19:06, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * If the only discussion is the one linked above, I don't not see adequate consensus for the total removal of these two long standing sections. I count three in favour of removal, one opposed, and three supporting some triming with descriptions and links left on the policy page. I too would support some trimming, but the section headings and an adequate description must remain on this page so that it's clear that those policies are WP:Policy. LK (talk) 19:42, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * No, that is definitely NOT the only discussion... as I noted in my comments during the RfC, the topic was discussed extensively before that... please start with this thread in Archive 39... and read to the bottom of the archive (the discussion gets side tracked a few times, but keep at it... it may even continue to the current live page, as it spans several threads, and some of them might not have been auto archived yet).
 * You will see that we first established that there was indeed a solid local consensus to move/remove the sections... We then posted the RfC (and left a note at WP:FRINGE as well). During the RfC the only objection was from someone who seemed not to understand what was being proposed.  I am not sure how much more "due diligence" we could have done on this.  Every indication was that there was indeed a solid consensus to move the PSCI section to WP:FRINGE, and to remove the RPOV section completely.   I will also note that we copied WP:PSCI verbatim from this policy to WP:FRINGE... so nothing was "removed"... it is still there, just at a more appropriate policy location.
 * Now... It may be that consensus has changed from what it was at the beginning of March. We can always discuss this possibility and see if that is the case.  We can have a second RfC on whether we should remove the section from WP:FRINGE and return it back to this policy. (I would vote opposed at such an RfC).  But, please do not say that there was "minimal discussion" or a lack of consensus about moving/removing it in the first place. Blueboar (talk) 21:17, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, I now see Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view/Archive_39 and then Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view/Archive_39. Anywhere else? ... Kenosis (talk) 22:40, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There may be a few comments scattered in the other sections that follow those, but yes those are the core of the discussion prior to the RfC.
 * We also left a message with the folks at WT:FRINGE to let them know of the discussion and that we were thinking of moving the PSCI section to WP:FRINGE... there were no objections raised on their end (but not much in the way of comment in favor either). I was sure I posted a note at the VPP... I usually do in these situations... but I am not finding it, so perhaps I intended to do so and never actually did it (it was a while ago). Blueboar (talk) 23:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The Rfc garnered three views and one comment. Policy changes require a "higher standard of participation and consensus" per WP:CONLIMITED. Generally even an Afd on a third rate pop singer would get relisted for more input from the community if there was that little turnout. That's not CON. That's a failure to ensure the community was fully aware. Possibly the fact that the Rfc was named "Should NPOV have topic-specific sections" not something which described what was actually being proposed, like "should the Pseudoscience and Religion portions of NPOV be removed" which virtually ensured no one would understand what was being proposed unless they followed the link. Well, people noticed when they cited policy and found it had been gutted. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 03:27, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

KillerChihuahua... please read the material in the archives... the phrasing of the RfC was discussed and agreed to in an attempt to be as neutral as possible. Also, you are not considering the fact that in the previous discussions there were quite a few editors who expressed support for the move/delete, but who did not comment in the formal RfC. An RfC is not a simple vote count. The quality of the comments, and previous comments can and should be considered. Blueboar (talk) 03:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I did read the archives. I found the wording uninformative; others may have different views. I merely suggest that might have helped explain your abysmal turnout. I stand by my statement; if you didn't get more than 3 views, you did not have enough input to drastically change policy. You could have easily popped a new notice on the Pump to get more attention. You could have popped a message on the page of the editors in the previous 30 days who had contributed, with a basic boilerplate informing them of the Rfc, and asking them to participate, as they'd recently participated in the discussion. Both very standard practice. Instead, you closed it with 3 views and have been claiming consensus ever since.
 * My point was that we did have more than three views... but not all of them were stated in the RfC section itself. Some were stated in the previous discussions.  Blueboar (talk) 11:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Religion section
Something else: the religion section contains sentences like "Wikipedia articles on history and religion draw from a religion's sacred texts as well as from modern archaeological, historical, and scientific sources". Does this mean we "draw from" the sacred texts in the same way that we draw from modern reliable sources? Presumably not, but the sentence implies it. And "history and religion" presumably means the "history of religion", right?--Kotniski (talk) 06:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And "concern that readers may confuse the formal and informal meanings" is surely a perfectly legitimate factor in word choices? If we can use terms that don't confuse the reader, that's surely better?--Kotniski (talk) 06:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Section on forking
The section on content forking says that content forks are often necessary and desirable. It refers us to WP:Content forking, which states "Both content forks and POV forks are undesirable on Wikipedia." Brilliant eh?--Kotniski (talk) 05:32, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think there is a terminology discrepancy. Summary-style sub-articles are often necessary and desirable and are blessed by WP. POV forking is considered an NPOV violation. The problem is that "content forking" is used in the NPOV article to mean "summary-style forking" (i.e. The Good Guy), while in the WP:Content forking it is defined as POV forking (i.e. The Bad Guy). In the guideline, summary-style sub-articles are called "spin-offs". Clearly this mess needs to be fixed. Crum375 (talk) 13:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, this was fine up until the recent massive reversions to old/random versions. Crum375 (talk) 14:10, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There has for many years been wide confusion about what is meant by a "content fork". Some defined it as an unintentional duplication of the same topic in more than one article, some have taken it as roughly synonymous with a "POV fork", while others have seen it differently than either of these. Often there has been confusion between "content fork" and the normal method of splitting topics that are seen as too broad, creating "daughter articles" or "main articles" on sub-topics. What's meant by a "POV fork" has in my observation been much less confusing and easily understood even by new users. I happen to agree that the revised language in this section (prior to reverting the 21 April -23 April mass changes) is preferable. As this particular section did not appear to be a motivating factor in reverting to a prior version (rather it was mainly the removal of long-standing policy sections that was put forward as grounds for objection to the major revisions), I would think that changing the language of this one section to the version of 24 April - 29 April with a reasonable explanation on the talk page would not be a very controversial edit, even if done with a single edit. ... Kenosis (talk) 01:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'll take part of that last sentence of my comment back, the part about my thinking the shortened version of 24 April - 29 April (after the mass edits until they were mass-reverted) would not be very controversial. Judging by this revision as of 29 April, the same confusion and/or disagreement about what is the policy status of a "content fork" seems to remain in the drastically shortened version. Note that the version of 24 April - 29 April says: "Both are considered unacceptable" (POV and content forks) when in fact some exceptions have been made for articles generally agreed to be "content forks". E.g. the current section says, as it had prior to 23 April:"'Evolution, Evolution as theory and fact, Creationism, and Creationism-evolution controversy are all in separate articles. This is called a content fork and it helps prevent wasted effort and unnecessary debates: by covering related topics in different articles, we do not have to argue over covering everything in one article.'"So this would appear to need more thorough community discussion to sort out the definition of "content fork" and articulate the policy status of content forks. In this context, I think the relevant questions are something like:"(1) What does WP mean by a 'content fork'?  (2) Is the general rule against 'content forks' that are not 'POV forks' merely a guideline subject to occasional exception when the circumstances warrant?"... Kenosis (talk) 02:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * My experience of how Wikipedians talk is that a "content fork" is something undesirable. It's not a legitimate separate page dealing with a specific aspect of the topic - that would be called something else. So basically I think the terminology used at WP:Content forking should be brought over to here, not the other way round. (In fact content forks are nothing to do with this page, all we need is a passing mention of POV forks - which are a special case of content forks - and a link to the guideline.)--Kotniski (talk) 20:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The policy is very clear. The recent edit made it shorter but confusing. QuackGuru (talk) 21:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Kotniski, you've not defined what a "content fork" is in your opinion. Nor for that matter what a POV fork is. Traditionally "POV fork" has generally been taken to mean an evasion of WP:NPOV by presenting a separate article on the same topic written from the perspective of an alternative POV from the "main article" Examples are given in the policy of "content fork", which are consistent with my understanding of what a "content fork" is, and which must comply with WP:NPOV even if describing an alternative or fringe perspective. The examples given in the policy are the set of articles on Evolution, Evolution as theory and fact, Creationism, and Creationism-evolution controversy (and there are others in this "series" too). All of these articles are required to comply with WP:NPOV. My understanding of a POV fork is a fork which does not comply with NPOV but is instead designed essentially to evade the policy. But as I said, there have been several different takes on this by many on the wiki, which differ from my take on it. The point of my question #1 presented above was to elicit the beginning of a discussion wherein the community might once-and-for-all attempt to get a firm grip on what we mean by these two terms, "content fork" and "POV fork". ... Kenosis (talk) 23:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that "content fork" means (to me, and probably to most editors) what it says at WP:Content fork. So the series you refer to is not a content fork, because it isn't duplicating content, it's splitting it into separate articles dealing with specific aspects of the content. In any case, as your edit shows, we don't need to mention "content forks" on this page at all - only POV forks are within this page's scope. --Kotniski (talk) 05:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

A point of view fork is an attempt to evade the neutrality policy but now the section title suggests it is okay for point of view forks. QuackGuru (talk) 05:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * What section title do you suggest?--Kotniski (talk) 05:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't see a problem with the previous section title. But the new title is a problem. QuackGuru (talk) 06:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The previous section title was "Point of view (POV) forks and content forks"; the new one is "Point of view forks". In what way is there a problem with the second that there wasn't with the first?--Kotniski (talk) 06:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "Content and point of view forks" will fix the problem. QuackGuru (talk) 16:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * What problem? The section doesn't (need to) mention "content forks". This page being about the Neutral Point of View, the only kind of forks that concern us here are POV forks. I don't see any problem here.--Kotniski (talk) 19:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The section is about content and POV forks. The title is a problem. QuackGuru (talk) 02:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The Content Fork page actually is in more dire need of work than this one. It was originally POV fork and got redirected to Content Fork, which creates the confusion. As noted above, a POV fork is a way of evading NPOV, a core policy, that is why it is wrong. A content fork - well, no one has explained how it is used to violate policy. In fact, it is very common that as articles grow large, they are split up into different linked articles; some topics lend themselves to different article sn linked topics. We do this all the time and will continue to do this and there is no point in any policy telling people not to do it. What we need is a policy that distinguishes between those forks that are used to evade policy (POV forks, bad) and those that do not evade policy (content forks, acceptable). Slrubenstein  |  Talk 00:07, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If you look at the archive at WT:Content forking and the early history of the project page itself (e.g., 16 April 2005) "content forking" or "article forking" tended to be seen as the same as, or similar to, POV forking. A few editors tried to standardized the terms, but they never quite achieved consistency among the entire community. Ever since then, there's remained wide confusion and/or disagreement about what is a "content fork" vs. a POV fork. Many have seen them as the same, and others have seen them as different from one another. The community just never got this particular worked out in a coherent, lasting way. ... Kenosis (talk) 00:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, for example in December 2005 just prior to the merge of WP:POV forking into WP:Content_forking, the standard article split was referred to as "Article spinouts" or "article spinoffs", not "content forking". Either way, though, the community never quite got on the same page w.r.t. these proposed terms. The only thing widely agreed upon, AFAIK, is that "POV forks" are verboten. In addition, AFAIK, many or most experienced users have taken POV fork to be the same as, or at least roughly akin to, "content forks" ... Kenosis (talk) 00:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The current version is confusing when it does not clarify article spinoffs are called "content forks". Can you add something to the section to clarify this? QuackGuru (talk) 02:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Problem is, "article spinoffs" are not "content forks" in generally accepted WP parlance, at least not among experienced users and sysops (AFAIK). As I indicated, AFAIK the community never quite got around to getting terms straight w.r.t. "content forks" (perhaps even because the term was not very well chosen in the first place). The only thing about which experienced users have had a longstanding sustained consensus is that "POV forks" are out of bounds. To one extent or another there has from the getgo been disagreement and/or confusion about what is a "content fork" and what are the range of permissions or what is the accepted way of proceeding to split topics. But, AFAIK, there has always been community agreement that a "fork" should never be (1) an attempt to evade the consensus process at another article, nor (2) be written from perspective other than NPOV. The various difficulties in achieving this has taught countless WP editors that it's not always as simple as, say, "be objective" or "cite facts, including facts about opinions" or "watch for words X, Y and Z", etc. etc. Which is in significant part why various additional policy provisions evolved, beyond a mere general statement of "neutral" or "cite facts", etc. Examples are WP:ASF, WP:MNA, WP:GEVAL, WP:PSCI, and for that matter even WP:RNPOV (whatever the ultimate disposition of each of these policy sections may turn out to be).  ..... As to a definition of "content fork" that is sufficiently specific and stable to consider a policy provision concerning such a term, AFAIK the community simply has never arrived at a consensus about what is the agreed definition for the term, nor has the community ever arrived at a consensus about what should be a policy based upon this term. Which is why I phrased "Question #1" above in this talk section (What does WP mean by a "content fork"?) in the way I did. ... Kenosis (talk) 03:43, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think article spinouts cleared up the misunderstanding. I can create a new shortcut for "spinout" to redirect to this section. It can't be called a "content fork" for the sentence I added a wikilink to in this page. Spinouts and content forks are different. The term article spinout is mentioned in the other page. See Article spinouts – "Summary style" articles. The term content forks was confusing to me. Now I think I get it. QuackGuru (talk) 05:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Fundamental problem: "neutral"
I've been reading this policy and the FAQ, and realized that a lot of the apparent contradictions and absurdities in what's written result from a refusal to admit one thing - our "point of view" is not really "neutral", but it is the point of view of what we consider to be "reliable" sources. In other words, we most definitely "do" take a particular point of view (basically that of mainstream Western science). And rightly so in my opinion, but we shouldn't try to hide that fact in our documents. Much of this page (including the title, in fact), and certainly the first answer in the FAQ, would be much clearer if we admitted explicitly and proudly that this is indeed where we are comng from.--Kotniski (talk) 06:14, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * So we should change to "reliable source point of view" or "objectivity"? Maurreen (talk) 08:43, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I suppose neutral does have a place in fact - when we are talking about a dispute, we don't take sides. That to me is being neutral. But when we are talking about something about which there may be a dispute, we are not neutral - we state the facts mainly or exclusively from the "scientific" or "reliable source" viewpoint. So if we are to have a separate page called "neutral point of view" (which as you know, I don't think is necessary) then it should stick to the issues and senses in which we are neutral - matters of how we choose between sources (and that includes this whole pseudoscience section) are manifestly not about neutrality, so should be discussed on different pages (e.g. WP:V). (But my actual view is that even this breakdown would be confusing, and we should have one page that deals with V and NPOV and OR and eliminates the contradictions between them.)--Kotniski (talk) 09:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just exploring your overall idea, which has merit.
 * I think it's unlikely that this page will be done away with. But maybe another way to express the general idea is "disinterested" view. Maurreen (talk) 09:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "Balance view" might best encompass the goals. Maurreen (talk) 11:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree with "we most definitely "do" take a particular point of view (basically that of mainstream Western science)" as IMO it omits some points:
 * There is no "mainstream Western science", there is just science, based on scientific method - and non-Western cultures are using it, sometimes with unpleasantly results.
 * There's no procedure for producing real life consensus about religious, political and social beliefs - no analogue of scientific method. When religious, political and social beliefs disagree, there is usually either tolerance or conflicct. --Philcha (talk) 11:19, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * If we were to change the title, I would suggest "WP:Maintaining a neutral tone"... but I don't really think there would be much support for changing the title. People are used to the current one. Blueboar (talk) 12:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I would avoid "balance". Wacko's interpret that as "equal column inches". Anthony (talk) 13:22, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

It should read editorially neutral, which I understand as simply avoiding the excesses of biased commentary. Unomi (talk) 14:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * One must acknowledge that the most common case of violation of NPOV isn't statement of viewpoints. It is efforts to craft the article so as to influence readers towards a particular viewpoint on a topic where there is a debate and opposing viewpoints.  Usually the "clash" is not over a matter of fact, but something else such as political etc.North8000 (talk) 15:57, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

(undent))This discussion reminds me of a recent discussion about WP:NOTCENSORED, where someone was obsessing over the title and not reading the actual policy. WP:NPOV is an objective in the world of Forms, there are imperfections in any actual implementation and the policy acknowledges those.  Let's not get lost over absolutist definitions.  SDY (talk) 21:23, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * This discussion is a waste of time, because Kotniski opens it with a red herring: "I've been reading this policy and the FAQ, and realized that a lot of the apparent contradictions and absurdities in what's written result from a refusal to admit one thing - our "point of view" is not really "neutral", but it is the point of view of what we consider to be "reliable" sources." This statement is false.  The point of view of our articles is not the point of view of reliable sources.  Our articles should ave no point of view whatsoever.  This is a simple concept and either Kotniski cannot grasp it, in thus mixes up NPOV for V, but I do not know what more to say except, you are mixed up, or Kotniski is for some reason deliberaly throwing in a red herring. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 00:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well if I'm mixing up NPOV for V, it's because so much of V is duplicated here (and nothing is clearly stated anyway - it's as if the page has been written deliberately in order to admit of different interpretations, which, when we think about how policy develops, is almost certinaly the case). But how can you possibly say that the point of view of our articles is not that of reliable sources? Of course it is - it's fundamental to how WP works that when there are differing takes on something we report (as fact) those which the reliable sources expound. And it's our world view that makes those sources "reliable". I'm not saying this is wrong - but I'm saying we shouldn't word the policy and the FAQ dishonestly so as to imply that we've discovered some sort of utopian objectivity.--Kotniski (talk) 06:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, this is a fair concern and there should be a way to address it in the wording. But V and NPOV are inextricably tied together.  NPOV was our first policy, and within it was the principle, "Verifiability, not truth."  This does not mean that Wikipedia's "view" is not "neutral" but rather the view of verifiable sources, it means that content disputes should be resolved based on whether or not a view is verifiable, not whether or not editors think it is true.  Do you see the distinction?  Now, this was all originall part of this policy, and after a couple of years V was spun off to become its own policy, in part to clarify the distinction you are concerned about and in part because the NPOV page had gotten too long.  So they are related, as you intuit, but not in the way you think.  I certainly wish this were made clearer in the policy pages. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 14:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I admit I don't really see the distinction - if we resolve disagreements based on what is verifiable, then an inevitable consequence is that the statements we end up making will reflect the view of the sources that we consider reliable enough to use for verification. So "editors think it's true" has been replaced by another judgement call, "editors think the source is reliable". As I say, I'm very happy that this is what we do, but I think this policy is written to try to hide that fact, which makes it hard to comprehend. If V is supposed to have been spun off, and we want to keep it spun off, then can we remove all the V-related things from this policy, and make it concentrate specifically on the neutrality-related things?--Kotniski (talk) 20:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * One distinction is that you can form a view on whether a source is reliable without having a view on the particular topic you are checking. I can believe that the FT reliably reports financial news before I know what it has reported on the Greek bailout. In addition, reliable sources may disagree where interpretation is involved - eg who won the latest debate - but we can be more neutral than any single source by reporting a wide range of sources' opinions and their reasoning, letting the reader make their own informed POV if they wish. Stephen B Streater (talk) 20:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm not arguing that what we do is wrong in any way, but for the purposes of writing the policy and associated FAQs etc., we shouldn't try to disguise the fact that we are still making personal judgements (we believe that the FT is reliable; we can be more neutral, not absolutely neutral). Perhaps it would help if I were more specific about what I'm suggesting - I'll try to come up with something later. --Kotniski (talk) 05:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * All right, this change (to the FAQ in this case) is the sort of thing I mean.--Kotniski (talk) 07:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Facts and opinions
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. An objective observation expresses a fact. A subjective interpretation expresses an opinion. A fact can be asserted without simon-says inline-text phrasing. An opinion can be attributed to so-and-so said.

By value or opinion, on the other hand, we mean "a matter which is subject to dispute." There are many propositions that very clearly express values or opinions. That stealing is wrong is a value or opinion. That The Beatles were the greatest band in history is an opinion. That the United States is the only country in the world that has used a nuclear weapon during wartime is a fact. That the United States was right or wrong to drop the atomic bomb over Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a value or opinion. However, there are bound to be borderline cases (see Undue weight) where it is not clear if a particular dispute should be taken seriously and included.

When we discuss an opinion, we attribute the opinion to someone and discuss the fact that they have this opinion. 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 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.

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.

A careful selection of reliable sources is also critical for producing articles with a neutral point of view. When discussing the facts on which a point of view is based, it is important to also include the facts on which competing opinions are based since this helps a reader evaluate the credibility of the competing viewpoints. This should be done without implying that any one of the opinions is correct. It is also important to make it clear who holds these opinions. It is often best to cite a prominent representative of the view.


 * Unnecessary in-text attribution (so-and-so says) is a violation of WP:ASF when no serious dispute exists among reliable sources if it is a fact. WP:ASF does not require in-text attribution for information where there is no serious dispute. Requiring in-text attribution for widespread consensus of reliable sources on the grounds that it is "opinion" would allow a contrarian reader to insist on in-text attribution for material about which there is no serious dispute, using the argument that the material is an "opinion". This would mean, in the end, that all material in Wikipedia would require in-text attribution, even if only one Wikipedia editor insisted on it, which is not the intent of WP:ASF or of WP:CONSENSUS. When an editor has a concern with in-text attribution this proposal will help an editor who does not understand for a fact in-text attribution is not required. When there is a serious dispute such as among reliable sources or the text is very controversial it is considered an opinion. When it is an opinion in-text attribution may be required. QuackGuru (talk) 02:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose reinserting it. It's wordy, difficult to follow for that reason, and parts of it are wrong e.g. "By 'fact' we mean a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." That's not what the word "fact" means. It's also not consistent with the other policies, or with editing practice. What we do is supply reliable sources for anything challenged or likely to be challenged, whether it's a fact, argument, opinion, or whatever else. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 02:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment As we have been discussing above as far as I can tell the issue has nothing to do with "reliable sources for anything challenged or likely to be challenged" (which is covered in WP:V). It is how we present the verified text eg 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)". While I am not wedded to ASF I do think that something similar must exist in this "Neutral point of view" policy, otherwise we open the lid to a box containing all sorts of problems that this section has kept closed -- PBS (talk) 02:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Philip, 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 09:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment No, your wrong SV. ASF is not about reliable sources for anything challenged or likely to be challenged. It is about how we present the verified text. "By 'fact' we mean a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." When it is a fact we don't need in-text attribution. It's also very consistent with the other policies, and with editing practice. QuackGuru (talk) 01:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Support reinserting it. It is not too wordy. It is a clearer, detailed version. This concise proposal gives the editor something to follow. For example, "By 'fact' we mean a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." This is a concise explanation of what a fact means to Wikipedia in this proposal. When is it a fact it can be asserted as a fact. "A fact can be asserted without simon-says inline-text phrasing." The issue with ASF is not about reliable sources. It is about after you find a reliable source how to present the facts (non-controversial text) or opinions (controversial text). With or without in-text attribution (so-and-so says). We should explain to editors how to write articles. Or NPOV is a blind page without a ASF guidance. I don't see anywhere on this or any other policy page a clear explanation covering this. QuackGuru (talk) 02:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose reinserting. The current verbiage is clear and concise. The proposed wording is unintelligible (to me) and conflicts with other policies. The existing section on explaining neutrality says that all we need to do is to make sure the material is properly sourced, present it neutrally, weighted by its prevalence, and if it's controversial we require in-text attribution. I don't see what else is needed. Crum375 (talk) 02:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment There is no current verbiage for ASF (facts and opinions) when it was deleted (without establishing consensus first). So how could it be clear and concise when it is no longer a section explaining facts and opinions. The proposed wording was not shown how it conflicts with other policies. Please show and not assert your view. When it was not shown it conflicts with other policies it is an opinion. If editors agreed it was shown to conflict with other policies it would be a fact. We need a concise explanation when it's an opinion (controversial) we require in-text attribution and if it a fact (non-controversial) we may not require in-text attribution (so-and-so said). Saying just in-text attribution could be misinterperated. Editors may think it means inline citations for text that is challenged or likely to be challenged. QuackGuru (talk) 07:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * View not summarizable in one boldface word, something like this (but not the whole wordy text - a couple of sentences will do) clearly needs to be put back, since attempts to say it differently have failed. People are claiming there's no difference between the way we should treat objective (though possibly disputed) facts and subjective (though not necessarily disputed) opinions, which is just wrong - or would require community consent for such a major change in the way we write Wikipedia. BUT if the insertion I've just made (that statements of opinion rather than fact require in-text attribution) is left alone - and I believe it should be, people shouldn't take advantage of the rationalization of this page to sneak through major changes in policy - then there is no need for any restoration of ASF.--Kotniski (talk) 06:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Kotniski, the reason editors are claiming there's no difference between the way we should treat facts (objective) and opinions (subjective) is because they prefer WP:IAR. QuackGuru (talk) 07:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Kotniski, 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 09:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Here is my take on this original version - I'm not saying it is perfect, and it predates all this analysis, but it is much shorter and easier to read. The original version was very wordy and repetitive. Stephen B Streater (talk) 06:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment What was repetitive or are you pulling my leg. QuackGuru (talk) 07:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If you look at the last paragraph, you see that my version is 1/4 shorter. I've removed sentiments like: you must do this to ensure NPOV - the whole article is about NPOV, so we don't need to say this all the time. Also things like It is important to - this section is a summary, so only important things are here anyway. (And why are we mentioning unimportant things?) There are also many implicit ideas which do not need to be made explicit: ensure attribution adequately reflects becomes, in my proposed version, ensure attribution reflects since no one would expect it to be interpreted as ensure attribution inadequately reflects. I think this illustrates my point, but there are dozens of these redundant words in the original section. Stephen B Streater (talk) 07:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Support What is necessary is the first two sentences, especially the definition of "fact". This is supposed to be a simple formulation, and for many or most people, including me, it is very simple and crystal clear. One could throw out most of the rest of the policy as superfluous, with little detriment, if one understands these sentences. There is a definite difference between sentences in wikipedia articles. Some are bald statements written in wikipedia's voice, implicitly saying (Wikipedia sez). Then there are ones with in-text attribution, (Professor X says). It is useful to have a word for statements of the first type, and it is natural to use the English word "fact."  People have different philosophies, so for some this rubs them very much the wrong way.  So call it "wikifact".  Is there really anything unclear if one just uses "wikifact" for "fact" in these sentences?  I oppose using the words "objective" and "subjective" as they are too slippery and can make things too complicated.  Of course one can find problems, but one can find problems with anything, this is supposed to be a simple basic instruction, and I think it has served this purpose admirably well.  I have to say though that the current WP:ASF is pretty good, and says exactly the same thing, mainly in the sentence "Where a statement is controversial or otherwise not broadly accepted, or is a statement of opinion rather than fact, use in-text attribution—"John Smith writes that"— rather than publishing the material in Wikipedia's voice."  Perhaps giving the old formulation in a footnote as an alternative would be a possibility.John Z (talk) 08:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose As QuackGuru's formulation says, "No one seriously disputes any of these things," well, this is what makes them uncontroversial which is why this stuff is unnecessary because the NPOV policy as written already covers this. Moreover, QuackGuru shows his hand when she writes, "Unnecessary in-text attribution (so-and-so says) is a violation of WP:ASF when no serious dispute exists among reliable sources"  QuackGuru has twice been banned from the Chiropractic article for edit warring.  In one case she has been accused of removing attributed material, claiming that facts do not need attribution.  So all we have here is, an editor (who is it seems a POV-pushing SPA) taking an edit war at an article to the policy page, trying to spin policy to support her edit war.  This is ... in poor taste.  The bottom line is that all claims must be verifiable, this is straight WP:V policy.  QuackGurus edit conflicts simply reveal that one woman's facts are another woman's opinions, so this language is unhelpful. "Controversial" at Wikipedia cannot mean that all reliable sources agree - that is like saying "if it is easy to verify something, you are not allowed to verify it."  Huh? If it is easy to verify something, just add the citations when asked?  What matters is not that there is no serious dispute among sources 9that makes it easy to attribute); what matters is that there is controversy on the aticle talk page (and the claim needs to be attributed).  Everything I am saying is clear in our NPOV and V policies.  QuackGuru is trying to impose a self-serving but confused and dangerous spin.  We certainly do not need this sentence added to the policy.  The policy as stands clearly and consistently explains NPOV just fine. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 09:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Please don't start personalizing this - most of us have not the slightest interest in what some editor may be doing somewhere else. All we're concerned with is expressing the fundamental and long-established principle that Wikipedia articles don't contain direct statements of opinion. The wording you have now replaced it with is "represents a particular point of view". Why do you find "point of view" better than "opinion"? I may be wrong, but it seems you have some private quarrel with QuackGuru and just want to move as far as possible from whatever that editor wants, which isn't how policy should be written. --Kotniski (talk) 10:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Now you are being personal ;-) And me - oops. I think background is useful, but of course it doesn't invalidate the opinions. Not knowing someone has a POV is not the same as knowing they don't, so I think we should treat all suggestions with scepticism and on their own merits. As it happens, I didn't find my discussion with QuackGuru a few weeks ago very productive, but did at least manage to have a conversation and am again above. Generally, I agree with both you and Slrubenstein, but obviously not on this particular point of disagreement between you. Stephen B Streater (talk) 10:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not have any personal quarrel with QuackGuru (for all I know, I may even share his views about chiropracty). But I do know that edit conflicts at an article should be resolved at the article and not carried over here.  that is my only point.  To answer Kotniski's second question, I prefer "point of view" over "opinion" because the word "view" is what "Neutral Point of View" is all about- I want to use language that is consistent within the policy.  I think we should be showing the usefulness of words in the title of the policy, rather than introduce new words which might have other uses or meanings.  "Point of view" is what this policy is all about and it seems very reasonable to say that if a statement introduced in an article reflects or expresses someone's point of view, the article should say whose view that is.  This seems like the simplest and most straightforward response to PBS's concerns.  That is why I like it. I don't mind Kotniski asking me these questions, I hope I have answered them adequately. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 12:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Slrubenstein there: use the terms which match the policy names. Adding extra words which may or may not have identical meanings is unnecessary complexity. As Einstein put it: The purpose of science is to simplify as far as possible. But no further. I think some more can be squeezed out still. Stephen B Streater (talk) 13:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose Has no-one noticed - QuackGuru's insistence is not because of anything to do with controversial information. QuackGuru believes it is a "violation of ASF" to add a citation to information which is common knowledge, and this is why he wants it retained.  I believe his action is based on a dispute he is having in another place, but regardless, it is unhelpful to advance this argument in this way. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes - I don't think anyone else agrees with QuackGuru on this point. Stephen B Streater (talk) 12:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Elen of the Roads, stop putting words in my mouth. As I previously explained ASF is not about a citation. So that makes Elen of the Roads argument irrelevant. This proposal has nothing to do with a citation or V policy. Editors are unable to provided a direct response to my comments because they have ran out of excuses. ASF has always been a part of NPOV. Editors don't like ASF because they want to break apart NPOV in order to make it meaningless. The editors who allege ASF conflicts with other policies or claim it is already covered in-depth are really saying they love to WP:IAR. Editors who oppose ASF should reconsider there purpose here and try to respect core parts of Wikipedia policy. If editors want to shorten the proposal then at least try to compromise. Again, ASF is not about attributing to a reliable source. It is about after you find a reliable source how to present the text. Is it a fact or opinion. Should a sentence be presented with or without in-text attribution (so-and-so says). QuackGuru (talk) 17:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * So are you saying it is about attribution in the text after it has been decided to add references? Stephen B Streater (talk) 17:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I would decide if the text is a fact (objective) or an opinion (subjective) through talk page consensus. "A fact can be asserted without simon-says inline-text phrasing. An opinion can be attributed to so-and-so said." QuackGuru (talk) 18:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Quack, consensus can't determine whether something is a 'fact' (define fact) or not, all it can determine is whether material is uncontroversial or whether there is more than one view. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This is actually one of the sentences of the proposed policy I have a problem with. An opinion MUST BE attributed. The current wording implies that attribution of opinions is optional. 24.57.77.99 (talk) 01:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Talk page consensus can determine if something is a fact (non-controversial) or is an opinion (controversial). Please respect WP:CON and WP:TALK. QuackGuru (talk) 18:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Non-controversial =/= fact. All it means is that all the people currently contributing to the talk page agree with it.  WP:CON does not anywhere refer to the ability of consensus to determine facts. And I fail entirely to see the relevance of WP:TALK Elen of the Roads (talk)18:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Strongly oppose: I was only at oppose, per SlimVirgin, until I read that QuackGuru had slipped in "Unnecessary in-text attribution (so-and-so says) is a violation of WP:ASF when no serious dispute exists among reliable sources". This is a concern that I had previously raised above, on this talk page. QuackGuru is trying to change WP:ASF to her interpretation. ASF has never previously included a statement like this, because previously one wouldn't "violate" ASF by including unnecessary attribution. Opinions must be attributed, but that doesn't mean that facts CAN'T/SHOULDN'T be attributed. Also, it changes the definition of fact. If I have a source that states that "New York is the prettiest city in the world", and no one can find a source that disputes this, according to this version, it wouldn't need attribution. It is a serious flaw. 24.57.77.99 (talk) 01:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Support reinstating older version, not including the ASF contested materiel. I think its a bit long and could be improved, which is always the WP way - "delete" because it needs work is not an argument for deletion on articles, nor should it be here. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 12:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose reinsertion. The distinction between science and pseudoscience, mythology and faith, is always a judgment call prone to dispute.  Therefore no one can be 100% sure whether this section is violated or not.  But policies should consist only of those mandates which an editor can reliably follow, as judged by a reasonable arbiter.  Therefore these sections can only be guidelines.  I oppose any change to make citations or reliably sourced information unwelcome by policy. Wnt (talk) 23:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, for Wikipedia purposes, that Mars is a planet is not a fact. That a basic astronomy book says Mars is a planet is a fact.  In uncontroversial cases we may exclude mentioning which source says it when it's something uncontroversial - because people can just click on the reference and see - but that doesn't make it a fact.  After all, we all learned that Pluto is a planet at the same time, from the same basic sources, but that is no longer a fact! Wnt (talk) 23:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Question
Quack, I've noticed a few editors say you've been using ASF to keep citations or in-text attribution out of articles, or to argue that they're not needed for facts, or certain kinds of facts. I haven't followed the background to this, so could Quack or someone explain that angle, please? It would be good to see an example of how ASF was applied. SlimVirgin talk  contribs 17:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * When there is a serious dispute in-text attribution (The 2008 book Trick or Treatment states) may be required.
 * In-Text attribution such as this edit was a violation of ASF when no serious dispute exists. The editor eventualy removed the in-text attribution because it was a violation of ASF. From time to time there are editors who disagree with what a researcher says from a highly reliable source or does not understand ASF policy but wants to include in-text attribution in violation of ASF.
 * The problems are not always easily fixed. Sometimes discussions can go on for weeks. See Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Vaccine controversy. For the sake of argument if I am actually correct there are reasons ASF will be useful because there are content disputes that take a lot of effort to remove the attribution or explain to other editors it is not the intention of ASF to have detailed attribution when there is no dispute among researchers. According to ASF (the longing standing version for many years) there is a difference between a fact that can be asserted versus an opinion that may require in-text attribution.
 * Where do we point the POV warriors to when they want to continue to re-add attribution and eliminate ASF policy. Do we need ASF or clueless editors can add in-text attribution whenever they want. QuackGuru (talk) 18:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Quack, if someone wants to cite a source for something that appears obvious, it's not a violation of anything. In the Race and Intelligence dispute, although there is a majority and a minority position, there are precious few facts. Where a majority source contradicts a minority source, it is perfectly acceptable to attribute the majority source. Where multiple sources say the same thing, it is incorrect to attribute to only one source, but that's nothing to do with this mythical view you have of ASF, it's part of the core NPOV policy. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * As previously explained, this is not about someone who wants to cite a source. See WP:IDHT. QuackGuru (talk) 18:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think Quack wants to weaken or eliminate the need for in-text attribution. But per NPOV, in-text attribution is needed for controversial or contentious material, to present some particular or distinct view, or anything else which is not broadly accepted, and this has been our policy and practice for a long time. Crum375 (talk) 18:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Crum375, don't put words in my mouth or say something about my intetntions that are not true. When it is an opinion according to Wikipedia's definition it is an opinion in-text attribution is required. QuackGuru (talk) 01:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * In fact, if the information were non-controversial, this debate would not be taking place. Quack seems to want to be allowed to define what is "The Truth" Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Crum375, I want to preserve when in-text attribution may be required for controversial or contentious material. When there is a serious dispute in-text attribution (The 2008 book Trick or Treatment states) may be required. I previously explained in-text attribution may be required. According to Crum375, ASF is essentially an essay and proposed the removal of ASF. I don't see a current ASF section and ASF is not covered in the rest of the NPOV page or elsewhere. I believe the removing of this section did not improve NPOV and will increase many needless arguments. Elen of the Roads, I want to define when text can be attributed to so-and-so says and when it can be asserted without simon-says phrasing. QuackGuru (talk) 19:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As an editor, I would like to know where to find references for anything which I, a layman, do not know. There is a difference between "Mars is a planet" and "Mars has a mass of 6.4185x1023kg. I would want to know where this information came from, even though it is not disputed by experts in the field. In practice, I want to be able easily to check that a vandal has not altered the figure. Stephen B Streater (talk) 19:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * As previously explained, ASF is not about verifying a claim. QuackGuru (talk) 19:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Quack, there's no need for a rigid policy on when to NOT use in-text attribution. If someone is using in text attribution to make it appear that a majority view is a minority one, then point them to 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.  If 50 sources support view X, in text attributing to just one fails the above. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you made that quote, as it is one which I take issue with. Does the each refer to the view or the publication? Isn't the language ambiguous? Stephen B Streater (talk) 19:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point. As previous incarnations were clear that it was the view, not the source, I have added a word to remove the ambiguity. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, good catch and good fix. Crum375 (talk) 19:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your appreciation. I like that edit too. But I have one further question here. If I have 10 tabloid newspapers read by millions vs a couple of peer reviewed scientific journals, which would you say was more prominent? And is prominence exactly what we are looking for? Are we after an element of accuracy in NPOV? Stephen B Streater (talk) 19:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * This is where WP:RS comes in, as RS does make it clear that peer reviewed tops tabloid. In this case, one could correctly say that 'it is popularly held that wet feet makes one susceptible to the common cold (cite the Sun and the Mirror), but research over a number of years by Sniff (cite), Snizzle (cite) and Koff (cite) has not supported this view.'Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes - Dave souza has changed the wording to explicitly reflect the different weight of the sources in assessing the prominence of the views, which is what I was after in this policy. Stephen B Streater (talk) 21:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Suitable
 That's a good reason for linking WP:SOURCES in that section as we use a specific meaning of RS, and I've done so as well as adding "suitable" as quality of RS's should be considered when establishing appropriate weight. It's important to stress that expert opinion outweighs multiple newspaper stories by journalists. WP:SOURCES refers to appropriateness of sources, but the sentence already mentions appropriate weight and I wanted to avoid repetition. . . dave souza, talk 21:05, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Good edit. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree with this edit. We can't say in advance what counts as a reliable source in any given instance. The policy is quite clear that expert and non-expert sources are welcomed, so long as they're high-quality; to focus on one type of source is often the same as focusing on one POV. "Suitable" anyway doesn't tell us anything. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 21:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I've removed "suitable." One example of the problem: supporters of a cult figure tried some years ago to have academic sources prioritized over non-academic ones, and there was an effort to change the sourcing policy to reflect that. The reason: it was newspapers that had exposed much of this cult figure's activities, so there was an effort to downgrade them as sources. High-quality newspapers are often the main source of material that counters the claims of experts, and it's therefore very important that we preserve their status as reliable sources of equal quality. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 21:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * So, do you disagree with "The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments; as a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources where available, such as in history, medicine, and science, but material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, and mainstream newspapers. Electronic media may also be used, subject to the same criteria."? Not all sources are equal, and in broad terms we look to expert views published in the best sources. High quality newspapers have a record of publishing scientifically illiterate rubbish in many cases, which is why peer reviewed publications in respected journals are given more weight. Do you prefer to promote fringe views publicised by newspapers? . . dave souza, talk 22:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I prefer Dave souza's version. At some point, for NPOV, we have to decide which sources should carry which weight. I would like this to be explained here, not in a blue link, as it is so fundamental to NPOV. And the current version doesn't clearly allow a grading of the weight of the sources, which is de facto part of the process of editing. Stephen B Streater (talk) 22:05, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Dave, I'd appreciate if you wouldn't just quote other policies, because I know what they say. It's the relevance you need to explain. You can't try to push through a change here to the sourcing policy.

Stephen, what counts as "appropriate" has to be left to editors' discretion. To try to define it in advance as "expert" is POV pushing. When writing about animal rights, should only experts be allowed as sources? And what would count: only academics specializing in animal rights? A point would come where no criticism would be allowed into the article, because all the sources would more or less agree with each other.

We had a situation last year where apparently The New York Times was being kept out of a global warming article because the reporter wasn't deemed an expert. It's exactly that kind of situation the content polices are here to protect us against. SlimVirgin talk  contribs 22:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think I ever mentioned expert. Dave's edit said suitable, which could easily cover a well read newspaper journalist writing in a reliable source. Stephen B Streater (talk) 22:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Dave said suitable, which Slim changed to (or back to) reliable. Dave's point was around choosing among sources that are already agreed as reliable.  No-one mentioned expert. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And the other point, which I don't think Slim Virgin has addressed fully yet, is the question of how we let editors know that they don't have to give all reliable sources equal weight. I like Slim Virgin's points about appropriate weight above, but unfortunately the current version says essentially that all reliable sources must be given equal weight if they give equal prominence to a notion. Stephen B Streater (talk) 22:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * If it doesn't mean expert, what does it mean? There's no point in adding words that could mean anything and therefore nothing. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 22:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What it means is to leave it up to the discretion of the editors. The current version not only doesn't allow discretion, but forces a oft-repeated inaccuracy to take precedence, even when a few later sources demonstrate the inaccuracy. Stephen B Streater (talk) 22:30, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not insisting on any particular word, but just the concept that NPOV may require unequal weight for reliable sources. Stephen B Streater (talk) 22:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Which part of the policy says that, Stephen? SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 22:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Slim, you're the one doing the most to change this policy, I'm content to revert back to its longstanding state. On this specific point, WP:V requires us to evaluate sources – this policy requires us to give sources weight on the basis of evaluation, not on the basis of number of tabloid sources or whatever. The policy should make that clear. Expert opinion is important, if editors feel that newspapers have better experts than scientific journals then they have to make that case. If you've a better word than "suitable", do please add it. The point remains that not all reliable sources are equal, and we shouldn't imply that they are. . . . dave souza, talk 22:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * This isn't a change to policy; it's an attempt to make it readable. As for V, it doesn't mention tabloids, as you know. This is what is regarded as a reliable source on WP. There was a prior attempt to remove mainstream newspapers, which would have been disastrous for NPOV, and it was also connected to an effort to prioritize academic sources. That has been rejected time and again by the community, for very good reason. Think of it outside the science context. What you want to write into the policy would have effects in other areas that I guarantee you would not like. I'm dealing with one at the moment where a group of editors were trying to insist that only biblical scholars be used as sources of whether Jesus existed (and of course they say he did). To prioritize experts is to prioritize certain points of view over other views that may come from equally responsible people. This policy is here to guard against that, not to facilitate it. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 22:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No one is proposing giving experts blanket priority. But if editors decide experts are more accurate in a particular case, they should be able to give them more weight. Or less weight if they decide that. Stephen B Streater (talk) 22:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the term "reliable source" as defined by WP, already includes a preference for the best quality sources. So we need to get the most reliable of the reliable sources, by our own definitions. But the point is not to leave out small minorities, as long as they are not a tiny or fringe minority. Crum375 (talk) 22:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think it says what you want it to say. It doesn't say "Give more weight to more reliable sources". And the choosing of reliable sources is in the blue link. I think that this is so important to NPOV that guidance over what is expected in weighing up sources should be mentioned explicitly. This will also prevent a corresponding major rewrite at SOURCES from having unforeseen knock on effects here. I haven't even got round to starting to check what we've accidentally changed in other policies which link back here. Stephen B Streater (talk) 23:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I added "quality" as an extra attribute, which we define in WP:SOURCES. What do people think? Crum375 (talk) 23:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I like it. Stephen B Streater (talk) 23:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That could work. See what Slim thinks. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks good, dave souza, talk 23:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'm fine with that. Thank you. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 23:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

There is another problem with "expert" in many articles there are more than one type of expert and not only do experts disagree between within their own discipline, there is often interdisciplinary differences and rivalries. For example who are the experts on the extermination of the Tasmanian Aborigines, is it genocide scholars who specialise in the study of genocide or historians who study the history of Australian and specifically Tasmanian history. In cases such as this the word "suitable" has an unclear and potentially biased meaning. -- PBS (talk) 00:58, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that this edit is quite appropriate, because it has done two things. The first is that it has changed the meaning of the second phrase from "not the viewpoint's prevalence among Wikipedians or the general public" to "the viewpoint's popularity among Wikipedians or the general public." prevalence and popularity is not the same thing. Something my be prevalent but bot popular. The second (and more important point) is that "quality" of the source is not really the issue the issue is "relevance". A source my be of the highest quality (by a well known expert, university publisher etc), but it only mentions something in passing, or the field of expertise is misleading. For example Leo Kuper was a well respected genocide scholar (cited in many genocide papers) who wrote a book called Genocide: Its Political Use in the Twentieth Century., New Haven: Yale University Press. This ticks all the boxes on quality, but "The author [Leo Kuper] is a specialist in African studies, ..." "... and that declaration raises legal problems, in the handling of which Professor Kuper is insecure." (Telford Taylor,, NYT, March 28, 1982). This is because Kuper is not an expert on international law, and on that specific issue at that time TT was more expert, but he was writing in a forum that not of the same "quality" as Kuper, but his expert opinion was more "relevant" on issues of international law than Kuper's was. -- PBS (talk) 00:58, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * These are good points, particularly the second about relevance of a source. I've made a change to reflect this. Stephen B Streater (talk) 06:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * On the popular point, I have noticed a dichotomy between saying what to do and saying what we want to achieve. What we want to achieve is text which reflects what reliable sources say, not what Wikipedians think. Perhaps this popular section could be better phrased to say what we want to achieve rather than what we do - most simply done by adding it to the first sentence, which is about what we want to achieve, rather than the second which is about what we do. Something along the lines of:


 * 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 position, rather than its prevalence among Wikipedians or the general public. In determining appropriate weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence within the reliable published sources, and the quality and relevance of these sources. Stephen B Streater (talk) 06:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

"Undue weight: we'd have to define "relevance" in wp:sources first" Crum375 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)

Original flow of discussion

 * Also, if the mainstream sources broadly support some view, but there is one source which is particularly reliable, we can even combine both formats, e.g. "Since 2006, Pluto is no longer considered a planet. According to the IAU, Pluto is a dwarf planet, along with Eris and Ceres. " Crum375 (talk) 19:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What Elen of the Roads sugggested I point editors to does not explain to editors about ASF. There is no specific explanation of ASF (facts and opinions) in NPOV anymore. Elen of the Roads, you agree with Crum375 to remove ASF. QuackGuru (talk) 19:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * How about Where a statement is controversial or otherwise not broadly accepted, or expresses a particular point of view, use in-text attribution—"John Smith writes that"— 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. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * That does not define facts and opinions according to long established ASF core guidelines. QuackGuru (talk) 19:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

QuackGuru, the edit you linked to above by Tim Vickers is a good edit, exactly the way we should be editing. ASF was written a long time ago, started by Larry Sanger, when the earliest Wikipedians were trying to come up with working drafts of policies to get them started. We have a more complex idea of how to use sources nowadays, and also a much simpler idea of when to use them (which is basically always). Adding in-text attribution is rarely problematic, and it's always a good idea for an edit like that, which might be a contentious thing to say in Wikipedia's voice, because it's not a straightforward issue (which was whether vaccine overload can lead to autism). Any sentence that might prompt a reader to wonder "Who said that?" is a good candidate for in-text attribution, and the issue of whether it's regarded as a fact, argument, majority or minority view is a red herring.

What was your objection to in-text attribution in that case? I'm wondering how that got mixed up with the fact/value debate. SlimVirgin talk  contribs 19:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * SV, the other edit I linked to above made by Tim Vickers is a good edit, exactly the way we should be editing after it was explained on the talk page about ASF. The disagreement was with editors but not the reliable sources. You can check the archives for the specifics. When there is a serious dispute or it is an opinion, we also need to explain in a ASF section when in-text attribution is recommended. QuackGuru (talk) 19:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I just quoted you the section where it recommends using in-text attribution. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * QG, I've not been involved with you before on this issue, so I don't know what your position is. Could you explain your reasoning? I'm not quite following the points you've been making. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 20:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As previously explained: SV, the other edit I linked to above made by Tim Vickers is a good edit, exactly the way we should be editing after it was explained on the talk page about ASF. The disagreement was with editors but not the reliable sources. You can check the archives for the specifics. When there is a serious dispute or it is an opinion, we also need to explain in a ASF section when in-text attribution is recommended. I showed how ASF worked but you were unable to provide a direct response. QuackGuru (talk) 01:28, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I understand Quack's problem. He is concerned, as Elen noted above, that some editors opposed to the mainstream view will use in-text attribution to minimize the mainstream position and make it appear less accepted. We actually discussed this issue higher up in the talk page, where we agreed that the existence of Holocaust gas chambers, because it is broadly accepted, should not be in-text attributed to a single source. The way we addressed that point is to make sure the policy says "or not broadly accepted." IOW, if something is broadly accepted, there is no general requirement to use in-text attribution for it, although we may still do so to reflect a particularly reliable view, as long as the majority position is clear (overwhelming in the gas chamber example). In general, using in-text attribution is up to editorial judgment and consensus, which is why we can't make the policy wording too specific. Crum375 (talk) 20:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It is not quite that simple. Historians make their reputations on analysing historical events and drawing conclusions. When an historian writes a biography for the Dictionary National Biography or similar they will often present all the known information about a person from a the known sources and speculate about certain things which may or may not be true. At the end of the piece they may draw some conclusions about the person and express an opinion on the subject's character. Now one can simply copy the opinion strait into a Wikipedia article, but ASF suggested that those opinions were attributed in the text, and I think that is good practice and should be continued, unless a Wikipedia editor know that the view/opinion is not controversial and is broadly accepted as I agree that for well known and broadly accepted opinions there is a danger that incline attribution may be misleading: "...the fool on the hill see the sun going down ...". There are many occasions where it is better to attribute opinions to an historian even if they are not known to be controversial (apart from anything else it helps to avoid plagiarism, if the ideas behind the opinion are novel).


 * Perhaps "controversial or novel" would improve the text, or the text should be turned around and say: "Unless a point of view is broadly accepted, ...". Such wording would change the onus of proof from an editor having to prove it was controversial, to an editor who does not want to use in-text attribution to show it is broadly accepted, it alters the default from "don't use in-text attribution unless" to "do use in-text attribution unless" and as such is closer to the old wording of ASF.  --PBS (talk) 23:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I share PBS's concern, but the wording specifies claims that reflect particular points of view needing attribution - I think this covers the cases Philip is referring to. I do not strongly object to the word "novel," but I would like to know what others think - I think it is unnecessary.  And my problem with adding words like "novel" is the way people love to interpret these things - so someone will say "well, if we HAVE to provide attribution when it is novel, then that implies we do not have to provide attribution when it is not novel" and then someone will add more verbiage explaining cases when non-novel things will have to be covered and so on.  I am not dismissing PBS's concerns, I just genuinely feel the current wording covers it.  sizable proportion of policy - abuse here occurs when people spend their time gussing what the wording implies rather than just following the policy. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 10:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not wild about 'novel' either - it introduces a new and undefined word. 'Controversial' is OK, as we have said that controversy on the talk page is sufficient to show that a view requires attribution.  I would change When attributing views to individuals, make sure the text does not imply parity between a majority and minority view. to when attributing views, attribute mainstream and majority views in such a way that it is clear that multiple sources support the view. Do not imply parity between a minority and a majority view."Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I like your wording! Maybe if no one ojects strongly in the next 24 hours you can make the change? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 20:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "Novel" is used in WP:OR "avoid novel interpretations of primary sources". -- PBS (talk) 20:52, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Confused
The section above is mixing up so many different issues I'm confused as to who is making which point. Bottom line: V and NOR are the sourcing policies. Nothing can be said in NPOV that contradicts them, because the three policies work in harmony (as the lead of each one says) and are pretty well meaningless without each other.

The issue of what is a fact or an argument is a red herring. Anything challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, period. This is what we mean by "reliable source," and nothing should be written into this policy that changes that. If you want to change it, please go to Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. That leaves only the issue of in-text attribution, which is dealt with in this policy with this text:

"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 otherwise not broadly accepted, or expresses a particular point of view, use in-text attribution&mdash;'John Smith writes that'&mdash; rather than publishing the material in Wikipedia's voice. When attributing views to individuals, make sure the text does not imply parity between a majority and minority view."

The above is a good summary of the policies. If anyone thinks it's problematic, could they offer a real example of the problem they believe it would cause? SlimVirgin talk  contribs 21:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No, that was not a good summary.
 * As previously explained by PBS: Such wording would change the onus of proof from an editor having to prove it was controversial, to an editor who does not want to use in-text attribution to show it is broadly accepted, it alters the default from "don't use in-text attribution unless" to "do use in-text attribution unless" and as such is closer to the old wording of ASF. QuackGuru (talk) 01:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Where it can get problematic is when there's a dispute about whether the material in question is the same as the title of the article. In an article on a book promoting homeopathy, when discussing its claims about homeopathy is the material in question homeopathy or the book itself? The three core policies should work in harmony. . . dave souza, talk 22:05, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The material is the book if the article is about the book. If the article is about homeopathy, the book is a source about the subject.  In the article about the book, the main thrust should be how the book was received by homeopaths (this is following FRINGE principles). It is not necessary to go into the view of the mainstream, unless the mainstream also comments specifically on the book, but the article must link to the main article in which the subject of homeopathy is discussed from all aspects. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thinking through this some more, in the case of homeopathy (or any other pseudoscience or science fringe) it would be easy to find a counter to the article that could be used without over loading the article ('...puts forward the view that homeopathy can cure AIDs; a view not supported by mainstream science, (cite - Linus Pasteur: 'Why homeopathy cannot cure AIDS', Nature 2010). According to FRINGE, it is enough to state that the mainstream regards this as fringe. It is not necessary ones'self to deconstruct the theory. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is that unless the mainstream publishes comment on the fringe book in a reliable source, the article give undue weight to fringe views and could readily confuse readers into thinking that homeopathy has more widespread medical support than is the case. If a newspaper welcomes the book's recommendation of homeopathic treatment for malaria, as has happened, this could endanger our readers. As a hypothetical example discussed earlier, the Daily Telegraph as a well known respectable newspaper commonly cited as a reliable source gave details of an electronic device called the Quantum QXCI which, in the hands of a homeopath, scans humans for vitamins, minerals, food intolerances, toxicity, organ function, hormone balance, parasites, digestive disorders and stress levels. On that basis our article on the device would report that uncontested until the mainstream view of such quackery appeared in a more reputable analysis. . . dave souza, talk 22:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Your second thought looks better. A brief mention of mainstream views on the specific claim of the book should suffice, ideally they would appear in a critique of the book but provided they are specifically about a notable topic in the book discussed by a secondary source, some flexibility is reasonable. . . dave souza, talk 22:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Dave, you seem to be saying the Telegraph is a poor source because you didn't like their conclusion, and the Guardian a good source because you did like theirs. I'm concerned that you're entirely focused on your efforts to counter certain ideas, and that the policy is being held hostage to that. This policy has to cover all areas, not just the fight against homeopathy and similar. There shouldn't be a fight against it. We are here to report what the reliable world says about it, not only what anti-homeopathy "experts" think. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 22:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I'm saying that majority medical opinion views such devices as quackery and our articles should be careful about presenting uncritical promotion of fringe or small minority views. Per Weight. . . dave souza, talk 22:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem with the newspapers is that they have different sections with different standards. The Telegraph undoubtedly did not promote this piece of quackery in its science coverage, probably in the 'Lifestyle' section. The Grauniad's 'Bad Science' column and New Scientist's Feedback page are both constantly taking the piss out of newspapers who basically print advertising as copy - and all of them, even the Grauniad, do it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:54, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well said, like all sources thay have to be treated with caution. . . dave souza, talk 23:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As do expert sources. All sources do. I can only ask again that any attempt to change how we handle reliable sources be discussed on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 23:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I am happy to discuss it there as well. Whatever is agreed should be reflected here explicitly though, as given NOR, how we select sources is at the heart of NPOV. Stephen B Streater (talk) 06:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

-

Let's test it
Let's test the wordings against a few classics, see if it holds up.


 * I'm writing an article about Doreen Valiente. Other than sources by New Age publishers, who all assume that not only does magic exist, but she can do it, the only source is a bio that doesn't mention actual magic anywhere.  Someone writes the article, including sourced claims about the efficacy of Doreen's spells


 * I'm writing an article about the small country of Freedonia. I am rejecting all sources written by citizens of the neighbouring country of Heredom, because they are 'all biased, since Freedonia always beats them at the national sport of chicken charming'


 * I am writing an article about the Cult of Skaro, and insist that only the historic documents of the cult, and sources written by cult members contain accurate information. The views of later researchers into the cult, who are not believers, and indeed who may be hostile to the cult, should be excluded as they are not experts. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Per WP:PSTS, these are primary sources, and per WP:SOURCES."Articles should be based on reliable, third-party (independent), published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", these examples are all rather close to the topic and independent sources can reasonably be required – which is a good reason for the reference to these policies in the Weight section "so long as independent reliable sources are available". It's more of a problem in cases like articles in the Telegraph which may uncritically promote the Cult of Skaro, while having no obvious connection and generally being regarded as a reliable source as much as any other newspaper. If the article is about the Book of Skaro, and multiple reliable sources describe Skaro as a fringe cult without specifically mentioning the book itself, while the Telegraph and the primary sources give the book uncritical acclaim without mentioning the fringiness, what then? . . . dave souza, talk 11:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that works (first part). As to your second, the article must mention that the Book represents the sacred writings of the Cult of Skaro, an organisation regarded as fringe by the religious establishment (cite "Archbishop denounces CoS as 'a bunch of loonies': Church Times) (cite 'Nicht gefingerpoken' is Pope's response to Skaro claims':Vatican Press).  The book received positive reviews in the Grauniad and Times Literary Supp.  The rest of the article can discuss the content of the book, having established that the Cult itself is fringe - my opinion would be that it is not necessary (indeed not appropriate) for the article editor to deconstruct the content and provide a counter argument to it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Confusing passage
I remember when this was added:
 * 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.

The idea was that we could all agree that x held a certain view, and whether we agreed with the view or not. Since that thime this has become convoluted and confusing. The second sentence verges on tautology and is unconstructive: obviously, when no one disputes a claim, we don't have conflicts about it, and it often stays without verification (attribution). According to our V policy, if someone akss for attribution, it has to be provided. My point is that other portions of this page, and other policies, explain whavtever this is ment to explain, more clearly.

Then follows a range of examples. Some of the examples are arguable and the problem is everyone has their pet example, some are crystal clear to some, and confusing to others. As we have agreed elsewhere on this page, actual examples from previous disputes may be a useful part of guidelines, but should not bog down policy.

And I am concerned that some new users misunderstand this and use it to say articles should present facts, which is a way of doing an end-run around "verifiability, not truth." In other words, this section, buried within the NPOV policy itself, subverts the one non-negotiable policy we have.

If someone genuinely believes that this section says something not covered by another section, would they please explain it, because I am sure we can come up with better phrasing. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 23:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * ASF is not about V policy. This is already clarified in policy. See Neutral point of view on "A simple formulation". QuackGuru (talk) 02:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

If I need to go to a separate linked explanation, that means that this passage is either not central to this policy and rightly belongs in a guideline, or the passage is too unclear and overwrought and could be rewritten to be more clear and concise. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 11:38, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * This section was removed at one point, to (almost) everyone's great joy, but unfortunately through the work of blind reverters it came back to vex us some more. As far as I can tell, the intended meaning is that if something is an "opinion", then we shouldn't state it as fact, but we should state that it's someone's opinion (i.e. use "in-text attribution"). "Opinion" includes (but is not limited to) statements about which there is some genuine controversy. We had this reduced to one sentence that meant more than the whole section we've currently got. It was in this version: Where a statement is controversial or otherwise not broadly accepted, or expresses a particular point of view, use in-text attribution—"John Smith writes that"— rather than publishing the material in Wikipedia's voice. Honestly I don't see any advantage in retaining the whole section which people notoriously misunderstand, when we can do its job with a concise statement like this one.--Kotniski (talk) 08:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree. It's too laboured. I offered up a more concise version a month ago, taking out needless peacock terms and padding, but perhaps we need even less given what we have elsewhere. Stephen B Streater (talk) 08:38, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * FWIW, here's a different opinion about WP:ASF: WP is not a "one size fits all" project. This page isn't necessarily intended for and written by only strictly logical thinkers. Many people learn better from casual examples and casual language, and then maybe if we're lucky when a newbie has trouble with thinking and writing encyclopedically, after reading ASF there's an "aha" or "oh, I get it now". Never any guarantees, of course, no matter how one approaches it. But plenty of users have found this section a reasonable explanation. Some have argued that we don't deal in facts, but verifiability. Unfortunately that explanation is also incomplete; attribution and sourcing are already dealt with in other sections of this policy page, with plenty of links to the other relevant policy pages and some of the most relevant guideline pages. ..... The section "A simple formulation" is reasonably named so as to identify what the explanatory approach is under "Explaining the neutral point of view". Frankly I think the section title is sufficiently clear, in casual terms, that it implicitly also conveys something like "if you need an explanation that's strictly logical and withstands extensive epistemological analysis of the word 'fact', you may skip reading this section". I've never much liked this section myself, but I can readily imagine why many others have found it worthwhile. WP:NPOV need not be totally written solely in quasi-legalese policy language. And as everyone here has had ample opportunity to observe in the past few weeks, despite that some sections of the policy are thought by some participants to be unnecessary, there also are significant contingents of experienced, competent WP users that want various long-standing sections to remain in the policy, apparently including this one. (I'm not saying we shouldn't continue to try to tighten up the language where feasible.) This particular section, lengthy though it is, should I think be able to be seen as expressing NPOV in casual language with some easy-to-understand examples, and if viewed in this perspective I don't think it's at all unreasonable, ... Kenosis (talk) 14:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Except it really doesn't do that - the "examples" are trivial and therefore uninformative, and the language is not so much casual as waffling and ambiguous. If someone's read this section and claims therefore to understand NPOV, we can only guess at what it is they really understand.--Kotniski (talk) 16:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You have not identified any specific problem after weeks of discussion. The examples have been used in content disputes and makes it easier to understand and clearer. In-text attribution (so-and-so says) is for ASF and attribution (sourcing) is for V. QuackGuru (talk) 16:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's what I think is the intention. The trouble is that the mass of words conceals that fact rather than communicates it.--Kotniski (talk) 18:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The text is clear and concise. Your argument is that you prefer to delete it without explanation. If that does not work then continue to argue it is unclear because it is too much to read. That's nonsense. QuackGuru (talk) 18:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, we simply have different understandings of "clear" and "concise". To me this kind of text is the very antithesis of both. What do others think?--Kotniski (talk) 18:43, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You are making vague comments without any specific objection. QuackGuru (talk) 18:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I think ASF is fine as-is. It could use a little copy-editing — "An opinion must be attributed to so-and-so said." — is not very clear, but I don't see the need for an overhaul. — Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 02:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the word "can" was better. Sometimes it it better to avoid attribution. Rather than using in-text attribution it is possible to describe the disagreement. See It is generally categorized as complementary and alternative medicine (CAM),[2] a characterization that many chiropractors reject.[3]
 * My first proposal it to reinstate the word "can".
 * My second proposal is to clarify when attribution can be avoided. "It is possible to describe both sides of the disagreement rather than using in-text attribution." QuackGuru (talk) 18:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Then get rid of the "so-and-so said", because there's no need for it. All that need be said is that opinions shouldn't be written as if they were in Wikipedia's voice. ... Kenosis (talk) 20:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I made this change to remove the "so-and-so said", because inline-text attribution can be phrased in many different ways other than just so-and-so said. QuackGuru (talk) 23:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to just remove the whole sentence. The only universal thing about opinions in WP is that they should never be in WP's voice. An opinion is expressed by an individual or group, albeit in many cases a diffuse group. When presenting an opinion in WP it must be made clear that the opinion or POV is attributable to some person or group other than WP.. Therefore the sentence isn't needed at all if all it says is that we "can" attribute an opinion "using inline-text attribution". ... Kenosis (talk) 00:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC) Adding another set of thoughts (edit conflict with LiberalFascist just below): Not trying to be impolite or impatient here, but I'm going to take the liberty per WP:BOLD of removing the sentence, with no expectations that it'll necessarily be accepted and not reverted. My reason is that the first paragraph of WP:ASF introduces "assert facts, including facts about opinions ..." then explains in casual language what is meant by "facts". The second and third paragraph deal first with explaining what's meant by "values" and "opinions" and then, in casual terms again, what to do with opinions. The fourth paragraph deals in a casual explanation of WP:WEIGHT. Etc. Therefore, given the way the section is presently structured, there's no need to make a preliminary statement in the first paragraph that opinions can be attributed using specific inline text attribution. ....... If we were to restructure the paragraphs to include a summary paragraph at the beginning, and then, say, move onto explaining what's meant here by "fact" and what's meant by "value" and/or "opinion", then I imagine it would be more appropriate to make the key statement about how to deal with "opinions" right in that first paragraph of the section (the key statement being something like "Values or opinions must never be written as if they were in Wikipedia's voice." which is presently at the beginning of the third paragraph after this edit just a short while ago). Also, I wonder if it's possible we'all can think towards an uncontroversial way of shortening those first three paragraphs a bit without killing the ASF approach altogether? say maybe into two slightly shorter paragraphs? .;. Kenosis (talk) 02:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The last edit says perfectly what we mean, but it might be better if it said "Values or opinions must never be presented as facts, or in a favorable or unfavorable manner." Seems strange to apply a voice to Wikipedia. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by LiberalFascist (talk • contribs)
 * I'm comfortable with phrasing it in some other way too, so long as the main thrust is conveyed, which is essentially that (1) an "opinion" as described in this section must not be made to seem like a "fact" as described in this section, and (2) an "opinion" as described in this section must not be presented as if it were Wikipedia's assertion. Or if one prefers, something akin to "must not be presented as if it were gospel", "must not be presented as if it were beyond reasonable dispute", "must not be taken as a fact about which there is no serious dispute", etc. Please remember, though, that as this section is entitled "A simple formulation", we definitely should not get bogged down in complex epistemology. Where views that are surmised by one or more WP users as basic "facts" become instead subject to controversy, there are plenty of other policy provisions that require editors to get strict about demanding reliable sources for such assertions. These and other aspects of expressing NPOV are dealt with elsewhere. This section deals only in a casual-language summary of NPOV with as-simple-as-reasonably-possible examples which--hopefully-- express the basic NPOV principles. .. ... Kenosis (talk) 03:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * But it fails horribly... Look, there are two distinctions, the fact-value distinction, and the "seriously disputed/not seriously disputed" distinction. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING. And they are BOTH relevant to the question of in-text attribution. Yet this section as written, despite all the words it uses, fails to even appreciate this difference (well it does in a footnote, but the text itself then rejects that way of thinking). And in-text attribution is not the only or even main point of NPOV. So what are we doing saying that this section is some kind of summary of the whole of NPOV? I don't understand how serious critical editors who understand this policy can defend this section without demanding a major overhaul.--Kotniski (talk) 04:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Kotnisky, if I read this correctly, it appears to me you are saying that you disagree with the basic idea that "facts" are a set of 'things' that aren't seriously disputed, and also disagree with the idea that "values" are a set of 'things' that are seriously disputed-- which is fine, I suppose. Please understand there are many other WP users, now, and well before now, going almost back to WP's beginnings, who disagree with your take on things here. Or, please correct me if you think I've incorrectly interpreted your comment about the "fact-value distinction" (or "fact-opinion distinction", which is what WP:ASF primarily focuses upon in the first three paragraphs). ... Kenosis (talk) 05:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

This was a key edit to explain how we attribute opinions. We convert an opinion into a fact by attributing the opinion. QuackGuru (talk) 05:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Two sentences removed, pending feedback and/or revert
I've removed two sentences from the first paragraph of WP:ASF, and am placing them here for further scrutiny if wanted or needed. The sentences are:"An observation (objective) expresses a fact. An interpretation (subjective) expresses an opinion."The reason I removed them is that WP:ASF is plainly intended to be a simple formulation, not an exercise in philosophical discourse about subjectivity vs. objectivity, endlessly debatable as such terms have proven to be, nor about anything else other than giving relatively new users a relatively brief summary of NPOV in simple language with simple examples. ... Kenosis (talk) 04:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This can be moved to the FAQ page. QuackGuru (talk) 05:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Stealing is wrong sentence
One critical one that you did not mention here is the stealing is wrong sentence. I think this is absolutely essential to what we are trying to convey, precisely because it is controversial. Editors need to understand how deep their own point of view goes in order to edit in a neutral manner. I have added that sentence back in. — Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 05:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That "stealing is wrong" is virtually a tautology. IMO, it's not a worthwhile example of the basic principles of WP:NPOV. Anyway, I'm out of here for now--"stealing away" if you will. I look forward to a next opportunity to exchange thoughts about how WP might best continue to express NPOV as "a simple formulation" (if indeed it ultimately turns out to be the WP community's wishes). See y'all later on. ... Kenosis (talk) 06:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Inline qualifier
I would like more examples be added to (e.g. "John Doe believes..."). QuackGuru (talk) 06:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Recap
Crum375 believes ASF should say and he had consensus for: Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. By fact we mean a piece of information which can be verified. In Wikipedia most facts, except the most obvious ones - like “Mars is a planet” and “Plato was a philosopher” - must be verified through a reliable source.
 * No, you did not gain consensus to radically change the long standing meaning of ASF. The edit claims it is a fact when a piece of information can be verified?

According to SV: ASF is also about Verifiability and No original research require that anything challenged or likely to be challenged, including all quotations, be attributed to a reliable source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly support the material in question.
 * No, attributing to a reliable source using an inline citition is not what ASF is about.

ASF is not about V. ASF is about how to present the verified text. For example, when there is a serious dispute an inline qualifier will convert an opinion into a fact by attributing the opinion to someone or a group. QuackGuru (talk) 04:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd recommend being cautious with this line of thinking. It's one of the founding principles that WP deals in "verifiability, not truth". Verifiability is how we determine what is fact and what is not, and when something asserted to be a fact is questioned, it must be verified or it can be removed (WP:V). So in some sense, ASF is about both even though it's primarily an expression of NPOV, i.e. both versions in the diff you provided appear correct. Here is the original version from December 2001/January 2002 (scroll down to see "Alternative formulation". I fail to see why you are now bringing up an edit from April 2010, though. ... Kenosis (talk) 08:07, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I brought this issue up now to find out which direction the community wants to take ASF. Editors should discuss what happens recently instead of the same editors trying to rewrite ASF 3 years from now. QuackGuru (talk) 17:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I think there are more cases than traditionally identified here:
 * Something which is unquestionably true (2+2=4)
 * Something where differences in interpretation words leads to differences in opinion as to the truth of the statement (a redistributive tax system is fairer than a flat rate tax system)
 * Something where there is dispute about the actual topic being discussed (The Mona Lisa is more beautiful than Beethoven Symphony no. 6)
 * Something where truth exists, we just don't know what it is (The Goldbach conjecture is true)
 * We currently don't distinguish between all these cases very well. Stephen B Streater (talk) 09:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if the current ASF section has room for more examples. I think you have some good ideas. The FAQ page can be expanded with your suggestions. See Neutral point of view/FAQ. QuackGuru (talk) 17:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course there are many more cases. The most important one that ASF deals with is when there is a genuine dispute among reliable sources on the truth of an objective matter. That is why the April 2010 edit is so problematic. Being a "fact" here is stronger than "verifiability". What if half of the RS's say 2+2=3 and half say 2+2=5; both are then wikipedia-verifiable, but we can't say that either is true or a fact. Because of the dispute, we have to present the reader with both alternatives (and we can't say 2+2=4 because that would be OR :-)  ).  John Z (talk) 22:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Disagree. Being believed by a wikipedia editor to be factual is not "stonger than 'verifiability'". The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. If no reliable third-party sources can be found to support an assertion, that assertion may be removed. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:29, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't see anything objectionable about what Crum wishes to say... It seems correct to me (pointing out that we can state the fact that someone holds a given opinion, but very often we can not say that the opinion held is factually correct). Blueboar (talk) 22:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * There are two issues. First, what is wrong with this section: "fact" is as subjective as "truth," which this whole policy is meant to avoid.  If we really want to repeat an "NPOV in a nutshell" within the article, I say we use a quote from LMS or JW, either of which are much clearer than Cunctator's explanation.  The real issue here is not fact versus opinion, but whether any claim is controversial.  If it is uncontroversial then there is only one view about it that we can find. If this is the case, there is nothing further to say.  But as soon as tere is some controversy, then we need to identify the claim as a view and provide sources.


 * Second, it includes a hypothetical example which will not actually fit all cases and can be misleading. I think the solution is to provide some real examples - here is an example:
 * No source explicitly rejects that this is a narrative, or a story, or that it is Genesis, or about creation, etc. But there are plenty of notable and reliable sources that reject your favorite word (and mine) -- myth. That's bad news for the two of us, but thankfully our view is in the article (though not allowed to be imposed on the title). I'll also add the good news that "Genesis creation truth" or "Genesis creation history" are also (thankfully) explicitly rejected by some notable and reliable sources. So while you and I may be disappointed that we cannot impose our preferred view of reality on the planet, we can at least be safe that an alternate view cannot be imposed on us. Let's be content with that, be good yeomen, and let the sources be the content of this grand resource.EGMichaels (talk) 17:40, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * However, I would not put ANY such examples in the article; I think we should inde a few examples from highly contentions arguments and have a linked page that uses these examples to illustrate past practice. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 23:39, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I have just restored an earlier version that several editors had collaborated on. I have also made changes to it, in response to some concerns that have been voiced here. I have tried to streamline without diminishin the point of NPOV, I have added a little more context. I have tried to frame negatives as positives (unbiased rather than biased writing) i.e. to encourage people what to do, rather than not to do. For the "a simple formulation" section, which I agree is needed, I added quotes from Jimbo and Sanger for two reasons: first, these guys came up with the idea, so we all know they understood it well. Second, what they wrote are clearer than the Cunctator's version, in fact, simpler, so if the idea is to be simpler, you can't top these. If anyone thinks that this section dos notxplain NPOV clearly, please explain why. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 00:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I have tried to respond to Kotniski and Streater's coments above. Also, Kenosis wrote:
 * I'm comfortable with phrasing it in some other way too, so long as the main thrust is conveyed, which is essentially that (1) an "opinion" as described in this section must not be made to seem like a "fact" as described in this section, and (2) an "opinion" as described in this section must not be presented as if it were Wikipedia's assertion.

I think this is fair and I really believe that the current version meets Kenosis's standards. If anyone thinks it does not pass the kenosis test please explain why and I will fix it, but I think Kenosis ought to be satisfied I responded to his concerns. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 00:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec)(To Wtmitchell / Boracay Bill) Yes, but you are arguing against something that is not at all what I or the policy section said. I repeat, the way this section reads, by its definition "fact" = "uncontroversially verifiable" (by all sources) is clearly stronger than mere "verifiable" (to perhaps just one source) - and so Crum's edit is quite inconsistent with neutrality. What you wrote points up however the possible need for a clarification:  By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute among reliable sources." - the lack of the last 3 words may explain how the opposing camps read this section differently.


 * (To EGMichaels & Slrubenstein )The point of ASF and the "fact" section is/was to give a workable, sufficiently objective use and definition of "fact." I guess it is not a surprise that I don't much like some of the current version & Larry Sanger's explanation,  because to my mind  "the view from nowhere" or "'the truth', enunciated from 'a neutral standpoint.'" is in essence by definition the neutral point of view, as understood here.John Z (talk) 01:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, if I understand you, you are suggesting the kind of critique that is often levied at liberalism (it is tolerant of everything except intolerance, and thus intolerant). I get it - but this is the kind of thing best argued with Jimbo or Larry.  My concern is that this policy page relfect the NPOV policy that was originally presented by Jimbo and Sanger as "non-negotiable."  Can we come up with a workable definition of "fact?"  John, I would suggest to you that it is whatever is utternly non-controversial.  But if this is what we mean (sorry if I am wrongly assuming you agree), then why not just say this?  That is what I put in the article and I am just trying to be pragmatic.  Obviously if something is uncontroversial people do not need to consult policy and policy does not therefore come into play.  Policy comes into play only when there is controversy and when there is controversy ... well, in my experience, there can and often is as much controversy over the facts as over the truth.  Thanks to five pillars, our policy pages also have a didactic function, to help explkain to newbies how we do things here.  In this sense I think it is critical that we be consistent.  Aside from that, all I can say is, I think the quote from Jimbo is waaaaaay more simple than the previous "simple explanation" and thus suits the section better. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 02:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * SLR, I've reverted your edit(s) here. These were major revisions to a policy page. While I've no objection to a major revision and make no judgements about this particular proposed change, I most certainly advocate that there must be at least a reasonable consensus, for a major revision such as was implemented without consensus for that revision. (Alternately I would, of course, accede to a mandate from the Wikimedia Board of Directors to whatever extent they might explicitly choose to overrule the WP consensus process.) .. Kenosis (talk) 04:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * (To Slrubenstein) If I understand the comparison with the "critique of liberalism" - and I probably don't - my point is that the Jimbo/Larry quotes contain an unnecessary and controversial "critique of liberalism", which should be removed. On another secondary point, it is troubling to the pro-old formulation side that people as intelligent and knowledgeable as Crum375 and Blueboar can't see how enormous and unacceptable a change that suggested edit was.
 * On the primary issue, I agree 1000% with your workable definition of fact - you understand me completely. But the answer to "why not say this?" is - That is what the section said!-  very clearly, concisely and well - and better and shorter than the Jimbo & Larry quotes.  What is very puzzling to the proponents of this section is how anyone could have trouble with it or read it in any other way. I suggested above how to fix the only omission I could see. Though I like the old one better, I'm not terribly opposed to the just reverted edit to this section, I just think we should try to understand what the other side is saying better first.  I've never seen such complete and genuine confusion on both opposing sides as to what the other side is saying as here.John Z (talk) 04:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

By now everybody understands the intent of ASF. I don't see any problem editors are having with WP:ASF. All editors are reading the text the same way. There is no confusion. The misunderstanding some editors are having is that they think they can eliminate ASF the same way they eliminate certain POVs from articles and rewrite any article as they please. This was a strike at the heart of NPOV or Wikipedia itself. QuackGuru (talk) 05:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Where do we point the POV warriors to when they want to continue to re-add attribution and eliminate ASF policy. Do we need ASF or clueless editors can add in-text attribution whenever they want. QuackGuru (talk) 05:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Needless to say, I disagree. AGF is even more important than ASF.John Z (talk) 08:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I know we disagree on almost everything. QuackGuru (talk) 18:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This whole thing is bizarre (and QG's claim that "there is no confusion" must be one of the weirdest of all). This is supposed to be a key, fundamental Wikipedia policy, and yet no two editors (sorry, I haven't been following the recent discussions in detail, so this might not be literally true) seem to understand it in the same way. The offending section (although in fact the same objections probably apply to the page as a whole) should clearly be excised from the page until we can write it in such a way that (a) everyone can understand it; (b) a consensus-worth of editors agree with it. At the moment we don't seem to be even close to that.--Kotniski (talk) 08:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * What was confusing about ASF. Editors are making proposals to eliminate ASF. That's not confusion. What is it then. It seems that certain editors prefer IAR. QuackGuru (talk) 18:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for Template section
To further explain the proper use of NPOV related templates, I propose the following text be added to the end of the template section: Templates alone do not provide sufficient information about the reasons an editor has for adding the template; without such information other editors will not know how to make improvements. Any neutral-point-of-view related template may be deleted if the editor does not explain his/her concerns on the talk page no later than two hours after adding the template.

The intent of this proposal is to curb the practice of spraying NPOV templates all over the place with no explanation or followup. Jc3s5h (talk) 11:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the problem but this rule seems unworkably rigid. If someone provides no explanation, other editors should feel free to remove the template at any time, not just in two hours.  I wouldn't oppose adding an instruction along with the template 9but not in it0 that whoever places it has to explain it on the talk page.  In my experience the spraying of multiple NPOV templates is usually either done by an edit-warrior or a POV pusher.  The latter can be ignored; the former calls for our ordinary ways of dealing with edit wars. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 12:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It is a problem, but if you read the template documentation it says "Do not use this template unless there is an ongoing dispute in an article", so it can be removed immediately unless there is talk page discussion about the failure of neutrality. Some editors (I've done this in the past before I realized what the template was for) may just be putting it on the article when they should be using something like Peacock, Weasel or Puffery.  --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 22:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

What happened..
..to the video? Wasn't there a video on here not too long ago discussing what can and cannot be added? It was good, I think it was talking about vaccinations. Tommy2010 18:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The video got lost in the recent edit war. There was a brief discussion. See Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Archive 40. QuackGuru (talk) 19:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The video is one person's take on things, and as cuh could go in a personal essay, or even a guideline, but really is not appropriate to insert into a policy. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 20:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Readded with some minor adjustments. Tommy2010 23:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * See WT:V (permanent link) where a reasonable consensus was to remove the video from WP:V. As I said in that discussion, I support removing the video because, even if totally accurate, it raises too many issues (mainly: is it policy? What if wikilawyers argue using points made in the video?). Johnuniq (talk) 01:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * If the video is reasonably accurate that is a good reason to keep. Editors are saying there is an issue with the video. When you make a specific objection other than I don't like videos in policy pages let me know. QuackGuru (talk) 03:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Please read the discussion that Johnuniq linked to. The editors there agreed that it did not correctly represent policy.  I have deleted the video based on the consensus. If we still want to use it, then it could possibly be put into an essay and linked from the see also section, but please leave it out of the policy unless consensus changes. An RfC would probably be in order before it is re-inserted.  --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 12:40, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * There never was any consensus in the first place to delete it. Editors were making vague objections. No specific objection was made to the content of the video. Tommy2010 wrote "Readded with some minor adjustments." We are now talking about a different video. The new video correctly represents policy. If you disagree, you must provide a specific objection. QuackGuru (talk) 16:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It is hard to be precise about a video (in text, we could readily quote something, and others could readily see the quote in context). That is part of the problem to my mind. If someone views the video and reaches a conclusion that action X is warranted, it would be hard to argue that X is not warranted. At any rate, the discussion linked to above most certainly did arrive at a consensus to remove the video, at least from WP:V. Johnuniq (talk) 00:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I have no objection to a video, but we should write out exactly what the video is to say, and get consensus on the contents. Once there's support for specific wording, then the video can be re-made and posted. The bigger issue is that someone will have to re-make the video whenever it gets out of sync with the policies, and it's one of those things that slips through the cracks. Another suggestion would be to have an essay called "How to write an Article" (not that exactly, of course) and embed the video there, and place a link to the essay in the see also sections of V, NPOV, and NOR. --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 07:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Cleaning up undue weight for non-viewpoint issues
I have had issues in the past with editors claiming WP:UNDUE does not apply specifically with regard to fiction with stuff like listing every special attacks and the like. While it does mention that undue weight is not simply restricted to viewpoints, it is buried inbetween statements that emphasise the importance of not promoting minority views or giving them equal weight. I do not want to get rid of this, but simply make it much clearer that undue weight applies equally to the items i listed above. 陣 内 Jinnai 20:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not sure I understand your concern... could you give an example? Blueboar (talk) 14:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the most recent one was the debate on List of Hunter x Hunter characters claiming that removing all the trivial info on named attacks, and such wasn't justified. I do not know if the issue was ever cleared up because the person disputing it ended up not talking anymore. It has happened before though, at least several times. I think one was with the list of in-universe terms in Tsukihime some time ago. The discussion was on the users talk page if I remember correctly. 陣 内 Jinnai 02:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

When removing information because good writing is concise, a good policy section to quote would be WP:NOT. Jc3s5h (talk) 02:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * That's fine for some stuff, but the problem comes in when we decide to keep some of that information. Then I get complaints that, to paraphrase: "because I kept X, then Y is okay because otherwise it is all indisciminate and there is no way (for fiction) to disciminate as to what is more important than something else." 陣 内 Jinnai 00:03, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Essentially, what you are talking about is a matter of editorial consensus, and not a NPOV issue. Blueboar (talk) 00:32, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

NPOV between similar articles
There has recently been a conflict over at the Criticism of Judaism page, where there is confusion over whether NPOV would apply across the similar Criticism of (whatever religion) articles. For instance, is it applicable to say that, since all of the other Criticism of articles have a section of criticism on that religion's holy book, it is necessary to have a criticism section on the Torah, the Jewish holy book, in order to maintain NPOV and balance for different religions? If so, where does it say in this policy that it is so? Thanks to anyone trying to help clear up this confusion. Silver seren C 00:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * In short...no, you do not need to maintain a ballance between articles. People often have the misconception that a Neutral POV means treating everything the same... it doesn't.  It means taking a step back and discussing the topic with neutrality, with each POV discussed according to its merits and without undue weight.   That said... I would think that any neutral article about Criticism of Judaism would contain a section on the Torah.   In other words... While I think the rational you mention is flawed... I think the article should have the section never the less. Blueboar (talk) 01:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Would WP:UNDUE apply at all or is there really no sort of rationale, for any policy, that applies for similar, but separate articles? Silver  seren C 01:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I would ask the question whether this topic really exists in the first place. Is there truly signficant coverage from reliable secondary sources that address the topic "Criticism of Judaism" directly and detail? I am sceptical myslef. My view is that this is topic that is original research (or more correctly a synethesis) that fails WP:MADEUP. A good test of whether this is the case is to see if the sources have been cited in other articles, for if they have, then its likely that its content duplicates other topics. In my view, this topic is ripe for merger with more notable topics that can provide balanced coverage of the issues. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Isn't antisemitism criticism of Judaism? And isn't there therefore "signficant coverage from reliable secondary sources that address the topic "Criticism of Judaism" directly and detail"? Peter jackson (talk) 09:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Antisemitism is a specific form of racism, and is a seperate topic in its own right. Why I think "Criticism of Judaism" is a madeup topic is that the criticisms it contains address to specific topics about Jewish beliefs that already have articles, such as Jews as a chosen people and Covenant (biblical). It seems to me that various criticisms have been stitched togther to form an entirely new and original topic that does not exist outside of Wikipedia. The NPOV disputes about the tone and sourcing of the article are symptoms that this topic fails WP:MADEUP, as a madeup topic is incapable of treating is subject matter in balanced way or provide context about its subject matter that would put praise or criticism in perspective. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:05, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Feminists and gay rights activists have criticisms of Judaism and there are criticisms of the archaeological accuracy of the texts. You can find the phrase elsewhere on the web than wikipedia.  We aren't supposed to use WP:what about article X to decide what goes into one article but IM experience functionally that gets violated everyday here.  Alatari (talk) 10:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The article is a contrived slice of a variety of other subjects. Criticism of Judaism is probably not a subject in its own right. It is an approach to understanding Judaism. Criticism of Judaism should be incorporated into articles on Judaism. As an example, it is said that kosher slaughter of animals is "criticized" as being "cruel." But articles exist treating exactly this, and in context, as here. The problem isn't one of finding reliable sources to support the kosher slaughter as cruelty thesis. The problem is the redundancy of this article, the taking out of context of the subject matter, and the reassembling of a variety of subjects into one article devoted to "criticism." Unless a significant number of good quality reliable sources treat criticism of Judaism as its own topic I think this article fails several Wiki policies. Bus stop (talk) 10:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * We have reliable sources as it is (and had more from the previous version three times the size) that document the notability of the subject. Please do not bring arguments from another article onto this page. Silver  seren C 10:39, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The argument is not generally made that NPOV supports the notion that Article A behaves in a certain way therefore Article B must behave in a similar way. Bus stop (talk) 10:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * We already know your viewpoint on the subject.I came here to get outside opinions. Silver  seren C 10:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Unless there is a knockout source of significant coverage which identifies "Criticism of Judaism" as being a real world topic, I think it is a made up subject. While Silver seren is sure that such sources exist, I am not sure and they certainly are not cited in the lead, where I would expect the topic to be defined from such sources. Instead, I think this article is made up of sources which contain the word "criticism" in passing, but which do not address the topic of "Criticism of Judaism" directly. Rather, the criticism are being direct to various other sub-topics of Judaism, each one of which has its own standalone article which contain criticism already. I concur with Bus stop's analysis. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * This topic doesn't strike me as particularly notable either. Judaism is criticized, along with other religions, in general critiques of "religion" of course, but as such it bares very little of the brunt of those attacks.  For various obvious socio-political reasons Christianity and Islam have historically been the real whipping boys of this, and certainly in today's climate.  Of course, if Judaism had enjoyed the same relation to hegemony that Christianity and Islam have throughout history then it would be a different story.  But that is neither here nor there.  I agree with those who say that "criticism of Judaism", as it relates to real notable topics is already covered in various other pages.Griswaldo (talk) 12:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * All of you are avoiding his question. He asked whether NPOV is applicable across articles with a similar theme.  Criticism of X, Y, or Z is an example but what about spreading NPOV in approach across all religion articles?  What about all political party articles?  If you want to discuss whether Criticism of Judaism is a notable article take that to Talk:Criticism of Judaism.  The last section of Other stuff exists seems to address this topic. I quote While not a strict OSE reasoning, the overarching concept remains, that of precedent and consistency throughout the Wikipedia project..  Alatari (talk) 13:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Also review the good article judging criteria which theoretically, if applied equally across all examples should amount to consistency in the content. Alatari (talk) 13:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for answering my question. I was looking for something that related, that's what I needed. Thank you. Silver  seren C 18:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No one is avoiding the question. It has already been answered.  If there is a policy applicable to the type of consistency you are discussing it isn't this one.  From what I understand WP:NPOV determines how individual topics are treated on individual entries and does so in conjunction with notability and verifiability.  If the criticism of the Tanakh, as distinctly Jewish scripture, is a notable and verifiable topic then belong in the entry for reasons other than WP:NPOV.  It's treatment in the entry, should it belong, should then abide by WP:NPOV, but NPOV doesn't determine whether or not it belongs.  The same goes for the overarching question of the topic's notability.   I agree this isn't the page for discussing that topic but we did.  Sorry. :)Griswaldo (talk) 13:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess I have a question still. Does NPOV apply across, say the entire South Park Project or Project Religion, or do we only apply per article?  Alatari (talk) 13:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Please give an example. Bus stop (talk) 14:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Would we be required to insert criticisms of each episode in South Park? Would we be required to have a cultural references section?  Would each religion article each need a deniers section?  Would each be required to have a section on prominent members?  Maybe this is more about digesting the NPOV pillar and applying it to the style manuals of each portal?  Alatari (talk) 13:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Criticism is not required to demonstrate notability, but if there is none, some other form of significant coverage is needed from reliable secondary sources. If notability can be clearly demonstrated, say, by citing a source that provides a clear definition of the subject without recourse to synthesis, then there is a rationale for inclusion. However, my guess is that as a class of article topic, Criticism of X, Y, or Z are article topics that are likely to fail WP:MADEUP, in which case they will fail WP:NPOV and probably fail the rest of Wikipedia's content polcies as well, let alone WP:N. Whether or not this applies across an entire class of similar articles is debateable, because evidence of notability may be found for a topic what first appears to be novel or synthetic. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * "Required" is too strong a word, in my opinion. Sections in one article can serve as a checklist for areas that you may wish to cover in another article.


 * NPOV can't have applicability across articles. NPOV only "works" within articles because the material contained within an article is limited. A multitude of articles pose a different problem.


 * The closest approximation I know of concerning policy addressing something of this nature is WP:BIAS. I just mention it because it is similar. But it is of course quite different. Bus stop (talk) 14:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I was reading through the debate on whether to keep the article and a case for cross-article NPOV was made: "Keep. The Criticism of Judaism article should not be deleted as there are articles on Criticism of Christianity, Criticism of Islam, Criticism of Hinduism, and Criticism of Buddhism. It is not neutral and WP:NPOV to have criticism articles on some religions while not on others. It would be incredibly biased and would never be accepted. Either there are criticism articles on all religions or no criticism articles on any religions ....... Space25689 (talk) 18:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)" which you disagreed with.  I believe you (Bus stop) are right that NPOV is per article application but then Space's idea is not NPOV but about WP:BIAS.  I know this is a heated debate so think of another broad topic where you would think exclusion would be an unacceptable BIAS.  How would you argue for that non-deletion to avoid unfairness in the article data base? ....  (I've not seen deletion arguments come down to Wikipedia Bias before.)  Alatari (talk) 15:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The answer is that criticism comes to different topics in different ways, and hence we have to look at each one seperately. I suspect these Criticism of X, Y, or Z are essential criticisms of different tenets of belief, each one of which should be feature in articles to which they relate. Put them together, and essentially you have a synthetic topics. As a class of articles, I think it would be best to get rid of them all, but maybe one or two are genuinely notable. Non-deletion to avoid bias is not a valid excuse if the article is synthesis, or worse still, a coatrack article. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The reason for why they aren't in their constituent religion articles is quite clear; they're too long. The main religion articles were already too long as it was, so the criticism sections were split, as per policy. They are not synthetic topics if they hold information that would have gone on the main article as it is. If they would go there, then the split information is instead put on the criticism page. We are not here to discuss notability of the subject. The recent AfD closed quite clearly as keep, as have all the other AfDs for the other criticism articles that were raised. The community has clearly stated (and time and again has stated over the past 5 years) that Criticism of articles are notable. Silver  seren C 18:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Silver is correct on that... "Criticism of ..." articles are almost always viewed as being notable... the problem isn't notability... it's that they are usually filled with WP:SYNT. That is a different problem... one that is not fixed through the AfD process (Fixing it may require removing most of the text of the article, essentially stubbing it, so you can start over.  But that is a different process than AfD). Blueboar (talk) 20:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And that's what we are in the process of doing, which is why I came here to ask whether NPOV would show that a certain section should be included. I got my answer. Thanks for your help. Silver  seren C 20:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree, as I don't think you ever fix an article topic that fails WP:MADEUP. If there is insufficient coverage that addresses the topic directly and in detail, then the relevance of article content is always going to be disputed, as there is no recognised subject matter or definition of its subject matter to hold it together other than its title. In any case, I don't see how balance can be achieved if the article topic is restricted by nature of its title, e.g. "Criticism of...", "Advocacy of..." or "Praise of..." as such titles contravene WP:LABEL. I don't see how Blueboar can support the argument that such articles are almost always viewed as being notable, given that there is no evidence to suggest this is even remotely true. Going back to the article Criticism of Judaism for instance, it is bizarre that this article contains 26 citations, but none of them address the title, either directly or in passing. It obvious to me that this article is a lot of Jewish related topics stuck together like a popcorn ball with a thin solution of intellectual puffery. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 02:14, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You can say that Criticism of articles are almost always considered notable because almost every single AfD vote for them has ended in Keep. Those that didn't were later overturned. The AfD for Criticism of Judaism ended just a few days ago as Keep after extensive discussion, so the community's viewpoint is clear on the matter. Silver  seren C 02:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No, you can't infer that. You can only say that these types of articles have been nominated for deletion because they fail Wikipedia's content policies. In the case of Criticism of Judaism, its been nominated twice and I predict it will nominated again until it is deleted for the reasons I have outlined. It might be the consensus at the moment that, because it is sourced, the topic is therefore verifiable. However, as I have pointed out, even though it contains significant coverage from reliable secondary sources, none of that coverage actually defines or addresses the subject of article's title directly or in detail. In my view, "Criticism of ..." type articles are made up topics into which an assortment of related sub-topics have been dumped by editors who have not realised that these subject don't exist in the real world. To make an analogy, these editors are a bit like the birds that bring up Cuckoos in their nests, not knowing they are nursing a parasite. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 04:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Gavin.collins here, other than I'm not sure Wikipedians will ever get around to voting delete for these terrible examples of WP:SYN/WP:MADEUP. Another example that has been 'kept' is Chiropractic controversy and criticism. DigitalC (talk) 14:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this illustrates the difference between "what should be" and "what is". That is why I said these articles are almost always viewed as being notable (as opposed to saying that they are notable). Blueboar (talk) 15:42, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposed alternative to "Explaining the Neutral Point of View
I find this section bloated, inconsistent, and at times imprecise. I have drafted an alternative. The question is simple whether or not it is an improvement. I invite discussion:

Explaining the neutral point of view

The neutral point of view is a way of dealing with conflicting perspectives. The fundamental premise of NPOV is that on any topic experts or significant stakeholders may have different views (concerning what is true or false, fact or fiction, real or imagined, good or bad, right or wrong, beautiful or ugly and so on). Editors must be neutral and present these views without taking any side. This principle is especially important in the encyclopedy that "anyone can edit at any time" &mdash; editors may not agree over what is the "truth" or the "facts," but editors can agree that some people have one view of the "truth" or the "facts," and other people have a different view.

Controversial views Uncontroversial views – views that have no alternative or opposition to be found in other reliable sources – pose no problem for editors. This and related policies (Verifiability and No original research), however, 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 otherwise not broadly accepted, or expresses a particular point of view, use in-text attribution (i.e. identify the view in the passage): "John Smith writes that"&mdash; rather than publishing the material in Wikipedia's voice. When attributing views to individuals, make sure the text does not imply parity between a majority and minority view.

Balanced coverage 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.

NPOV requires that all majority and significant-minority views found in reliable sources&mdash;as defined by Verifiability&mdash;be presented in a disinterested tone, and in rough proportion to their prevalence within the source material. Reliably sourced material should not be removed just because it is not neutral, or what Wikipedians call "POV," as long as the view is properly identified.

Unbiased writing The neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject. Unbiased writing is the disinterested description of all significant sides of a debate found in reliable sources. Articles should describe different points of view without endorsing any of them. It may describe the criticism of particular viewpoints found in reliable sources, but it should not take sides. Good research can prevent NPOV disagreements by using the best sources available and accurately summarizing what they say.

A simple formulation This is how the founders of Wikipedia explained NPOV to the first editors:


 * Perhaps the easiest way to make your writing more encyclopedic, is to write about what people believe, rather than what is so. If this strikes you as somehow subjectivist or collectivist or imperialist, then ask me about it, because I think that you are just mistaken. What people believe is a matter of objective fact, and we can present that quite easily from the neutral point of view. --Jimbo Wales


 * Maybe you understand the following perfectly well--but it can't hurt to say it one more time. As far as we on Wikipedia are concerned, to speak of a lack of bias, or of neutral writing, is not to speak of a single viewpoint that is expressed in an article. The neutral point of view, as conceived by myself and Jimbo and many others, is not the view from nowhere. It is not "the truth," enunciated from "a neutral standpoint." In an encyclopedia at least, that's a silly fantasy and a total misunderstanding of what unbiased writing is like. Instead, where there is disagreement on a topic, one takes a step back to characterize the controversy--rather than to as it were engage directly in the controversy by taking a position, or by trying to find some bogus "middle" position that is the official view of the encyclopedia. --Larry M. Sanger

Comments? This page does need improvement, and we can improve it. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 09:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I certainly agree with your concluding statement. But what I find hardest to accept about your proposed text is the emphasis on editors ("editors can agree...", "no other editor questions..."). This policy is saying fundamentally what we are aiming for - it should be independent of what editors may or may not think. And the "just write about what people believe" thing fails to address the key fact that sometimes, even in matters of controversy, we do conclude that there is a consensus among reliable sources strong enough to just make the statement without mentioning the fringe viewpoint (although if we are discussing the fringe viewpoint, we don't state that it is wrong). I don't think anyone, including Wales and Sanger, has yet managed to express clearly the whole concept of neutrality as Wikipedians understand it.--Kotniski (talk) 10:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

That is a good point, although I do not agree 100%. Would you just change "editors" to "reliable sources?" Or do you think some times "editors" is appropriate? Or do you have another idea?

Sometimes, "editors" is the right word. The fact remains that NPOV is basically a framework for diverse editors (Jimbo's amition is all literate humans) who hold strongly conflicting views of truth or fact to be able to work together. Sanger and Jimbo both emphasized time and time again that NPOV is not an epistemological claim, it makes no claims about what is right or wrong, it is a framework they viewed essential if Wikipedia is to be an encyclopedia everyone edits. I think this has to be explained clearly and consistenty or else it really doesn't make sense.

I appreciate your concerns, but I think V, RS and NOR all developed precisely to address your concerns. In other words, you are pointing out a limitation to NPOV. It is not that NPOV as Jimbo and Larry explained it is a muddled concept, it is just that it is insufficent. Jimbo and larry recognized that which is why V developed, and when many editors felt V was insufficient to address precisely such concerns as yours NOR and RS developed - those are the key policies that move away from a framework for how conflictign editors can work together, to policies that would help raise the quality of the articles by establishing some degree of rigor in the use of sources. NPOV is not our only policy. It fits in with V and NOR, and you have to take the effects of those policies into account. V and NOR and RS help ensure that "what people believe to be the truth or the facts," and of course undue weight, ensures that we do not just present anyone's personal beliefs, but beliefs (e.g. that space is curved) that are widely shared by people who think a lot about such things. (This of course is how scientists work - you look at the data and come up with your best model. No real scientist claims it is "the truth;" but if enough other scientists can be convinced it is a good model they will use it until something better comes along.) Slrubenstein   |  Talk 10:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I like the rewrite very much: its clear, to the point, short and snappy, and as a result, a huge improvement. With regard to the issue raised by Kotniski, I think there is always going be confusion as to what "editors agree on" and maybe we need to go one step back to define exactly what they are examining in the first place:


 * A careful selection of reliable sources is critical for producing articles with a neutral point of view. The fundamental premise of NPOV is that reliable sources may not agree over what is the "truth" or the "facts," but editors can agree that some sources have one view of the "truth" or the "facts," and other sources have a different view.


 * What I am suggesting here is to make clear what is the source of competing viewpoints, and it is down to editors to manage those differences. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the emphasis Slrs version places on "editors" is important because it includes the fact that what determines what neutrality is in a given situation is consensus among a group editors basing their judgement of what is neutral on reliable sources. I think it is important to keep an eye on the fact that neutrality isn't some objective reality that exists outside of consensus and that editors are supposed to aspire to come as close to as possible. That is never possibe, especially not with complex or controversial topics. Neutrality is negotiated based on policies, and the key policy is V - which is is beautifully supported by Slrs other emphasis on "views". ·Maunus· ƛ · 12:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Neutrality is not (or shouldn't be) "negotiated". If I'm writing an article, even if no other editor is interested in the topic, I still try to keep the text free of personal judgements. That's how it should be - it shouldn't be various groups of editors pushing opposing viewpoints and prejudices as hard as they can and seeing what results. Editors who notoriously try to force particular viewpoints into articles are the ones who ought to be excluded from the consensus-building process.--Kotniski (talk) 16:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course neutrality is negoatiated and while in a perfect world there might be a single objective truth about every topic in this world there isn't and about most topics the only way to come closer to neutrality is to negotiate. Of course as an editor you try to keep the article free from personal judgement - but there is no way you can actually achieve that - as a writer you have your personal and professional background as a lense through which you see things, and while a good academic training enables you to find viewpoints that are opposed to yours and include them, there is no way you can guarantee neutrality. One mans neutrality is anothers bias. This is why I think it is good to have the NPOV policy focus on "Views" and that it encourages Editors to identify and include all "Views". This means that if policy is followed the only negotiation that will be carried out is how to weigh them against eachother. Wikipedia is not about presenting facts it is about presenting views.·Maunus· ƛ · 07:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The key is to not fall into reductio ad opinionem, that is NPOV is a balance of opinion absent of facts as opposed to an unbiased representation of facts based on reputable sources and then indicating where opinions follow, or diverge, from said facts. Unfortunately, since only "consensus" counts as WP does not rule on "facts," all we are left with is reductio ad opinionem wherever editors choose to ignore reputable sources as they proselytize their cause.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА  ►talk 16:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * P.S. Unfortunately the short version of Jimbo's "write about what people believe, rather than what is so" is "facts don't count, only what people say"&mdash;note that what people say "ABOUT FACTS" is strictly something someone not pushing a POV will take for granted. Facts (and we are not talking "truth" here) are conspicuously absent from any WP determination of what is encyclopedic.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА  ►talk 16:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * P.P.S. And all too often editors will jump in on a polarized topic (recall, reductio ad opinionem, not fact-based) and suggest that NPOV is the average of the two (the "truth must lie somewhere in-between")&mdash;the negotiation Kotniski speaks of happens every day and is the greatest disservice anyone can do to a topic as, since facts are not ruled upon, the FACTS of something are therefore forced to be some in-between by-definition fiction.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА  ►talk 16:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, these issues are covered - by other policies (V and RS). The problem remains, significant views often disagree over the facts. In such cases we have to provide both views of the facts or of what constitutes a fact. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 19:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * V and RS do not cover ASF. V and RS is about finding a source. For ASF, it is how we present the verified text. When significant views disagree that is when in-text attribution may be required. QuackGuru (talk) 21:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * No specific problem was identified with the current version


 * Editors allege the current version needs improvement. Some editors may not like a precise version of NPOV. They may think a detailed version of NPOV is rigid. If that's what you think then you prefer IAR. This proposal is a radical change to core NPOV policy without identifying how the current version did not work for the community. What some editors may think is a problem I think is detailed and precise.


 * Radical proposal


 * This version is not appropriate and eliminates an important part of policy called ASF. For example, it does not clearly explain the difference between a fact and an opinion. This version also guts out important details of policy. Do editors understand when text requires an inline qualifier or when it does not require an inline qualifier. Or do editors think we don't need ASF and editors can decide on there own without a clearly defined policy.


 * The proposal states: "Where a statement is controversial or otherwise not broadly accepted, or expresses a particular point of view, use in-text attribution&mdash; (i.e. identify the view in the passage): "John Smith writes that"&mdash; rather than publishing the material in Wikipedia's voice." Such wording would change the onus of proof from an editor having to prove it was controversial, to an editor who does not want to use in-text attribution to show it is broadly accepted, it alters the default from "don't use in-text attribution unless it is a serious dispute" to "do use in-text attribution unless it is broadly accepted". This is completely different from the current articulated version that says: By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." And the current concise version also gives good examples of what are facts and what are opinions. The proposal is consistent with a certain editor's editing pattern who wants to eliminate ASF.


 * ASF has worked in content disputes


 * When there is a serious dispute in-text attribution (The 2008 book Trick or Treatment states) may be required. In-text attribution such as this edit was a violation of ASF when no serious dispute exists. The editor eventualy removed the in-text attribution because it was a violation of ASF. This shows the edit made by an editor is a good edit, exactly the way we should be editing after it was explained on the talk page about ASF. The disagreement was with editors but not the reliable sources. You can check the archives for the specifics. When there is no serious dispute or it is an opinion, ASF explains the difference. From time to time there are editors who disagree with what a researcher says from a highly reliable source or does not understand ASF policy but wants to include in-text attribution in violation of ASF. The problems are not always easily fixed. Sometimes discussions can go on for weeks. See Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Vaccine controversy. For the sake of argument if I am actually correct there are reasons ASF will be useful because there are content disputes that take a lot of effort to remove the attribution or explain to other editors it is not the intention of ASF to have detailed attribution when there is no dispute among researchers. According to ASF (the current precise version) there is a difference between a fact that can be asserted versus an opinion that requires in-text attribution. When there are competing viewpoints (serious dispute) in-text attribution is recommended. It is how we present the verified text for facts and opinions. Wikipedia is devoted to stating facts and only facts, in this sense. Where we might want to state opinions, we convert that opinion into a fact by attributing (inline qualifier) the opinion to someone or a group. Isn't this a simple formulation? QuackGuru (talk) 17:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * "From time to time there are editors who disagree with what a researcher says from a highly reliable source or does not understand ASF policy but wants to include in-text attribution in violation of ASF" - No, in text attribution has never been a violation of WP:ASF. We MUST attribute views that are clearly opinions, or are clearly controversial. We don't need to have dispute among reliable sources to attribute text. If you were to put forward a statement that said "New York is the most beautiful city on the eastern seaboard", we would want that attributed - without having to go looking for a source that disputes this - Why? Because it is clearly an opinion. DigitalC (talk) 19:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Follow-up comment: Your example of a violation of ASF ("In-text attribution such as this edit was a violation of ASF when no serious dispute exists") is poor. That edit by Tim Vickers attributed something that was clearly an opinion, it is making a value judgement about an idea put forward by someone else. So, this is in fact a clear example of attributing text according to ASF, not in "violation" of ASF. DigitalC (talk) 19:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * DigitalC in the example you cite, which was first cited by QuackGuru as you point out, the following statement is made -- Writing in 2009 in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases, Jeffrey Gerber and Paul Offit of the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia summarized the current scientific consensus on this question. The idea that a summary of the current scientific consensus has to be attributed to two authors is completely absurd. Either it's not the current scientific consensus or it doesn't need attribution.Griswaldo (talk) 12:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

You make two fundamental errors: (1) "From time to time there are editors who disagree with what a researcher says from a highly reliable source" - this is covered by NOR: editors never put in their own views, we represent significant views accurately. This is covered elsewhere in the policy, quite clearly. (2) "or does not understand ASF policy but wants to include in-text attribution in violation of ASF." Adding in-line attribution is in no way violation of policy, past or present. You are fabricating a groundless interpretation. The less controversial a claim, or the more wisely shared it is, the easier it is to find a source or provide attribution, and we do this in articles all the time. And it is a good thing - it further educates the public. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 19:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * This is not covered in OR when it is or when it is not required to have an inline qualifier. Adding or providing in-line attribution is a violation of ASF policy when there is "no serious dispute" among reliable sources. You are ignoring the current ASF policy based on your editing pattern. According to Slrubenstein, "Adding in-line attribution is in no way violation of policy, past or present." You are obviously wrong. In-text attribution is clearly against ASF and the community's consensus. See: By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." You are not supposed to add in-text attribution any time you feel like it. On Wikipedia, we assert the facts but not opinions. You want to convert a fact when there is "no disagreement" into an opinion by providing an in-text qualifier (e.g. so-and-so says). You want to radically change fundamental core policy to match your editing behaviour? It seems you want to reverse the current meaning of ASF in the other direction. This is complete nonsense. QuackGuru (talk) 21:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * "Adding or providing in-line attribution is a violation of ASF policy when there is "no serious dispute" among reliable sources" - Again, this is false. It has never been against WP:ASF to add attribution without dispute among reliable sources. This has been pointed out to you time and time again. There is no consensus for your interpretation of WP:ASF. DigitalC (talk) 19:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * QuackGuru (talk) 16:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

It can never be against policy to provide a citation. And again, I must explain to you: people may hold different views as to what a fact is. The issue is not fact vs. non-fact, but rather total agreement vs. controversy. Sure, when there is total agreement you could say a citation is unnecessary. But nowhere does it say that you cannot add an attribution. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 22:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * ASF is not about a citation. It is about how to present the verfied text. So that makes your comment irrelevant to the discussion.
 * It is not about people holding different views as to what is a fact. It is if among reliable sources if there is a serious disagreement.
 * The issue is fact and opinions and to show editors how to convert an opinion into a fact by attributing (inline qualifier) the opinion to someone or a group.
 * When there is total agreement you cannot say a citation is unnecessary if it is challenged or likely to be challenged. That is not what ASF is about. See: By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." This does say that you cannot add in-text attribution when no serious dispute exists for an obvious fact. In-text attribution is not a citation. In-text attribution is an inline qualifier such as so-and-so says. Let's test it. Was there a serious dispute among reliable sources for you to add so much in-text attribution. Did WP:ASF work for you in that content dispute. QuackGuru (talk) 23:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I strongly disagree with "balanced coverage", the idea of precisely, or even imprecisely, "weighting" the number of sources to match the relative prominence of a point of view. This is because:
 * A Wikipedia editor is not qualified to determine which point of view is of exactly what overall strength. That is original research.
 * The proper response is to encourage editors to add sources to document underrepresented points of view. Any wording that even tacitly approves of the removal of sources and relative content leaves editors competing to delete and destroy parts of the article to support their POV, rather than adding and documenting the relevant perspectives as is productive and appropriate.  This happens too often right now without such language! Wnt (talk) 23:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The proper response is to tell editors ASF is not about adding or removing sources. ASF is about how to present the verfied text. QuackGuru (talk) 23:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Editors who oppose any change to make citations or reliably sourced information unwelcome by policy are for the current ASF policy because ASF is not about V policy while the rewrite is vague. QuackGuru (talk) 23:47, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Slrubenstein wrote Sure, when there is total agreement you could say a citation is unnecessary. It seems Slrubenstein wants to radically change ASF to encourage editors to not add sources to verify the text. This will discourage editors to verify the text. This conflicts with exisiting policies. QuackGuru (talk) 00:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

And yet above Quack writes, "is about how to present the verfied text" so he even disagrees with himself. in any event, as I have already said, since Quack says he is talking about verivied texts, this is best dealt with in the V policy. Quack lies when he write that I "encourage editors to not add sources to verify the text." Nowhere have I ever written such a thing. Quak also writes, "You want to convert a fact when there is "no disagreement" into an opinion by providing an in-text qualifier" - this dietorts what i wrote, I never used the word "qualifier," we are only talking about verification and this is totally bizarre, adding in-line attribution does not change a fact into an opinion. Quack is just confused, and does not understand our policy (and certainly does not understand science), which is precisely why we need to make it clearer. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 09:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's be fair - we're all confused. No-one's understanding what anyone else, or the "policy" page itself, is saying. Is anyone able to state in a few crisp points what the principles of Wikipedia's "neutral point of view" are? (My attempt would be something like: (1) prefer non-judgmental language; (2) present selections of views that don't mislead readers as to their prominence; (3) don't state as fact anything that is (a) a personal judgment, or (b) seriously disputed among reliable sources. Although (3) is probably part of V rather than NPOV, if you insist on keeping them separate.)--Kotniski (talk) 10:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Let's be honest. I see a proposal that changes the meaning of current policy to allow a fact to be altered into an opinion. QuackGuru (talk) 17:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I do not see why it is so confusing. There are however a couple of conditions on what views we include: All the above bullet points are really explications of the main noun in the policy (view) and the adjective (neutral). The source of almost all confusion is a situation where there are multiple views, but I think the above covers all such situations. Some people think that religion and pseudoscience raise special issues. I do not want to get into that argument. i think it would be better to discuss those sections of the policy in a different conversation. But what is confusing about the above summary? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 11:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia makes no epistemological claims. It does not decide what is true or what is a fact.
 * On any topic - political or scientific - there may be only one view or several. It does not matter whether this is a view as to what is the truth, or the facts, or what is good or bad, right or wrong, or beautiful or ugly.  The cornerstone of our NPOV policy is "view."
 * What makes our approach to "views" is that we never decide which view is right or wrong. Instead, we present any and all (even if there is only one) views in a neutral way.
 * the first condition is that the view is verifiable. This does not mean that the contents of the view have been "proven" (i.e. if Einstein claims space and time are the same thing, we do not care whether or not he has proven this).  It means we can verify that someone (or everyone, whatever the case may be) holds the view (i.e. did Einstein really say that?  Where?  Can you provide a source?  You say all physicists now agree with him - again, the question is not whether those physicists are right or wrong, that is not for a WP editor to judge.  But do all physicists really agree?  That is what "verification" is about.  This is further explained in our V policy, supported by RS (I don't "insist" on separating it from NPOV, it was borne out of NPOV and is connected, but it still has its own policy where these things are covered in depth)
 * the second condition is that the view be significant. When there are multiple views, we must include all significant views.  Usually editors try to reach a consensus on what views are significant, and there are different ways to do this.  When it is unclear whether a view is significant or not, consult FRINGE
 * When there are multiple views, it is possible that all are equally significant. But often, one view is mainstream, or one view is majority and others minority.  We must make these distinctions clear (see WEIGHT)
 * Looks to be approaching something reasonable - but as far as I can tell you haven't addressed what "in a neutral way" means. (I think there is a distinction between "views as to the facts" and "views as to what is good or bad )(etc.)" - if there is only one significant view as to the facts, we just state it as fact; but if there is only one significant view as to goodness/badness/etc., then we still attribute it in the text. This is what QG is trying to say, I think, with his defence of ASF.)--Kotniski (talk) 11:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I just added another sentence to the introduction to respond to your initial concern. We can keep working on it. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 11:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

"Neutral" means it is simply not up to any Wikipedia editor to say what is a fact. Most editors working on the Evolution article agree that evolution is a fact, but this is just not relevant; we do not add editors' views to articles. What is important is that all evolutionary biologists believe evolution is a fact. We DO say this in the article, and we provide sources. This is our policy as it has been followed and I will quite the project rather than see it abandoned. Quack Guru has very passionate views about what is a fact and he can't stand it that some people wish him to defend his view by verifying it. I have been around here for a long time and have seen many other editors like Quack Guru insist that they know what the facts are. And you know what? Sometimes, I have even agreed with them. But I take it as a sine qua non that to edit Wikipedia I do not insert my own views into articles. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 11:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know what QG's particular views are, but in general terms, there is a bullet to be bitten - we do state many things as fact in articles (and not only facts of the form "A believes B"). The question is: what conditions does something have to meet in order to be stated as a fact? --Kotniski (talk) 12:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Disclaimer I have been involved recently in a dispute with Slrubenstein at Talk:Judiasm during which I quoted from the current WP:NPOV policy extensively to support my position. I have some concerns about how to interpret it, and I just want it to be clear that this is how I came across this conversation on the talk page.  I have to admit some amount of surprise at discovering the extensive changes he decided to make to this policy page after the afore mentioned dispute was throughly underway, but that's another story.  I would like to point out that Slrubenstein is missing Quack's point, and the Evolution example shows this clearly.  Quack's point is that we don't need to "attribute" a statements of certain types.  In Wikipedia's voice we can present them as facts.  For instance
 * "Evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations."
 * and not "According to evolutionary biologists evolution is the change in inherited traits ..."
 * Slrubenstein's claims about this policy imply that we would have to attribute this "fact" to evolutionary biologists. That is clearly not how things have been done, and clearly not how they ought to be done.  Quack is right to insist on including language in the policy that allows for the presentation of facts, as long as we have ways of establishing that these are indeed uncontroversial in the mainstream of the various communities (e.g. biologists, physical anthropologists, etc.) that we rely on to provide information about the subject.  If we didn't have this the encyclopedia would turn into a mess of "he said she said", and would lose every manner of respectability in the real world.Griswaldo (talk) 17:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I am sorry Griswaldo believes we are still in some conflict (which by the way began some time after I began editing this part of the article) - I thought we had reached a compromise that maintained the longstanding consensus version of the article and that added a quote that included language Griswaldo added, and that came from a reliable source supported by the other editors on the page. Be that as it may, I fail to see how the language that is in my proposal in any way "implies" what Griswaldo says it implies.  Griswaldo's view actually seems quite close to my own, if by fact he means and I quote "uncontroversial in the mainstream of the various communities (e.g. biologists, physical anthropologists, etc.) that we rely on to provide information about the subject" - and I repeat, I fully agree wih this part of Griswaldo's comment - we are reporting (one way or another) some group's (call them stakeholders, or community as Griswaldo does, whatever term you like) view of "the facts" or what is "a fact."  If Griswaldo and I do agree on this, as it seems, I am quite glad. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 17:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You are sorry about what. It is against current long standing policy to change a fact into an opinion when there is no serious dispute among reliable sources. Slrubenstein views allows a fact to be altered into an opinion. This is very different from Griswaldo's view. Slrubenstein, please show there is a serious dispute. See WP:ASF. QuackGuru (talk) 17:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There has never been consensus for your interpretation of ASF. It has never been against ASF to attribute text. DigitalC (talk) 19:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * ASF: By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." There is consensus for this text. QuackGuru (talk) 19:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Why am I not suprised to see you having a WP:IDHT violation again? There has never been consensus for your interpretation of that text. Nowhere in that text does it say that dispute must be in reliable sources. DigitalC (talk) 03:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I provided this link before. DigitalC thinks when an editor disputes an uncontroversial fact in-text attribution is warranted. DigitalC wants to change policy to allow a fact to be converted into an opinion regardless of what reliable sources say. QuackGuru (talk) 16:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Slrubenstein we are not in agreement unless there is a serious communications breakdown here. For instance you wrote:
 * Adding in-line attribution is in no way violation of policy, past or present ... The less controversial a claim, or the more wisely shared it is, the easier it is to find a source or provide attribution, and we do this in articles all the time. And it is a good thing - it further educates the public.
 * Most editors working on the Evolution article agree that evolution is a fact, but this is just not relevant; we do not add editors' views to articles. What is important is that all evolutionary biologists believe evolution is a fact. We DO say this in the article, and we provide sources. This is our policy as it has been followed and I will quite the project rather than see it abandoned.
 * You are also using the phrase "total agreement" to describe the conditions under which attribution is not necessary (there is never "total" agreement on anything!). What all of this suggests to me is that since there is not "total agreement" about what Evolution is, or whether or not it is factual, then the definition ought to be attributed, and indeed you suggest that it is already attributed in the article.  I don't see such attribution.  The fourth paragraph in the introduction of that article does state that   "evolutionary biologists document the fact that evolution occurs, and also develop and test theories that explain its causes," and it does so without any citations whatsoever.  That's a whole other ball game than what you said though.  Once again we have evolution presented as fact in Wikipedia's voice, with the statement that evolutionary biologists are the ones who really know a lot about this fact.  I think this is the correct way to treat such matters, and if you do then I don't understand why you want to make the change that Quack is unhappy about.  Your change quite simply obscures the use of unattributed fact and makes it seem like attribution is preferable pretty much always.Griswaldo (talk) 18:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Griswa,do, the breakdown in communication is this: you are quoting my personal opinion, only part of which is policy (there is nothing in policy that has ever prohibited providing inline attribution; the rest is my personal opinion). But what really matters here is not my personal opinion but what I have proposed, and as far as I can tell what you wrote is consistent with what I have proposed as the wording for this section of the policy. Do we disagree? I oppose changing the policy to prevent in-line attribution (all I have been promoting in my proposal is to specify when it is prescribed, not proscribed, which is consistent with current policy). In your "evolution" example, the current wording of the article was worked out by the editors working on the page. In general, this is my view, as I explained in great detail to K., below. Do you think that the policy should be changed to specifically prohibit the use of in-line attribution? Then we would disagree. But if you support my proposal, NPOV would not prhibit editors working on an article (like evolution) to word the sentence the way you suggest - I just think this should be left up to editors who work on the article to decide on a case by case basis, and we should not have a blanket prohibition. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 19:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

"My" answer to you: You have to explain to me why anything should be stated "as a fact." In any event, I do not think this has anything to do with NPOV.

I personally have written a lot of content where I have never used the word "fact." you might say that by njot providing attribution I am suggesting that it is a fact. But if someone on the talk page says the text is wrong, well, we do what I explain in the following:

"Wikipedia's" answer (i.e. what usually happens) Wikipedia's practice in the past has been pragmatic, and I think it ought to remain so. By this I mean, as long as there is no conflict on the talk page, people generally have no cause to consult NPOV. When there is conflict on the talk page, I think it is perfectly reasonable to ask any editor to verify his or her claims. Editors ought to reach consensus on what to do next (add a citation, add in-line attribution, or keep it as is. This is a wikipedia and policy should not, cannot, and has never tried to legislate everything.  Editors need to collaborate and work out what to do.  Our assumption (and if it is wrong the whole project is sunk) is that editors working on a page are generally the ones best qualified to figure out how to handle the matter (if one or a few editors are DEs or POV pushuers, sooner or later it goes to mediation, arbitration, or an admin bans someone; the people who are left are - I continue to believe - the best qualified to figure out how to handle it).  I understand your concern about a single editor writing alone, but the policy page is already clear: write in a neutral language, provide all significant views from reliable sources.  So if you are writing an article on let's say the history of Dry Wipe Markers (I am trying to imagine something that no one else is working on, if it even exists right now), you have to do research - read books and articles - and provide references for whatever you write. If you believe something is uncontroversial and there are no dviews expressed by anyone .. "Dry wipe markers are used with specially made dry wipe boards" for example just go ahead and write it - this is wikipedia, anyone can edit at any time, and remember that our FIRST policy was "ignore all rules," so just write it. Maybeone day another editor wil come around and write on the talk page that this is not true, dry wipe markers were originally invented for use in space, you can say, "really? What is your source" and you may even go back to the library and do more investigating and find a newspaper article announcing the invention of dry wipe markers for use in universities, and then you have to rewrite it so some say x and some say y.  Or, you may ask a source from this newcomer and if she cannot provide any, you can just say "look, we are going to leave it as is until you find a verifiable source, okay?" I mean, isn't this how it works at almost every article?

NPOV is not like some 2,000 page piece of legislation that is meant to tell people what to do in every situation. It provides a general framework for a "wikipedia," an encyclopedia in which there is no editorial control and in which we hope that thousands of people work on each article. That's its purpose. If we were not a wiki pedia we wouldn't need the policy at all. We would be like any other encyclopedia in which an editor hires experts to write articles, and the author or the editorial board claims that what they publish in their encyclopedia is factually accurate or true. But we aren't that kind of encyclopedia, we do not work that way, and cannot make such claims. No one is the "author" of the article or signs the article, so (unlike in a magazine) there is no author to claim "I guarantee you that what I wrote is accurate." And Jimbo owns the servers, but he is not a master-editor guaranteeing to the general public that Wikipedia is accurate. We are not set up like other encyclopedias so we cannot operate that way. All we can police is that claims are verifiable, any unverifiable claim can be removed from an article. We just assume that editors are not morons or children who remove material only because it is un-referenced - every particle has people watching it and when someone deletes something that people watching thinks is fine, someone reverts the deletion. If an editor comes along and says, "I do not believe it," we do have an obligation to provide verification, and if something is widely believed to be true this should - by definition - be easy to verify. And in such cases you can tell an editor "look, this is so easy to verify, that we do not need to add a citation" and if the other guy insists, just ask "Look, why do you think this is controversial? Why do you think it needs citation?" Kotniski, more than any policy like NPOV we just have to assume that editors are thoughtful adults who can have mature discussions over how to handle these matters in a way that makes the article better. That is the whole idea of a wikipedia, anyone editing any time. People cannot keep running to policy to support them in every argument, people need to discuss, provide reasons, try to persuade one another, or whatever. Policy provides minimum standards and a general framework, but in the end the article is written by its authors, in collaboration, and if the editors are childish, contentious, immature POV pushers the article will suffer. Sadly, this often happens. We just hope more mature, thoughtful, and willing-to-do-real-research editors will come along and fix the article. And if there is a conflict they should try to use reason on the talk page. No policy can be a substitute for this process. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 13:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Right, I would generally agree with most of that, and I'm always arguing for policy to be made as short and clear as possible so it can't be abused and doesn't waste people's time. But on the specific point, you seem to be drifting again towards confusion between in-text attribution and (footnote) citations. I think we understand that the latter are desirable for pretty much anything anyone can reasonably request them for (and that is the domain of WP:V). But what about the former? When is that appropriate? (It can't be just "whenever any editor disputes something", since that would mean (a) subjective statements like "A is beautiful" could be left in articles until some editor comes along actually claiming that A is not beautiful; (b) well-established scientific facts like "organism X evolved during era Y" could be required to have in-text attribution just because some Creationist editor comes along denying that evolution is possible.)--Kotniski (talk) 13:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

My answer remains, realy, common sense reached by consensus among editors working on the talk page. I have made a few edits to the first two paragraphs of the proposed alternative, again, based on issuesyou bring up. I have reread my proposed second paragraph and I honestly think it is all a policy page should bring up. Policy cannot provide any blanket justification for not providing an in-line attribution. This would constrain editors too much. I think policy can describe under what conditions we typically provide in-line attribution and why, and then has to leave it up to editors. We need to insist on more common sense, rather than more rules. Please reread the first two paragraphs of my proposal with your question in mind. What I wrote does not give a decisive answer, but that is because I do not think that is a good way to write policy. The task of this policy is to explain NPOV, not to answer every question that comes up in editing. There is a spirit of NPOV - not to get metaphysical, but a way of approaching problems that is found in NPOV, V, and NOR, and this should guide well-intentioned discussions among editors. When is in-text attribution appropriate? I think what I wrote answers that question. It is required when what we have is clearly an attributable view. I think thise leaves a wide space open, where editors can decide whether it is desirable or unnecessary, based on their own ability to reach a consensus based on well-informed common sense. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 16:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You have an answer? First you need to explain why you are against the current ASF. It seems you want to alter exisitng policy rather than working within the spirit of NPOV. You think NPOV is rigid and you don't like that. Now you want to alter it in a way that will make it vague and confusing. You don't want to make ASF more concise. You want to radically alter core policy. Isn't that right? QuackGuru (talk) 17:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Changing a fact into an opinion is against the spirit of NPOV


 * The bias proposal states: "Where a statement is controversial or otherwise not broadly accepted, or expresses a particular point of view, use in-text attribution&mdash; (i.e. identify the view in the passage): "John Smith writes that"&mdash; rather than publishing the material in Wikipedia's voice." Such wording would change the proof from an editor must show that there is serious dispute (among reliable sources), to an editor who does not want to use in-text attribution to show that the view is broadly accepted, it alters the default from "don't use in-text attribution unless it is a serious dispute" to "do use in-text attribution unless it is broadly accepted". This will allow an editor to change a fact into an opinion which is against the long standing consensus version that has always worked for the community.


 * The consensus version states: The obviously correct version says: By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." And the current concise version also gives good examples of what are facts and what are opinions. The proposal is consistent with a certain editor's editing pattern who wants to eliminate ASF.


 * Slrubenstein wrote Sure, when there is total agreement you could say a citation is unnecessary.? This is not our aim for ASF. It is about how to present the verfied text. Do we present the text as an opinion or a fact. When it is an opinion (serious dispute) we can convert it into a fact with an inline qualifier.


 * If there is no serious dispute adding an inline-text attribution such as so-and-so says does radically change a fact into an opinion. If there is no serious dispute among reliable sources then adding so much inline-text attribution alters what was a fact into an opinion. This conflicts with exisiting policies and wriitng from a neutral point of view. QuackGuru (talk) 17:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't see much difference in consequence between "don't use in-text attribution unless it is in serious dispute" to "do use in-text attribution unless it is broadly accepted". If that's the only difference between you two, then I think we can very quickly reach an acceptable form of wording. The precise wording we choose oughtn't to affect much how people behave (as long as it's stated clearly); it's the idea behind it that counts, and I think we all basically agree on that idea.--Kotniski (talk) 17:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The version I am proposing goes with the former. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 17:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It is not the idea behind it, but the wording that counts. I think we disagree on what are facts and what are opinions. ASF explains how to present the views from reliable sources. When you don't understand the consequences between the different wording that is what the problem is. Changing a fact into an opinion is against NPOV. The acceptable form of wording is the current version of NPOV. Not this incoherent proposal. If editors want to read an acceptable form of wording then they can read WP:NPOV. I don't see anything in the proposal that would improve NPOV. QuackGuru (talk) 17:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Dave, could you make whatever edit you think called for concerning the piped links issue? Also, I am not married to the term "stkeholder" but I didn't think "experts" is enough - in some cases a view of a non-expert may be significant to merit inclusion. If you have a better way to word it ... could you rephrase it accordingly? Thanks, Slrubenstein  |  Talk 22:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * A holding note – I'm sympathetic to the aim of simplification and clarification, but don't think this proposal at present achieves that aim. One concern is the piped link to WP:UNDUE, terms should be consistent to aid recognition and the summary in this section should be fully consistent with the main section on weight. The reference to "topic experts or significant stakeholders" is interesting, though as Wikipedia articles are based on third party sources the emphasis should be on topic experts rather than "significant stakeholders" which seems to imply primary sources. Nonetheless, the point that we look to reliable sources of expert opinion rather than of public opinion is significant. Anyway, will try to review this more thoroughly when time permits. . . dave souza, talk 21:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I hope these ideas help the discussion Stephen B Streater (talk) 22:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting debate, particularly after a few days elsewhere. I now understand what Quack Guru is on about. Unfortunately, WP broke for a while this evening and so I won't have time to give my full feedback until Thursday. As usual, there are lots of things I agree with from all parties, but a brief summary of my thought is:
 * I would include that it should not be possible to discern the POV of the editors from reading the article.
 * The choice of reliable sources involves judgement. But the choice of reliable sources is easier to agree on than positions being discussed in those sources. So by allowing all views from reliable sources to be presented, NPOV is far easier to attain than by trying to find the elusive single viewpoint. This is the point of using reliable sources rather than reliable information as the test
 * NPOV must give readers enough material about the significant viewpoints to give them the ability to form their own opinion about the most valid position.
 * Consensus is not the same as majority or compromise. See Consensus.
 * Inline citations should not be confused with inline source attribution.
 * Inline citations can be used even when information is not disputed to give the reader a link to a more detailed context for a statement.
 * In source attribution should be used where there is dispute amongst reliable sources and not otherwise. This avoids clutter and allows the reader to know when some statement is contentious
 * How can non-expert editors tell if a point is contentious and just not attributed yet (through laziness, for example, or lack of time), or whether it is genuinely not disputed by the experts. An inline cite saying it is not controversial would show that attribution was not required. It could also say why it was not controversial.
 * NPOV is the grandfather policy which spawned V, NOR, RS, UNDUE, FRINGE etc. It should not be afraid to use information from these policies, though detailed explanations should be wikilinked
 * Some concepts are intrinsically subjective, eg good/not good, even if they are not controversial. These should not be stated as facts, even if everyone seems to agree with them. In principle an event may change the world view at any time, and the article should not suddenly become opinionated. My test would be along the lines of could a computer tell whether the statement was true? - Mars is a planet is a yes, Eating meat is bad is a no. I haven't thought through a definitive test though.
 * Some ideas, like scientific theories, create their own model (eg proton or black hole) which cannot be accurately described outside the theory. The theories define what the object is. A physical object with the attributes similar to those predicted by the theory may also exist, but this is a different category of object - ie a physical object, rather than a theoretical model. In politics or history, different views represent different theoretical objects, and none of them correspond exactly with the actual historical figure. So facts about a theory correspond to opinions about reality.
 * In the case of a scientific theory, we do not need to state that proponents of the theory believe X in the article about X. We can just state X. We can assume that if the article is about a black hole, a concept which is defined by a mathematically described model, then the text describes the theoretical object, not some supposed real object. Black holes also have a non-scientific usage, but nothing can be said about these objects these with certainty, as each author can make up any ideas he wants and use the term black hole. It doesn't make it a black hole.
 * We only need to convert facts into opinions if there is a serious dispute about the accuracy of the fact, or if it is of an intrinsically subjective nature. Otherwise it is excessive verbiage. If there is not serious dispute, we can state as a fact and include an inline citation if verification is required - but not report it as an opinion.
 * Finally, I agree with Slrubenstein that pragmatism is crucial, and we should expect editors to use their discretion. It is often a lot easier to clean up imperfect text than to write the perfect version down from scratch if the rough version is deleted and lost.
 * I think most of these points are constructive. I really do not think we will ever come up with a computer program acceptable to all astronomers that will identify "planets" in a way that will constantly match consensus among astronomers over the next century.  In some cases astronomers may have conflicting criteria, in some cases it will change over time.  This is why I think we are better off not using words like "fact" or "opinion" at all.  Today, everyone may agree on what a fact is, tomorrow they may not.  It is best to stick to the terms essential to the policy. Present views in a neutral way.  Why say anything about stating facts? If all the sources call something a "fact" we can use the word and provide citations.  In many cases what some editors may consider facts scientists may not consider facts at all but data or theory; we need to be careful not to have a policy that misrepresents science.  If editors working on an article agree about reliable sources and how to present them in an article, I have no idea why they would use in-line attribution and when some editors keep bringing it up i can only conclude that it is either (a) a red herring or (b) they want the policy to proscribe in-line attribution rather than leave it to the editors to work it out which I really oppose. But let's not keep confusing the in-line citation issue with the fact issue.  Editors may agree that in-line citation is not necessary even when no source identifies something as a fact.  These are two separate issues.  But I like what you say about scientific theories.  Do you think what i propose is 'workable''? If so, then I would encourage you to make any changes to it you feel confident would improve it. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 22:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Controversy and attribution
Slrubenstein, in order to make this less confusing I'm posting this here instead of above where our ongoing discussing is right in the middle of the thread. I'd like to focus on the follwing part of your proposal, which I gather is the part Quackguru has the biggest problem with as well:


 * Controversial views Uncontroversial views – views that have no alternative or opposition to be found in other reliable sources – pose no problem for editors. This and related policies (Verifiability and No original research), however, 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 otherwise not broadly accepted, or expresses a particular point of view, use in-text attribution&mdash; (i.e. identify the view in the passage): "John Smith writes that"— rather than publishing the material in Wikipedia's voice. When attributing views to individuals, make sure the text does not imply parity between a majority and minority view.''

That "uncontroversial views" as you define them pose no problem for editors does not need to be stated since by definition such views pose no problems. However, you then go on to state that "anything challenged or likely to be challenged ... be attributed to a reliable source in the form of an inline citation." Challenged by whom? By other reliable sources or by other editors? Your opinions above suggest that anything challenged by other Wikipedia editors needs attribution. It is of vital importance to clarify that the challenge must be from reliable sources. Indeed not stating so is contradictory to other policies like WP:V and WP:OR. Claiming that clarifying this here is unnecessary because of the existence of other policies is a mistake since all policies necessitate clear integration and overlap without room for contradiction. Can we agree on this first step?

Further down you go on to write that "[w]here a statement is controversial or otherwise not broadly accepted, or expresses a particular point of view, use in-text attribution." (emphasis mine) The last part is problematic because as you and Maunus have been discussing above everything can be viewed as "expressing a particular point of view." Again one wonders who is arbiter of all this? How do we decide if something "expresses a particular point of view" and therefore needs attribution? In the end this language is much to open for scenarios in which editors simply say ... "oh well that's just one POV so you'll have to attribute that in the text." We had this problem at Genesis creation narrative when a couple of editors insisted on obfuscating the mainstream view that the Biblical creation story is one of several "Near Eastern creation myths" by slapping on the attribution "according to many scholars". These editors were unable to show any significant mainstream support for that view.

My closing remark on this is that it is absolutely necessary to have policies that help us settle disputes as objectively as possible by examining the relative quality and quantity of sources, as opposed to relying simply on consensus. By relative quality I don't mean what we claim about these sources, but what already established communities of experts claim about the quality of various sources. This is necessary because we can actually rely on measurements of some kind as opposed to the relative number of Wikipedians holding a certain opinion and participating on a talk page or even worse the relative ability of Wikipedians to filibusterer discussions until they get their way. Your text waters down the policy in ways that suggest a stronger role for consensus, and where there is none for the presentation of facts as if there "views" or "opinions". I think this is a serious mistake.Griswaldo (talk) 20:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Griswaldo, I simply do not see how anything can present a fact as an opinion. The problem is, sometimes different sources provide conflicting acounts of the facts.  NPOV provides a way to deal with this.


 * You raise some good questions, but i still disagree with you. People who edit the encyclopedia use sources, and if they they use a quote or add content that they know is not widely believed, understood, or known, it is always a good idea to provide a citation - I have seen you do this yourself. I also think "a particular point of viw" is clearer than what we currently have.  The adjective makes it quite clear that we are not talking about any view.  You know what the word particular means (anyone who doesn't perhaps should not be editing encyclopedias).  I am not watering down the policy - this is already the policy, I am just stating it more clearly.


 * The whole reason for having this discussion on the talk page is to see if what I am proposing can be improved upon. I think that part of the NPOV colicy as it stands is bloated, inconsistent, and confusing.  This is an attempt to improve it.  If you hate it, you hate it, but the choice is not hate it or love it, there is room to raise questions, point out problems, and try to make it better.  I do not agree with you but appreciate your raising these questions.  We will see how many share them, and also whether someone else can imagine better phrasing.


 * But do recall that the first rule of Wikipedia is "ignore all rules." Policies describe established practices, and NPOV certainly is the king of them all.  But in the end, policy does not tell editors what to do.  Common sense, a willingness to assume good faith on the part of people we disagree with, and a willingness to compromise is what makes Wikipedia work.  No policy can substitute for these qualities among editors working on an article.  Slrubenstein   |  Talk 20:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * May be unnecessary to say, but "presenting a fact as an opinion" seems to mean (needlessly) attributing uncontroversial statements, and so creating the appearance of doubt or disagreement where there is none.John Z (talk) 23:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed that attribution is often used to present facts as opinion particularly where opposing opinions lack supporting facts.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА  ►talk 00:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I made this change to clarify facts and opinions. Facts are uncontroversial statements and opinions are opposing or disputed views. QuackGuru (talk) 00:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * This change added "complementary and alternative medicine[1]".
 * The article already says "It is generally categorized as complementary and alternative medicine (CAM),[3] a characterization that many chiropractors reject.[4]"
 * It is seriously disputed that chiropractic is categorized as a complementary and alternative medicine. This is an example why WP:ASF is needed. The dispute is summarised in the lead but a few editors want to continue to assert it is a complementary and alternative medicine when it is duplication and an opinion. QuackGuru (talk) 18:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Arguments about article content belong on the article talk page. Wikipedia requires you to collaborate with other editors.  if you get into an intractable conflict, seek mediation.  That is how we do things at Wikipedia.  You cannot use policy to legislate your point of view in an edit conflict.  If you have a reliable source saying something is a fact, they simply have no right to remove it.  That is that. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 20:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Giving good examples of how ASF works showed insight to other editors here. Wikipedia requires editors to collaborate and edit from a neutral point of view. This requires reading policy and not make up stuff as you go along. You should use policy like ASF to guide article content. If there is a source misused to assert an opinion when the serious disagreement was already explained later in the article or the source violated MEDRS it can be removed. One source may say it is a fact but the are other sources showed a serious dispute. That's it. QuackGuru (talk) 04:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * See History of the race and intelligence controversy.
 * This version added inline-text attribution: According to William Tucker, author of The Funding of Scientific Racism: Wickliffe Draper and the Pioneer Fund, the most significant of Shockley's lobbying campaigns involved the educational psychologist, Arthur Jensen, from the University of California, Berkeley.
 * This version asserts the text as fact: One of Shockley's lobbying campaigns involved the educational psychologist, Arthur Jensen, from the University of California, Berkeley.
 * WP:ASF states: "Facts can be asserted without an inline qualifier (e.g. "John Doe believes...")."
 * Slrubenstein, are you coming to policy page to allow editors to convert an uncontroversial fact into an implied controversial opinion. When an editor adds inline-text attribtion such as "According to William Tucker" it implies there is a serious dispute. Was there a serious dispute or do you want to add inline-text attribution to falsely imply there is a serious dispute. QuackGuru (talk) 17:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * See Race and intelligence.
 * This version is an uncontroversial fact: Racial differences in IQ scores are observed around the world.
 * This version converts a fact into an opinion and implies there is serious disagreement. The word "others" is vague and mass attribution which is also a violation of ASF and poor writing: According to Richard Lynn and others, racial differences in IQ scores are observed around the world.
 * Slrubenstein wrote Sure, when there is total agreement you could say a citation is unnecessary. It seems Slrubenstein wants to alter ASF to encourage editors to delete sources that verify the text. This will discourage editors to verify the text. This conflicts with exisiting policies. I don't see a valid reason to imply there was serious dispute or to delete sources. QuackGuru (talk) 19:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment I agree that NPOV needs some tightening and better examples and this is a step in the right direction. One thing we need is some help in is what happens if reliable sources or reliable and notable sources don't seem to quite match up in definitions or viability as seen in the Talk:Rorschach test and Talk:Christ_myth_theory archives.--BruceGrubb (talk) 00:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)