Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Archive 48

Why Bother?
I've used this site for almost 10 years and it's clear from the number of times that right, wrong, real good, true etc. are put in quotation marks that Wikipedia is dominated by postmodern existentialists and it's not human to be neutral anyway (it's called the illusion of knowledge). So really, where is the neutrality around here? Not in the Ethics in the Bible article, that's for sure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.32.141 (talk) 07:13, 19 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is edited by a multitude of users, having a bewildering variety of religious beliefs and world views, therefore Wikipedia cannot affirm that my God is better than yours, since this would mean that it would have a Christian/Muslim/Jewish/Hindu/Buddhist/Shinto bias, depending upon which god is seen as better than other gods. Claims of absolute truth in the realm of religion lead precisely to "my God is better than yours". Wikipedia has found a workaround for this namely it describes facts (i.e. what is consensual among scientists and/or journalists) and facts about opinions (i.e. scholarly analysis of notable opinion). Wikipedia is not a soapbox for converting people to the one true religious way. That's why Wikipedia editors do not simply state they own opinion, but they always have to render verifiable information based upon reliable sources, obeying WP:UNDUE: there are objective ways of assessing such verifiability and reliability of sources, but hell would break loose if each editor would be allowed to insert his/her own opinion about what is true in respect to something. As stated above, in matters of theology we have agreed to disagree, and like it or not, professors and great philosophers who stand up for atheism have expressed notable criticism of the ethics of the Bible. So, the problem is not that such criticism is expressed, it has every right to be rendered, but that those who see something better in the Bible have not sought verifiable information for reliable sources of their liking in order to include it in the article. By reliable sources I do not mean apologetics, since Biblical inerrantists are known to defend the Bible despite rationality and to use any sort of sophism and rhetorical tricks in order to deny valid, objective criticism. You cannot simply ignore the objective fact that the Bible has real problems.


 * So, in order to defend the Bible one must start by calling a spade a spade. I don't deny that the viewpoint that the Bible is inerrant is theologically notable, it just isn't a serious scholarly position. See WP:ABIAS for details: biblical inerrancy would produce sarcasm and ridicule in every major US university. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


 * "You cannot simply ignore the objective fact that the Bible has real problems." -- This (and everything else in the above comment, which is pure opinion) is exactly the kind of thing that would be rejected by Wikipedia's standards if they were actually consistent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.101.175.7 (talk • contribs) 10 October 2014


 * Wikipedia does not treat theological views upon historical events as historical facts, e.g. the Pope seeks to establish what Catholics should believe, but not what Pentecostals should believe. Historians aim to establish objective knowledge about past events. Upon the fallibility of the Bible the mainstream historians make the call, and they have made the call and Wikipedia simply reports it as fact. In Cambridge, Harvard, Oxford, Princeton and Sorbonne it is taught as fact that the Bible is fallible, and this is what Wikipedia states in its own voice. There are true believers for whom evidence and arguments don't matter, Wikipedia isn't censored for their satisfaction. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:58, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Topics relating to personal belief should predominantly be written about by people who hold those beliefs. To allow others to dominate pages relating to the beliefs of others leads to an inaccurate representation which quickly becomes accepted by the wider internet community. As of 2014 Wikipedia is the source that often appears at the top of Google when one searches for the of definition on a topic.


 * The diplomacy of articles relating to religion can potentially be ensured by forcing contributors to use words such as, "... believe", and to disallow contributions from individuals who do not identify as having that belief in their Wikipedia profile. To keep these pages scholarly contributors could be disallowed from quoting scholars who critique the topic but force them to quote scholars who do hold those beliefs and are viewed within that community as an authority on the topic. To prevent smear campaigns the NPOV rules could disallow pages on one specific religious tradition to mention other religious traditions unless they can demonstrate a non-hostile connection. To prevent every page from turning into a debate criticism on any topic could be reserved to a section on criticism rather than throughout the topic. Wikipedia has a reputation as an objective source . But that doesn't mean it's methods for achieving that objectivity require no improvement. The aforementioned changes could allow contributors to simply represent their belief system without being prevented from free and accurate expression by the current NPOV rules, which are sometimes abused.


 * For example the Wikipedia page on Intelligent Design mostly features the opinions of it's critics and little information about the topic itself or it's content. It's rife with generalizations eg, "Educators, philosophers, and the scientific community have demonstrated that ID... lacks empirical support and offers no tenable hypotheses." Any attempt to correct this is disallowed even when it follows the NPOV rules as well as anything currently contained in the article. It is also a case of unsupported attributions as mentioned in the Manual of Style/Words to watch yet attempts to correct it have thus far been removed rather than edited.


 * Also, subjects considered to be fringe theories should be termed as fringe theories rather than pseudoscience as it is a contentious label that carries connotations that would bias the reader. The term "fringe theory" expresses the fact that it isn't widely held or believed without those connotations.


 * Intensive edits should not be easily removed as they are the product of a high degree effort. To allow other editors to instantly remove this creates an opportunity for cyber bullying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShonaMcc (talk • contribs) 30 September 2014

I don't wish to enter the debate, but could editors who do comment here please adhere to WP:Talk page guidelines, in particular by signing their posts using the four tildes, and by indenting their comments with the appropriate number of colons in front of each paragraph Noyster  (talk),  17:04, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


 * @User:ShonaMcc: see WP:LUNATICS. It is a statement upon alternative medicine, but the advice should be taken to the heart in respect to all fringe theories and pseudoscience. As Bart Ehrman said, there are professors of Buddhism who aren't Buddhist, professors of Hinduism who aren't Hindu, professors of Judaism who aren't Jews, professors of Marxism who aren't Marxist, etc. In the TTC course upon the historical Jesus he says there is no requirement of being a Communist in order to study Das Kapital, therefore there is no requirement of being a Christian in order to be a scholar of Christianity. According to WP:ABIAS, Wikipedia reflects scholarly and scientific knowledge about every topic, so when discussing Christianity it renders the views of Christianity scholars who live by publish or perish, because they decide what is being taught as fact about Christianity in the main US and European universities. There is no violation of NPOV by describing Intelligent Design as pseudoscience: the very department which employs prof. Behe has issued an unanimous statement (without Behe) that Intelligent Design isn't science. Nor is ID taught as science in any university worth its salt. Biologists consensually accept evolution as fact, and any empirical science rejects by default explanations relying upon supernatural agency. Bible study are no exception form this rule, and as Ehrman said:

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:17, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales, DUE, and articles specifically about thought systems
Recently I invited Jimbo to participate in a discussion about how the article about ACIM had been "attacked" so many times by editors who were repulsed by the belief system, that the article itself no longer had anything left to say about the belief system itself, and had essentially become little more than a an empty WP:COATRACK for criticism about the belief system. This discussion with Jimbo was held at: the ACIM article talk page. The most recent editor to "attack" the ACIM article had seemingly rightfully read the section about WP:DUE and from that section had determined that Wikipedia is in the business of censoring out any non-mainstream views in articles specifically about non-mainstream views. (See this discussion I had with this editor about this at this editor's talk page.)

I can easily see how this last editor had come to believe that to "attack" the ACIM article in the way that he did, within an article specifically about the ACIM thought system, was proper Wikipedia policy after reading the current DUE policy. In the light of Jimbo's stated views on this, and as a result of what seems to me to be a certain missing piece in this policy regarding articles specifically about "thought systems", I would like to propose the following new policy:
 * Balancing articles about thought systems
 * In articles specifically reporting on a given "thought-system", such as a religion, a philosophy, or even a conspiracy theory, such articles should be written to provide the reader with as "well rounded", "well informed", "neutral", "fair" and "objective" of a perspective on the given thought system as possible, even when some of the "thoughts" within the given thought system may not be considered as mainstream, or even plausible.


 * Within such articles specifically covering a given "thought system", should the given thought system seem to include any controversial or widely disputed thoughts or beliefs, nonetheless within such topic-specific articles, such controversial beliefs, and the reasons for them, should still be listed in a reasonable fashion within the given article, alongside whatever documented controversies which may accompany them. Within such topic-specific articles, if possible, the voice of the thought system should be represented in a generally neutral tone, and if suitable, balanced against whatever relevant criticism may exist, thus giving the reader the ultimate ability to determine for him or herself the merits or demerits of whatever controversy or dispute may exist concerning such thoughts or beliefs.

Comments? Scott P. (talk) 09:32, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No. There is enough trouble from POV pushers as it is, and almost anything could be regarded as a "thought system". The proposed wording would result in many articles being rewritten to assert the beliefs of proponents in the first half of the article, with actual encyclopedic content about what mainstream science reports as an afterthought at the end. However, of course an article about X should explain what X is. Johnuniq (talk) 09:50, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Then which Wikpedia Policy were those who attacked the ACIM article in violation of? Might you have any suggestions as to how to better word it then? Scott P. (talk) 10:22, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * (e.c.) One of Jimbo's comments at the discussion you link to contains "...This will then be consistent with how we treat such subjects universally throughout Wikipedia." Which may indicate policy doesn't need amendment on this point.
 * I suppose the piece you suppose to be missing can be found in the WP:ABOUTSELF policy (and doesn't exclusively apply to "thought systems" and the like). So no, this addition to the policy is unnecessary, it is already covered elsewhere, and tries to introduce on the policy page a fairly unreadable portion of text, which is only about the application of a general policy explained elswhere to a very narrow case. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:56, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * ACIM makes the "exceptional claim" that it was "written by Jesus". Therefore, per WP:ABOUTSELF, the thought system contained in ACIM should not to be self referencing.  Unless I can find a policy that would address what happened specifically to the ACIM article, then I must assume that the article should not be "principally about the ideas in the book", no? Scott P. (talk) 10:12, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * There's no "exceptional claim" in describing what is in the book:
 * "The book is written by Jesus" would be an exceptional claim;
 * "On p. xxx of the book it is asserted that Jesus is its author" in an article on the book, complies to Wikipedia's verifiability policy from every angle (provided that "xxx" is replaced by the correct page number, or alternatively the page number is mentioned in the reference).
 * Compare e.g. (from Anne Catherine Emmerich): "Brentano's writings on Emmerich says she believed that Noah's son Ham was the progenitor of "the black, idolatrous, stupid nations" of the world. The "Dolorous Passion" also reveals a "clear anti-semitic strain throughout", with Brentano writing that Emmerich believed that, "Jews ... strangled Christian children and used their blood for all sorts of suspicious and diabolical practices" "


 * All of this standard practice, no policy update needed. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:25, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Still, WP:ABOUTSELF does not at all address the primary issue, which is about the "balance of the article". Jimbo says that the ACIM article should be "principally about the ideas in the book", yet BAL says that  the article should be "weighted" in favor of mainstream views.  In this case, such a "weighting" has made the article into a WP:COATRACK.  Which part of BAL should have prevented the article from becoming a WP:COATRACK? Scott P. (talk) 11:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Once the source is accepted as a viable source on itself in a thoughtful application of WP:ABOUTSELF, the current WP:NPOV provisions, without needing any modification or amendement, can do the rest.
 * Again, Jimbo Wales referred to current practice, which would be a first clue that no amendment of policy is necessary --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:45, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Please see my reply to user:Blue Boar immediately below regarding the advice provided in the subsections of WP:NPOV, namely in WP:Due, and in WP:Valid, about how best to deal with such "small minority views". Nowhere do I see in WP:NPOV any advice that the voices of alternative views ought to be stated clearly and reasonably in Wikipedia (while still reporting on significant criticism as well).  I see this in everyone's personal interpretations of WP:NPOV, but nowhere in the actual text of WP:NPOV itself.  Why not make things easier for all and put this wording into the actual text?  Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 18:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * No amendment to the policy is needed... rather what is needed is a better understanding of how the policy should be implemented at articles on fringe topics. It is important to understand that Due Weight changes depending on the context... In the context of an article about a set of beliefs, it is appropriate to give a fair amount of article space to explaining "what do believers actually believe"... In fact such an outline should probably be the first section of the article. However, the information should be presented in language that makes it clear that we are talking about "belief" and not accepted fact. Belief is opinion... and Statements should be phrased as such - with attribution (along the lines of "Adherents believe that ").  And... in outlining the beliefs, it is important to give more weight to beliefs that are "common within the fringe", and less (or no) weight to beliefs that are "fringe within the fringe".
 * Once that is done, then the article can outline what skeptics say about those beliefs. This is also opinion... and so criticism should also be phrased with attribution. Blueboar (talk) 12:29, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * What you are saying about context here makes intuitive sense, yet the text of the policy only speaks of context while advising that editors should use it as a tool to counter fringe arguments. Wouldn't it be easier if the actual wording of the policy explicitly discussed the possibility that context (can in some articles) require that a fringe theory be clearly and thoroughly discussed?


 * In current Wikipedia policy, I see many policies which seem to support user Red_Pen's interpretation that Wikipedia "only present what the academic mainstream has found worthy of covering". After reading WP:Due, and WP:Valid it would seem that all articles representing non-mainstream views should be either deleted or heavily censored to primarily represent mainstream views about these subjects.  WP:Due says, "if a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article." WP:Valid advises that "claims that the Earth is flat, that the Knights Templar possessed the Holy Grail, that the Apollo moon landings were a hoax... should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship."


 * I see no Wikipedia policy stating that each of the above articles needs to, as Jimbo stated, "principally be about the actual ideas in the book (or thought system)". Please direct me to a Wikipedia policy that specifically clarifies what Jimbo said about such articles.  I can find none.  Yet all of the articles mentioned above do in fact "make a comparison of their subject matter to accepted academic scholarship," and "do belong in Wikipedia" in my humble opinion.  After reading the two policies in question, I cannot blame various users for following them to the letter and totally trashing the ACIM article.  Please enlighten me as to which policy would clearly direct them "not to trash the ACIM article".  There seems to be a major disconnect between policy and actual practice here, thus the need to have these questions addressed and answered more clearly in WP policy.


 * Why couldn't Jimbo point user:Red Pen to any clear policy statement to support Jimbo's views on this? Either someone else needs to point me towards a clear and definitive policy on this (which Jimbo himself seemed to be unable to do), or else if one does not yet exist, then a clear and definitive policy on it needs to be written, so we don't waste any more of Jimbo's time, or our time, rehashing what should be a simple open and shut case of policy discussion.  Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 18:00, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * "NPOV policy means that Wikipedia editors ought to say something like this: Many adherents of this faith believe X, which they believe that members of this group have always believed; however, due to the acceptance of some findings (say which) by modern historians and archaeologists (say which), other adherents (say which) of this faith now believe Z. This way, views are presented without being criticized or endorsed." is in Neutral point of view/FAQ. Is this of any help? --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:47, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This is in NPOV tutorial: "Some examples of how editors may unwittingly or deliberately present a subject in an unfair way:... Biased or selective representation of sources, eg:... Not allowing one view to "speak for itself",..." — which links to Let the reader decide (one of the ideas Jimbo referred to in his comments at the ACIM talk page.) --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:54, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you Francis S. for pointing out those two policies. They definitely would seem to counter WP:Due and WP:Valid to a certain extent.  Still, neither of them clearly presented Jimbo's belief that such articles should be "principally about the actual ideas in the book (or thought system)".  I have just made an edit attempt to incorporate all of these ideas, and particularly Jimbo's incisive statement, into WP:Due, that I hope might help to clarify many similar such future questions.  .... and despite the fact that this edit was just deleted, I would still appreciate any further comments on it below. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 21:51, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Jimbo is but one, relatively inactive, editor. He can argue for modifications to NPOV just like the rest of us. There's no "because Jimbo said so" override. --Neil N  talk to me 21:57, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Claiming that Jimbo's leadership of Wikipedia no longer exists does not make an argument against my proposed edit. If you might have any actual specific reasons that you feel that this proposed edit should not be made, those specific reasons would be very much appreciated here.  Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 22:14, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Scott P., this a core Wikipedia policy. Please stop making ill-thought out changes to it. Propose specific wording here first and wait for feedback. --Neil N  talk to me 21:53, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Scottperry, I have reverted you three times now at the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view page, as seen here, here and here. Like the page states, "This page documents an English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow. Changes made to it should reflect consensus." WP:Consensus is key in this case. And like others have stated above, your proposals for this policy are not needed. I agree with that. Flyer22 (talk) 21:54, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Your thoughts and elaboration on the actual reasons for your reversions and disagreement would be most appreciated here. It is fine and helpful that you reverted it, but it seems to me that if you provided some actual specific input on this talk page concerning the actual ideas being tossed around here, such might also be helpful.  E.g., I disagree with your reasoning specifically because....  Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 22:03, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Still, an article about a notable "fringe theory" such as one about the Flat Earth theory itself ought to be principally about the Flat Earth theory itself -> Totally unneeded. Every article is principally about itself, criticisms included.
 * should not engage in Information Suppression, simply because the Flat Earth theory may be generally considered to be a rather "fringe theory". -> No, we're not the encyclopedic equivalent of TLC. We don't highlight the theories of obscure crackpots.
 * --Neil N  talk to me 22:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * So then Neil N., I take it you would totally agree with WP:Due's unqualified statement that "if a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article," no? It would naturally follow that, if you had the ultimate authority, you would simply delete the crackpot fringe theory article about Flat Earth, and be totally backed up by WP:Due, no? Scott P. (talk) 22:27, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Only if I was a complete moron who didn't see the theory had a firm place in history. --Neil N  talk to me 23:16, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Exactly my point about the need to tweak these policies a little. WP:Due in its current state, would advise us to delete an article which has obvious historical value, as well as notoriety value in the current day, does it not?  But you say it is perfectly fine to have a policy that is so totally out of line with actual Wikipedia practice?  I am confused on the need for any policies at all if they are so poorly worded that we are unable to follow them. Scott P. (talk) 23:44, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You need to read more closely: "For instance, articles on historical views such as Flat Earth, with few or no modern proponents, may briefly state the modern position, and then go on to discuss the history of the idea in great detail, neutrally presenting the history of a now-discredited belief." --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 23:54, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, someone has already 'tweaked' the policy to save the Flat Earth article, but what about for example, the theory that wearing a tinfoil hat is beneficial to one's health, a belief that has no real historical value, yet one that does have notoriety, and one that is not specifically mentioned in the policy? WP:Due would advise us to delete that article, despite the fact that it definitely has notoriety, no? So why not rewrite WP:Due to say something about how subjects with notoriety should be included in Wikipedia, instead of allowing the poor wording which directly conflicts with other policies to remain?  Scott P. (talk) 00:26, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, read more closely. You're confusing WP:UNDUE with WP:N. WP:UNDUE does not mention deleting articles anywhere. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 00:37, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:Due states without qualifications that "if a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article." That sounds like advice to delete to me.Scott P. (talk) 00:45, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, delete the viewpoint from an article, not delete the article. We're going to delete the Flat Earth viewpoint from Figure of the Earth and put it in an ancillary article. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 00:52, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * So then how do we delete the tinfoil hat theory from the tinfoil hat article and put it into an auxilliary article? Hmmm....  I'm going to have to put on my tinfoil hat and think about that one for awhile.  Good night my friend.  Scott P. (talk) 00:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You're making even less sense now. The first sentence of the article makes it clear it's discussing the hat in relation to the theory. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 01:03, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Scott, I get what you're saying, and I would like to hear suggestions on how to improve it (on the talk page where consensus can be built). Might it be accomplished through minor tweaks here or perhaps adding to WP:FRINGE instead?  I think the pertinent content in the tiny minority view sentence is "except perhaps in some ancillary article".  The preceding part of the sentence is describing weight in mainstream articles or the scope of larger topics.  If the WP:SCOPE of the auxiliary article (that meets WP:N) is the specific fringe theory, such as the tinfoil hat article or ACIM, then describing the proponent viewpoint is due weight (it becomes an important viewpoint for the scope) and paramount to the article, as would be mainstream criticism specific to the article scope.  For an article specifically about that topic, it is no longer a tiny minority view within that scope (itself).  I think we try to described this in the second paragraph "In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space. ..."  I guess the thing that perhaps is unclear is that an auxiliary article about a fringe topic should not treat the fringe viewpoint with the weight of a tiny minority view within it's own article.  Weight changes with Scope.  Morphh   (talk) 13:26, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * We say: "The tinfoil hat people believe X.(source, preferably third party explanation) X is only believed by tiny proportion.(source) The Mainstream says W shows that X is not accurate(source). And Mainstream says Y about X.(source) And they also say Z about X.(source)"
 * Part of the issue is that most tinfoil hat theories have very little third party analysis. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  15:10, 18 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I would expand that a bit... In an article on Beliefs of tinfoil hat people, it is appropriate to say "The tinfoil hat people believe X1. (source)" It would probably be appropriate to say "A minority of tinfoil hat people believe X2.(source)"  However, if X3 is only believed by a fringe of tinfoil hat people (fringe of the fringe), then it would be UNDUE to mention X3 at all... even in the article about the beliefs of tinfoil hat people. Blueboar (talk) 15:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 25 October 2014
this edit by got caught in the revert-to-pre-discussion-state when the page was protected yesterday. It has nothing to do with the causes or reasons of the page protection (which were only about edits to the WP:BALASPS section), and was, as far as I can see, an undisputed improvement of the page. So I kindly ask to redo that edit.
 * Update, per Flyer22's suggestion below: also this edit by got caught and is as far as I can see uncontroversial, so also asking to redo it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:48, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

--Francis Schonken (talk) 06:25, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, I didn't even notice that till the ping from the above edit-request. I can explain the reasoning in more detail, but the precis version is: Confirmation bias is a cognitive bias. People can exhibit it. Information cannot.
 * Ping me again if a lengthier or less cryptic explanation is desired, but hopefully this is non-controversial. And thanks to Francis, for the diligent follow up. Abecedare (talk) 06:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Something else to think about regarding Bbb23's restoration is the WP:Preserve link. Flyer22 (talk) 06:39, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done I've restored the WP:PRESERVE link as well. — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 14:05, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I am not so sure about restoring the link to WP:PRESERVE... or at least I question restoring it as written. As written, the link slightly misstates what WP:PRESERVE says.  For one thing, WP:PRESERVE itself acknowledges that there are times when maintaining a NPOV might justify removal of a sourced statement.  I think we need to discuss this section further. Blueboar (talk) 15:07, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Removal of "misleading" material
So this language got added since the last time I patrolled this page:


 * Remove material only where you have a good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage.

I'm not sure exactly what problem this language is trying to address. Our usual standard is "WP:V not WP:TRUTH", and this language undermines that important distinction. Of course, I've done a fair share of rewrites, in the interest of clarifying an otherwise confusing passage, which sort of meet this criteria. But giving free reign to POV warriors to remove information simply for some vague "good reason" because, in their opinion, that information is "misleading" is a terribly large loophole. -- Kendrick7talk 00:24, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * "WP:V not WP:TRUTH" has been deprecated. It's pretty rare you'll see it cited these days. "We must get the article right." from WP:BLP is what we strive for. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 18:11, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I suspect that what it means is not "please remove stuff if...", but rather the opposite: "do not remove stuff unless..."  As the project has become more oriented towards maintenance instead of expansion, we have acquired a number of people who believe that they're supposed to revert anything that isn't perfect.  WP:PRESERVE applies to them, too.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:21, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I agree, and will remove the new language if there's no objection. -- Kendrick7talk 02:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I object. This language is not "new" as it's been there at least since Jan 2011. If I think an addition is misleading, I'm going to remove it. Per WP:BRD, discussion should occur on the talk page. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 05:16, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't quite understand this response. Do you want to keep this potentially misleading line?  Do you think that removing it will make it impossible for you to remove material that you object to?  And have you ever actually read BRD, including the bit that says you can't force anyone to follow BRD?  BRD isn't aimed at reverters.  It's not an authorization to violate WP:PRESERVE (that's the very old core policy that says you're supposed to collaborate and fix stuff, instead of being lazy and removing anything that's imperfect).  It's an explanation of one (not "the only") strategy for experienced editors who find themselves stuck in a particular type of zero-progress dispute.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:42, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't find it misleading at all. And c'mon, "imperfect"? You are trivializing what we deal with. Question: When was the last time you did recent changes patrol? The amount of POV pushing edits that come through is significant. Personally I feel my first responsibility is to the readers. Problematic material can be removed and worked on on the talk page (if the editor in question isn't simply doing a hit and run). --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 05:56, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I get where you are coming from, but in my experience, clever POV pushers are just as capable of removing a POV they disagree with as they are of making an affirmative edit towards their POV. I've always considered my first responsibility to the readers as well, and as such, we should present all reliably sourced, verifiable points of view and let our readers figure it out. Giving an out to let editors remove POVs that are simply, in their opinion, "misleading" is a huge mistake, and I'm embarrassed that it took me 3+ years to notice. -- Kendrick7talk 01:42, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Needless to say, I and WP:FRINGE don't agree with this view. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 13:22, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Would you be against adding the clarifier of "scientifically" misleading material, if WP:FRINGE is your concern? For those of us who edit in the realms of politics, religion, and other such less academically rigorous areas, this policy constantly drifts towards a purely scientific worldview in ways that I feel I'm constantly having to fight a rear guard action against. As I've complained before, by the literal terms of the policy, we can barely excuse having articles on Zoroastrianism or the Whig Party since those are effectively just tiny minority viewpoints. The sum of human knowledge extends well beyond whether or not the earth is flat. -- Kendrick7talk 22:57, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If you read the section above you'll see that WP:DUE has nothing to do with if an article should exist or not. That determination is made by notability. We could have an article on an ancient Babylonian belief system, which no one follows today, if historians have written about it. As to your suggestion, can you give some examples of removals citing this policy that you found dubious? --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 15:47, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

A question on NPOV
I would like to ask a question from editors not involved with the article Electronic cigarette. I have been reading a lot on NPOV and what I understand from that reading is that all viewpoints in reliable sources should be included. That the majority viewpoint should get more coverage. To help me understand this a question I have is, is it following NPOV to place 32 separate quotes from sources basically saying the same thing, that evidence is unclear or unknown really NPOV. How about when they are used to oppose what is known? Does the age of the unknown or unclear statement play into this if its older than later facts? If this is in the wrong place I apologize in advance and if so would you please point me to the appropriate place for questions on this topic. Thanks. AlbinoFerret 20:43, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You need WP:NPOVN which is where questions like this are examined. At that noticeboard, people are asked to be specific because the only possible answer to the above is "it depends". Johnuniq (talk) 06:07, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That link is for disputes. I would like information, from people who have not edited the Electronic Cigarette article. AlbinoFerret  06:24, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Being selective on who you want the information from suggests your question is not entirely dispute-free. Further, it is a misconception WP:NPOVN is exclusively for disputes: it is a noticeboard for any NPOV-related inquiries. It is a "discussion, request, and help venue" as the template on top of the page has it. This WT:NPOV page where you posted your inquiry, on the other hand, is only about the question: how can we improve the WP:NPOV policy page? I see no component relating to that in your question. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that explanation on WP:NPOVN. It is a controversial issue, thats why I wanted outside information. AlbinoFerret  16:17, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:NPOVN is only one of many "outside input" options mentioned at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution#Resolving content disputes with outside help - bringing it up on a policy talk page is however not listed there, and maybe not so likely to yield the optimal result.
 * Please also have al look at WP:FORUMSHOP: going to another forum in the hope to get a different result is usually not recommended. I suppose that's the reason why most of us here are reluctant to comment on the content of your question: it allows you to choose the appropropriate forum, without shifting away from an ongoing content discussion (which would be the avoidable kind of forumshopping) --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:30, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I wasnt forum shopping, I was simply looking for information. I know nothing would or could be resolved here. The only purpose was to get my head wrapped around the NPOV concept. I commonly ask questions like thins to make sure I am thinking right and not jumping into to deep of water. The only use would have been proving my personal understanding was either right or wrong, and an explanation from an uninvolved party to show me why.  AlbinoFerret  16:46, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Re. "To help me understand this a question I have is, is it following NPOV to place 32 separate quotes from sources basically saying the same thing, that evidence is unclear or unknown really NPOV. How about when they are used to oppose what is known? Does the age of the unknown or unclear statement play into this if its older than later facts?" As pointed out above by Johnuniq there is no answer for such questions merely from policy like NPOV. "32 separate quotes from sources basically saying the same thing" is possible. Depends on what other reliable sources say, but as your question seems to start from the assumption there are no such alternative reliable sources, "32 separate quotes from sources basically saying the same thing" is possible.
 * We also extensively replied to "If this is in the wrong place I apologize in advance and if so would you please point me to the appropriate place for questions on this topic", so I don't see what else there is to be said here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:17, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The last post by me wasnt a question or asking for answers on the topic. It was just an explanation of why I wasnt forum shopping. I think your post a few back ended this section as to the questions, sorry if I wasnt clear on that in my last response. I thank you for your time and response pointing out WP:NPOVN and why it was a better place for the questions I asked. AlbinoFerret  16:25, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:BALASPS

 * I moved the discussion under the main thread, but renamed it to something more appropriate to the overall topic. I also simplified my proposal as mentioned in my other post.  I find it more legible then "with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject."  Morphh   (talk) 17:02, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Must all "fringe articles" now be weighted so as to implicitly "oppose" the fringe topic?
According to this proposed change to WP:Due: "proposed change", that was first proposed on July 30, but that has only just now been first brought up for a "consensus discussion", it would seem to me that such a change to WP:Due would unneccessarily require the "weighting" of all articles about "fringe topics" against such topics, which seems to me to be rather "against" the overall "spirit" of balance in articles that Wikipedia strives for. Your opinions about this "proposed change" would be appreciated here. Scott P. (talk) 04:19, 21 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I do not think your definition of "balance" is the same as Wikipedia's definition of balance. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 05:18, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * So, Neil N, I take it that your answer to the quesiton posed above would be, "Yes, all fringe articles should be weighted in opposition to the fringe topic", no? Scott P. (talk) 05:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No. Per WP:FRINGE/PS: "When discussing topics that reliable sources say are pseudoscientific or fringe theories, editors should be careful not to present the pseudoscientific fringe views alongside the scientific or academic consensus as though they are opposing but still equal views. While pseudoscience may in some cases be significant to an article, it should not obfuscate the description or prominence of the mainstream views." (emphasis mine). --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 05:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Neil N, then you still have not yet squarely answered the question being posed. What then is your answer to the question posed? Accept the proposed WP policy change that is described in this section, or discard it? That is the question that this section is meant to address.  Scott P. (talk) 05:34, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The change was briefly discussed in the last archive and as stated, it makes little difference (i.e., changing it back will not give you the "balance" you desire). So, unless someone has a particularly good point, I do not care. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 05:43, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Scott, I don't understand the question you've asked, so if I were Neil, I'd avoid answering it, too. Perhaps an example would help. Does your question mean something like "if you're writing about the thoroughly discredited idea that the Earth is flat, then the article should indicate that this is a thoroughly discredited idea"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:50, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The "proposed policy change" in question would seem to me to advise that the "balance of the evidence" provided in the Flat Earth article should be "anti-flat-Earth'. This seems a bit awkward to me, as people do not typically go to the Flat Earth article to find anti-flat-Earth material.  Rather I would think that they probably most often go there primarily to find the "pro-flat-Earth" theory plainly and intelligently laid out (or at least laid out as intelligently as possible).  Still, whether or not you might agree or disagree with my rationale here, the main question in this section is simply: do you agree with, or disagree with this "proposed policy change"? Scott P. (talk) 06:01, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

NPOV is an important policy and proposals to change it should not be phrased in the form of riddles. Just say what you propose to change in the policy as it is now written, and why. The "why" should address the question of what problem is being solved, preferably with an example of the problem. Johnuniq (talk) 06:39, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure whether you accept or do not accept the proposed policy change being discussed here in this, the first fully aired consensus discussion about this proposed change. An example of the problem is given in the paragraph I added just above.  I do not accept the proposed policy change.  Do you accept or not accept? This is no riddle. Scott P. (talk) 10:11, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Re. "...has only just now been first brought up for a "consensus discussion"..." — incorrect, the consensus discussion is here: Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Archive 47, concluded 3 months ago... and was linked from the edit summary (before archiving, so not so difficult to trace, is it?) Please get your facts straight before beginning a discussion. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:16, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * In the discussion referred to, that occured 3 weeks before the actual edit, I saw no consensus, only one pro-change voice (yours) and one anti-change voice (Flyer's). I would normally expect a consensus to result in an immediate edit that conforms to the "consensus".  The 3 week delay between the brief discussion between two editors about the proposed change, and the actual policy-change-edit itself seems rather odd to me.   Scott P. (talk) 10:17, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

So far I see only one "do not accept" vote here, and one "I don't care" vote. Scott P. (talk) 10:25, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

??? Consensus on the 30 July edit is OK.

Consensus can change would be a better avenue for your purposes I suppose.

So I see a lot of objections I don't understand. For me its fairly simple. Let me explain in a few steps with an imaginary example. Suppose someone publishes a book called The Theory of XYZ:

Step one, inclusion criteria
Should Wikipedia have an article on The Theory of XYZ? There need to be third party reliable sources for a separate article on The Theory of XYZ to be possible.

Step two, scenario 1: "all third party reliable sources are dismissive about The Theory of XYZ"
The Theory of XYZ, its author, its fan-website, etc. are all primary sources. For the purpose of the article on The Theory of XYZ, they are also self-published reliable sources. I repeat that for the article on The Theory of XYZ, the book itself has two main characteristics as a source for the article's content:
 * it is a reliable source;
 * it is a primary source.

The primary source material used for the article on The Theory of XYZ should not be overwhelming in comparison to the article content derived from third party reliable sources.

From this follows, that when a fringe is only approved by the insider adherents of the fringe, and all external reliable sources are dismissive of the fringe it would be difficult to write an article that in balance is "favouring" that fringe. Which is logical. If I say I'm a great guy, and the two only external sources mentioning me, let's say the New York Times and the Pravda, both write I'm not a great guy, I don't expect Wikipedia to write an article that comes to the conclusion "Francis Schonken is a great guy".

That doesn't mean Wikipedia should not explain the concepts and content of The Theory of XYZ (as said The Theory of XYZ is a reliable source for the article on The Theory of XYZ), but primary source material is limited: it should not overwhelm third party reliable source material.

Step two, scenario 2: "some third party reliable sources write favorably about The Theory of XYZ, the others mainly criticism"
In this case it is unavoidable that there would be more positive material about The Theory of XYZ in its article than negative material. How come? (a bit simplified but using some pie-chart like mathematics to make it clear): up to 50% of the article on The Theory of XYZ can still be based on the source itself. Up to 50% is not overwhelming the third-party based material. Suppose (for the sake of argument) that 30% of the third party sources is positive comments about The Theory of XYZ, and 70% negative comments. That means 50% positive material derived from the primary source in the article, and the other 50% of the article contains 30% positive material. Total sum of positive material in The Theory of XYZ: 50% + 50% x 30% = 65% of positive material. I said the mathematics is a simplification, but shows the objections made by Scott P. are unneccessary (unless I don't understand what Scott P. tries to say). --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:18, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

My understanding of consensus is that it is not two unreconciled opposing editors, nor does it automatically occur when Flyer might have accidentally missed your 3 week later reversion of his edit. So I take it, Francis, that this would count as your I approve of the edit vote, no? Scott P. (talk) 11:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no vote. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

(ec) "So far I see only one…": If you insist: +1 for the wording shown in your diff and currently in the text. +1 also for the assessment that, taken together with WP:UNDUE and other parts of WP:NPOV, that wording doesn't amount to any practical change at all. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:33, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * So far I see nobody except Francis that has come out clearly in favor of the edit being discussed here. Does that mean that you wish to close this discussion as advocated by Francis, that you vote to approve Francis' edit or what? Scott P. (talk) 11:45, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't think I my response to your call for votes was so difficult to understand. Writing slowly: yes, I approve of Francis' edit, and I think it's immaterial. I don't know what gave you the idea that I want to close anything. Or more slowly: no, it never occurred to me to close this discussion. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:12, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I apologize but I have never seen the (ec) notation before and I do not know what it means. I thought it was a typo.  What exactly does it mean (aside from the fact that you apparently seem to feel that I am Exceptionally Confused)? Scott P. (talk) 07:40, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It means edit conflict. - Aoidh (talk) 08:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)


 * First thoughts - I think the edit sort of contradicts the purpose of the section. I think the intent was to say that even though there may be a lot of reliable sources (as we increasingly become more digital and produce more source material for any given event), such in the cases of recent, it should be considered with regard to the significance of the subject.  I tend to think of this as the long term encyclopedic (historical) viewpoint.  This is particularly important in BLP articles which cover a person's life.  One event in today's digital age could produce more sources then the rest of the person's history combined.  The weight in the "body of reliable sources" may not account for quality, depth, or importance - a material's significance to the subject, even if not covered significantly by the wider body.   Morphh   (talk) 15:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I will assume then that this is a disapprove of the July 30 proposed policy change vote, unless you might otherwise clarify. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 23:59, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion of policy change proposal for WP:Due continued on 22 Oct. 2014 UTC

Summarizing for anyone newly coming to this... This is an attempt to arrive at a consensus about the policy change that was first proposed on 30 July 2014 here, especially concerning the new requirement that all articles would then have to be especially weighted to reflect only "the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject", and about which a true consensus involving multiple editors has not yet been found on this talk page. So far I see: 2- I approve of the proposed policy change votes. (Francis and Michael) 2- I disapprove of the proposed policy change votes. (Scott and Morphh) 1- I don't care vote. (Neil) No consensus yet. Other comments and/ or votes would be welcome. Thanks for all comments thus far. Scott P. (talk) 00:09, 22 October 2014 (UTC)


 * @ - how would you define "significance to the subject" without using sources that show that significance? --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:14, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Francis, Everyone but yourself has agreed that a discussion needs to be had about this edit here, and others besides myself have cast specific votes on this. Please do not try to hide my edits, or to close a vote that others are involved in without their agreement.  Please "unhide" the bottom section that you just hid? Do you really want Wikipedia to be a place where policies (and therefore articles, and therefore content, and therefore the whole project itself) are/ is only decided by those who can best stifle the views of others?  Scott P. (talk) 06:50, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion, yes (I'm on your side there); Vote: no. If you want a vote I suppose the closest you could get is by calling an RfC (and even that isn't a vote). Note that for an RfC the question asked to your co-editors would need to be posed in a neutral fashion (i.e. not tendentiously). Even that didn't work thus far in this section. Could you make it a neutrally asked question for starters? --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:45, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Francis, the rest of UNDUE and other aspects of NPOV make that point already clear. The purpose of WP:BALASPS was to add a common sense caveat to the rigid requirements.  The change almost negates the section - not entirely as the section now contradicts itself in the next sentence by saying "disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic".  So if you change that too, what is the purpose but to parrot what is already stated?  You changed the meaning of the section - one which has stood since 2010.  I don't agree with it and I think more discussion should have taken place.  Morphh   (talk) 14:08, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Re. "the rest of UNDUE and other aspects of NPOV make that point already clear": apparently not, compare the example I gave at Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Archive 47.
 * Re. "common sense caveat to the rigid requirements": the requirements of WP:NPOV are common sense, so I don't understand "common sense caveat".
 * What I say is that the sentence before the update was (probably in good faith, but nonetheless) used as an escape to WP:V and WP:NOR, and in fact also to the remainder of WP:NPOV. The edit should have been uncontroversial, as it was no more than avoiding a perceivable disparity between WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR. The fact that it apparently needs to be discussed at length points to popular misconceptions, not to something wrong with the text or common sense of these policies as such. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:58, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see that this has anything to do with WP:V or WP:OR. The section is about weight in reliable sources and I described the common sense caveat in my prior edit.  Sometimes we have to look beyond what pushes a media headline and equally weigh the retraction that appears a week later on page 6.  Sometimes quantity doesn't equal quality and sometimes, while well sourced, recent news is insignificant for the weight it would represent in the overall topic.  Morphh   (talk) 16:16, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, no, "The purpose of WP:BALASPS was to add a common sense caveat to the rigid requirements" is essentially flawed. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Francis, again, please stop trying to hide the edits of others, and no, as you well know this entire "discussion" is merely a huge exercise in futility, and a huge waste of the time and resources of everyone who has so carefully commented here, if there is no vote, which appears to be exactly your intention, in order to keep your un-consensused Wikipedia policy change that you appear to have slyly inserted while Flyer was not watching, reverting his vote/ edit against your proposed policy change, which had been cast by him three weeks prior to your seemingly rather stealthy reversion. Please "unhide" my edits. Why is it that so far, all but one here (Morphh) are seemingly unable to question any of Francis' actions, yet so many here seem to be quite good at reverting any other stealth-edits, or blatant-obfuscation-edits (see hidden conversation above: there is no vote) by anyone else? (This entry originally written at 09:42, 22 October 2014 (UTC)) final revision of this entry: Scott P. (talk) 11:45, 22 October 2014 (UTC) (sorry, it sometimes takes me awhile to get all of my thoughts into writing, I shall try to avoid taking so long in the future)
 * ??? So many incorrect statements that I don't know where to begin. Really, this discussion is going nowhere if the approach is based on statements showing contributors not getting their facts straight. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:05, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Regarding talk page etiquette concerns: see Refactoring and Hatting. On the topic of voting Don't vote on everything might be of some help.
 * I'd prefer to get back to a discussion on content. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:18, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Instead of guessing what thinks, why not invite her to participate in this discussion? --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 13:31, 22 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I didn't get the ping via WP:Echo, Neil, but I just read parts of this discussion section, and I agree with Morphh about why Francis Schonken's edit should be reverted. Flyer22 (talk) 15:40, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

How to write an article on fringe topics
Finally... in an article that is about a fringe theory it is not necessary to give equal space to both viewpoints. Indeed, it is often appropriate for an article about a fringe theory to give more space to the explanation of the theory than it does to the explanation of the criticisms. That's OK. As long as we don't neglect the criticism, the article still take a neutral POV. Blueboar (talk) 14:14, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Establish notability... to do this, we must ensure that the theory is discussed by reliable secondary sources that are independent of the theory. If the only sources we can find are written by major adherents of the theory, then notability is not established (in which case we should not have an article on the theory) Assuming we have such sources....
 * 2) Explain the theory ... The first section of the article should explain/describe what the theory actually is. This section is likely to be primarily supported by sources written by proponents/adherents of the theory.  In the context of a description, this is appropriate. The POV of this section will (of necessity) lean towards the fringe viewpoint... that is OK as long as we phrase this description with attribution so the reader knows who is saying what.  NOTE: be careful not to give too much weight to "fringe within the fringe" sub-theories.  Stick to describing what the "majority within the fringe" believe.
 * 3) Explain the mainstream view... once you have what the theory actually says... then you can have a section to explain the criticisms of the theory. This is where you make it clear what the mainstream view is.  This section "balances" the first section.  That said, it should also be phrased with attribution, so (again) the reader knows who is saying what.
 * 4) Don't try to "prove" or "disprove/debunk" the theory... let the sources do that. Keep the article descriptive... laying out: "this is what proponents say... and this is what the mainstream says". That's true neutrality.
 * Nice - though I'd alter #3 to avoid specifying a criticism section. If the article can be broken down by major topics of the article, it may be better to weave the criticism into each of those sections.  Morphh   (talk) 14:20, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure... It could be structured that way... however, it makes it ore difficult to write. I have also found that your suggested structure tends to encourage editors to slip into a "point/counterpoint" mode... as fans of the theory try to add minor details (in an attempt to "prove" that the theory is accurate), which then need to be "debunked" by mainstream counter arguments.  This can make it more likely that "fringe of the fringe" points will be raised, which leads to more debates about whether sub-theory X, Y or Z should be mentioned. I find you end up with a tighter and ultimately more neutral article if you structure it the way I suggest.  But that's just my opinion. Blueboar (talk) 14:55, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Good points - you may be right. This might be a good addition to WP:FRINGE.   Morphh   (talk) 15:01, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Sounds like #4 goes against WP:VALID: "Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity." --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 15:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That's true in mainstream articles or on articles that cover a larger topic, but articles that specifically cover the viewpoint of a minority or fringe topic should not be a coatrack for an article on the majority viewpoint. I think the second paragraph of undue tries to make this point "In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space."  Morphh   (talk) 15:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Your first sentence doesn't make a lot of sense. What is the "article on the majority viewpoint" for Homeopathy? --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 15:18, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * In such cases, it would be the primary views presented in the larger topics of Medicine, Chemistry, Heath or in articles of ailments of which Homeopathy is argued to cure. Essentially, any article that is not specifically about Homeopathy should not present Homeopathy as if it were mainstream (or even presented at all), but an article on Homeopathy should cover itself sufficiently from all views, regardless of it's scientific validity.   Morphh   (talk) 15:31, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with this at all. The article on Homeopathy is the appropriate place to present the mainstream viewpoint on Homeopathy in detail. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 16:14, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't suggest it shouldn't. I just stated that it should cover the proponent views of Homeopathy in detail as well and that this is the only place it should detail them.  In other articles, Homeopathy should get little to no mention, but in an article on Homeopathy, it should get covered in detail expressing all majority and minority views on the subject, to include the majority and minority views of proponents.  Morphh   (talk) 16:21, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * So we're back to "articles that specifically cover the viewpoint of a minority or fringe topic should not be a coatrack for an article on the majority viewpoint" making little sense. Detailing why mainstream science views Homeopathy with skepticism is not a coatrack. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 16:28, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Because the main discussion was about treating a fringe topic as a tiny minority viewpoint in the article on the fringe topic. Homeopathy should not be treated as a tiny minority viewpoint for the purposes of WEIGHT in an article on Homeopathy.  In this article, the fringe viewpoint should be given sufficient weight to cover the topic in detail.  Morphh   (talk) 16:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Go into detail, fine. But content should very clearly reflect this is a fringe theory and include mainstream views on such details. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 16:41, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Correct - as described by UNDUE:""In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space. However, these pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view. In addition, the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained.""


 * Essentially, describing Homeopathy (as viewed by it's proponents) is significant and important to the topic and that viewpoint should not be excluded strictly due to it's relative weight as a proportion to the prominence in reliable sources. As if we went solely by weight in proportion, the fringe viewpoint would get little to no coverage in an article meant to cover those views.   Morphh   (talk) 16:55, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think people are confusing due weight and due space. In an article that is about a fringe view, it is appropriate to give more article space to explaining what the fringe view actually is.  That is (in the context of the article topic) due space.  Due weight, on the other hand, can often be achieved by including a short paragraph (or even a single sentence) makes it clear that "mainstream scientists/historians/etc think all of this is bullshit".  There is no need to repeat "scientists think this is bullshit" in every paragraph.
 * To you all an example of a very good, neutrally written, article about a fringe topic... I suggest that you see our article on Alchemy. The article makes it clear that the modern scientific community thinks alchemy is pseudoscientific BS... yet the article does not give equal space to that mainstream view. The bulk of the article is focused on explaining what alchemy is (in both a historical and modern context)... yet the reader is never mislead into thinking that alchemy is in any way accepted by the modern scientific community. The article gives due space to the topic, without giving undue weight to the fringe viewpoint.  Or to phrase that in another way... the gives due weight to a fringe topic, without giving undue space to the mainstream view. Blueboar (talk) 13:36, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * There's a difference here. Topics like Alchemy and Flat Earth have no (or almost no) modern day proponents. Topics like Homeopathy do have a significant modern day following and currently make claims that are either refuted by or not proven by science. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 14:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * So what? It isn't the job of an encyclopedia to "prove" or "debunk" beliefs... our job is primarily to explain what the beliefs are.  I'm not saying that we should ignore the mainstream viewpoint, or present the beliefs of the homeopaths  as if they were accepted.  Of course we should mention that scientific consensus is that homeopathy is so much bullshit.  But we can make that viewpoint clear (and give it due weight) without giving it equal article space.  Indeed, all that is really needed is a short paragraph saying (effectively) "the consensus of the scientific community is that all the claims made by propnents are so much BS". Again, due weight is not the same as equal space. Blueboar (talk) 14:36, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * In a large, expansive article such as Homeopathy, we need to say more than just "mainstream science says it's BS" - we need to go into why science says that.  Achieving balance with explanations about staged dilutions and shaking, we need to mention avagadro's number.
 * There is also a problem with use of the words "majority" and "minority".  The number of people who believe in homeopathy by far exceeds those who do not.  But we're not interested in what people believe so much as what the scientific evidence is.   So "majority" means the majority of acceptable reliable sources (in this case WP:MEDRS). SteveBaker (talk) 17:10, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That's were I disagree. A neutral article is one that avoids getting into "why" people hold the views they do... and sticks to explaining "that" they hold the views they do. More to the point...  That X holds a particular view is verifiable, and thus rarely OR.  Why they hold that view often not verifiable, and is frequently OR. Blueboar (talk) 17:35, 23 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Steve makes a valid and very important point. "Majority" and "minority" refer to reliable sources, not the general public.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:59, 23 October 2014 (UTC)


 * But the why is important. Otherwise it's just, "you have your facts and I have mine." --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 18:25, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No... the why isn't actually important. And it should never be you have your facts and I have mine... as soon as editors start to make it personal they are definitely no longer writing from a neutral point of view.  It should always be about what the sources (pro and con) say they believe.  Let them explain why they believe it.  All we have to do in note that they do believe it.  Blueboar (talk) 20:45, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That's not what I meant. The "you and I" doesn't refer to editors, it refers to sides of a topic (e.g. homeopathy adherents and the medical establishment). --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 20:55, 23 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Here's an apparently novel question: does anyone think it might be worthwhile, in a section entitled "How to write an article on fringe topics", to solicit input from editors who actually have experience writing articles on fringe topics? There is a wealth of experience available regarding what works and what doesn't work. MastCell Talk 19:49, 23 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Well... that's sort of why I started the section... to share my experience writing articles on fringe topics. Granted, the fringe topics that I focus on tend to be in the realm of pseudohistory and not pseudoscience... but the concept of how to write a good article should be the same no matter what the topic. Blueboar (talk) 20:45, 23 October 2014 (UTC)


 * That's why I got "sucked into" this policy debate myself. I focus on religion articles, and particularly in a certain article about a certain somewhat "fringe" book called A Course in Miracles.  After Francis' recent change to the policy, I started finding various editors coming over to that article and totally "trashing" the article, taking out the voice of the book altogether, and replacing it with essentially negative "mainstream views of the book".  There was absolutely nothing left of the actual "voice of the book" in the article when they were done with it, and they used Francis' policy change ("the article must only reflect the mainstream view") to justify doing that.  I ended up even getting Jimbo to comment on what had happened in that article's talk page, and he agreed with me that something had gone very wrong.  But Francis.... even after pointing out what Jimbo had said about that article, couldn't see how his policy change had caused the trashing of the article.  I guess he had sort of identified himself with his policy change, I don't know.


 * I myself then probably over-identified with my own "just cause" of trying to fix this. It was only when user NeilN pointed out to me that I was over-reacting, that I realized he was right.  But...  sorry about the aside.  Now that the policy is back to where it was, I can finally feel safe to go back over to that article and begin fixing it, re-inserting the actual "voice of the book" without the fear of having all of my edits about the book being totally trashed according to "Majority View".  I haven't even bothered to edit that now "trashed article" for a few months, so bad were the "trashers of the article".  If you guys wanted to start a section about fringe articles, I'd be happy to try to contribute if asked. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 01:18, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Re. "the article must only reflect the mainstream view": this has nothing to do with the July 30 edit. Jimbo said nothing about that edit, nor did he say anything about the "mainstream view". The edit did not "change" anything (unless, as said, the prior version was inadvertently used as an escape to WP:V, WP:NOR and the remainder of WP:NPOV, which never was the intention of that policy section).
 * Really, I'm all for helping you out at the A Course in Miracles article, if your description of what went wrong there is correct. But it has nothing to do with the July 2014 clarification, or at least, should not have anything to do with that edit. I don't know who has been misreading the policy before and/or after the change. It doesn't speak about "majority view", not before and not after the change.
 * WP:BALASPS was never about minority and majority views of the general public, not before, and not after the July 2014 update, as also MastCell pointed out above, and I'm glad the July 2014 edit makes that clearer, to avoid all misunderstandings.
 * I think what went wrong at A Course in Miracles was some editors not accepting the book as a reliable source in the article about the book, but as said before (already in a section higher up on this page) this refers to another policy, i.e. WP:ABOUTSELF, not to WP:BALASPS. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:45, 24 October 2014 (UTC)


 * 1 + 2 (make sure the theory has coverage in reliable secondary sources and explain what it is) apply to all articles about theories. While it should be clear that the article is describing a view held by a small minority, I do not think that necessarily means we have to explain the majority view except where secondary sources on the fringe theory do so.  For example, we probably would not need to provide much information about why the view that Jesus was reincarnated as a Chinese woman in New York City is dismissed by the mainstream, but we should include the views of mainstream writers on the Kennedy assassination, 9/11 and moon landing hoax conspiracies, since writers have chosen to explain the weaknesses in their theories.  So that basically is following point 4.
 * I have no problem with using writings by proponents of theories as sources, provided they are reliable. If for example an article has been published in a peer-reviewed journal, then the editors have shown confidence in the writer's ability to get his or her facts right and the reviewers have checked the paper for accuracy and reasonableness.  But that of course only applies to some fringe theories, those held by a minority of scientists which conceivably could be tomorrrow's orthodoxy.  The best known fringe views however are irrational and their proponents use facts selectively or use discredited information to support their theories.  So their proponents cannot get published in reliable sources.
 * Then their are academic writers who publish papers in the academic press but also promote unsupportable views in non-academic publications. That causes problems because some editors say because the writer is an expert that he or she is a reliable source and therefore their fringe writings should be considered rs.
 * TFD (talk) 05:34, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, A Course in Miracles, the book itself, *is* a reliable source for the Wikipedia article on A Course in Miracles. This has nothing to do with mainstream and/or minority views, and also rather relates to WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:PRIMARY, than to WP:BALASPS. Yes, editorial discretion is probably needed too to find a good balance in the article, as also general guidelines on fringe topics are probably indispensable too. But this all falls under application of current policies and guidelines, which in no way need to be "re-invented", rehashed, or whatever. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:59, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * &rarr; see Talk:A Course in Miracles‎ --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:47, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It is a reliable primary source about itself. What is needed is a reliable secondary source.  In general primary sources should be avoided.  However if the editor wrote an article for a peer-reviewed journal explaining the views of the writer, then it would be a reliable secondary source, no different than if an opponent had written it.  But note how the publisher wrote require the article to be written.  "In the book, the author argues there is the voice of Jesus inside us all.  These views have attracted criticism because...."  not "There is the voice of Jesus inside us all." The first is a factual statement about an opinion.  The second is an opinion presented as a fact.  TFD (talk) 14:42, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Ultimately, that last comment is the key to writing neutral articles on all fringe topics. Present the reader with factual statements about various opinions that are held... don't present the opinions as if they were fact. Blueboar (talk) 15:00, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, no: a reliable source is a reliable source, whether it is a primary or a secondary source. When summarizing the content of a book, and there isn't a secondary source providing such summary, the primary source often suffises (within the constraints of WP:PRIMARY), and there's no need for a secondary source.
 * This is a popular misconception, but a misconception nonetheless. In most circumstances reliable secondary sources are preferred over reliable primary sources, but reliable secondary sources are not always needed. See my proposal at Template talk:Primary sources.
 * The other thing is the tone of a Wikipedia article. Articles should not be written from a "in universe" perspective, not for articles on fiction, not for any opinion, philosophy or religion related assertions, etc. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:48, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note that in some circumstances primary sources are even preferred over secondary sources. Let me give you an example: Instruction Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations with regard to Persons with Homosexual Tendencies in view of their Admission to the Seminary and to Holy Orders is a somewhat unwieldy name, so most reliable secondary sources would shorten it. As there is no consistency among these various shortcut names, Wikipedia uses the name as it is in the primary source. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:23, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Reversion of July 30 edit
Reverting the July 30 proposed policy change. As no evidence of a "clear consensus" on the July 30 edit could be found ocurring at the time of the edit, and as to this day there is no evidence of a "clear consensus" on this edit, per the stated policy that "policy changes should not be made without consensus" I therefore am now reverting the proposed policy change made without a clear consensus back to the earlier pre-proposal policy. (first posted 04:09, 23 October 2014 (UTC)), Last revised to remove discussion regarding good-faith Scott P. (talk) 07:07, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, there was nothing wrong with the July 2014 consensus. As noted in the thentime discussion, the edit was for all intents and purposes in line with https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Flyer22&curid=11230502&diff=616164474&oldid=616078534#Main_type_of_editing_style
 * Again, Consensus can change is a better approach than trying to "prove" I did something wrong at the time. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:12, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I had no idea this argument had been going on for so long. --John (talk) 06:28, 23 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't think that Francis Schonken made the edit in bad-faith. The Four Deuces (TFD), BullRangifer (Brangifer), I and Francis Schonken expressed concerns regarding people commonly misunderstanding what being neutral means on Wikipedia and therefore thinking that being WP:Neutral means treating the minority view with the same weight as the majority view. This is clear at Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Archive 47. For example, I recently addressed here (when replying to Srtª PiriLimPomPom, with Trystan weighing in afterward) and here (concerning a WP:Class assignment) that being neutral on Wikipedia means something entirely different than what it means in common discourse. I think that Francis Schonken was trying to help. Flyer22 (talk) 06:51, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I am glad to know that that was your sense of this. In that case, I will edit out that part above.  Thanks much for that Flyer22. Scott P. (talk) 06:59, 23 October 2014 (UTC)


 * For others, this is what Scottperry means; I was replying to that. Scottperry, per Talk page guidelines, when others have already replied to your post, it's usually best not to edit that post in a way that can take the replies to it out of context. In the future, consider striking the parts of the post you've changed your mind about, and then adding a new comment beside or underneath that. Flyer22 (talk) 07:13, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is true, and realizing the dilemma that I sort of created there, I did just try to clarify in the signature section that the stricken section had included discussion about "good faith". Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 07:19, 23 October 2014 (UTC)


 * By "striking," I mean what Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Own comments addresses; I don't mean removing the material. But I appreciate that, when you altered the aforementioned post, you noted that it was different than the original. Flyer22 (talk) 07:27, 23 October 2014 (UTC)


 * LOL to this, Francis Schonken. If we... If Wikipedia were that old... Flyer22 (talk) 07:36, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Caught red-handed! I knew it!! Someone with more than 30 years under their belt! :-) Scott P. (talk) 11:13, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I also believe the original edit Francis made was in good faith, but I find it improper that this version is being forced (edit war restored and page locked) when a majority disagrees with it and a consensus for the change in the July 2014 notification never existed.  The version that's been in the policy since 2010 should be reinstated while this is under review. WP:CONLEVEL applies here, which typically requires higher standard of participation and consensus for changes on policy pages.  The July edit did not contain such participation or discussion on the merits of the change and I don't consider this a minor edit, as I think it really changes the meaning and purpose of the section.  I'm not saying Francis did anything wrong (it was there for all to see), but now that objections have been raised (delayed as they may be), we should fall back to the long established consensus and give this further discussion.  Morphh   (talk) 13:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Really? Still trying to win this on "points" and not on content?
 * FYI: the first sentence of WP:CONLEVEL reads: "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale." Signs of such consensus on a wider scale, e.g.:
 * Note that for one of your remarks on the current content of the WP:BALASPS section I couldn't say "untrue!", so I started a new subsection about that below: . Let's see whether someone has a good idea on how to remedy that.
 * Well, currently there's no consensus on the previous version of the WP:BALASPS section, so it's not possible to revert to (another) no-consensus version. I'm also not too worried about the wider consensus of the ideas that led to the July 30 update to that section. Let's see whether we can find a better wording, with any imaginable wide & narrow consensus. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:29, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * There is a long established consensus on the prior version and twice as many editors prefer that version to your version in the current discussion, but you're already aware that I thought your reverts were improper for this particular case as I discussed on your talk page. I would have preferred more discussion on it.  I'm just letting everyone else know my thoughts on the matter.  Morphh   (talk) 13:42, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * ... and what would be your contribution to finding a new consensus, or is this about running around in circles about "we had once another consensus. And before that another. And before that maybe still another, that lasted for seconds, minutes, hours, days, weeks, months, years"? --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:51, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

9 July edit

 * I oppose this edit. The change seems intended to encourage a deletionist point of view, including multiple attempts to remove material, and rejection of article expansion in proportion to the number of sources available. Yet there is no deletionism when it comes to how the policy is handled -- this edit balloons it with irrelevant material, which is harmful to the cause of getting editors to actually read and follow the important parts. And showcasing "Mel Gibson DUI incident" in a core Wikipedia policy -- what kind of BLP practice is that???  It is also not clear what is being recommended -- specifically, does it oppose expanding the article with details about the election of the Pope (as if it is refuting a strawman that you have to use sources only about the one thing that occasioned the timing of their publication)?  My feeling is that it is meant to be read that way when we decide on it in the abstract, yet it will be used by professional deletionists (by which I mean, people who cannot be proved to work in paid PR/reputation management) to argue against the inclusion of any material they find politically inconvenient.  The whole thing is muddled, abusable instruction creep and needs to be stripped out. Wnt (talk) 12:21, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know how many of the ideas for this BALASPS section are still live, but I would like to say in general that I strongly disapprove of policies or interpretations thereof that encourage people to chop down sections of an article to an arbitrary length, rather than expanding the missing sections. Nor should NPOV be making any comment whatsoever on what is notable enough for a separate article; that's a different policy.  In general, when there is a wealth of reliable sources that permit an interested individual to expand a section to the point where it's "taking over the article", this is now a notable topic, and creating the new article to allow a WP:summary style reduction is the best way to preserve that work and fulfill Wikipedia's function.  But because sections will naturally tend to expand from the point where they are almost ready for a new article, therefore bulging at the seams, to one where they have been trimmed down to a summary of a separate article, it follows that there can be no fixed formula to dictate the relative length of each section.  Purely accidental considerations of the amount of work done and the overall article structure can greatly affect their length. Wnt (talk) 12:44, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That edit (9 July or July 9) was reverted 5 minutes later, then discussed at Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Archive 47. I see no need to rediscuss something that has not re-appeared in that form again. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

July 30 edit (continued)
made this objection regarding the 30 July change to the first sentence of the WP:BALASPS section (see above): Can we look at WP:BALASPS again from this angle? --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I actually like the "disproportionate to their significance to the article topic" language. It makes it clear that just because there is a brief flurry of news/blog-sphere coverage focused on some minor aspect of a broader topic this does not mean that we should give that minor aspect of the topic more weight. Blueboar (talk) 14:04, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * To me it doesn't become clear that that is meant until after reading the next sentence. As such, the part of the WP:BALASPS sentence in Morphhs quote above looks more like finding a balance between self-published/primary sources and third-party sources. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:13, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * What if we referenced WP:NOTEVERYTHING within reliable sources when discussing significance? In my view, I could have one or two sources that are very complete (detailed and covering all significant areas, such as biographies) then have 10 recent news articles that cover a particular event.  While the event should be well covered, it should not dominate 90% of the article.  The event's weight to it's significance to the overall topic should be considered.   Morphh   (talk) 16:07, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * My opinion would be to just delete the section for policy simplicity if the meaning of "significance to the article topic" was replace with "weight in reliable sources" as I don't see that it would offer any additional meaning to UNDUE. I'm open to other wording that might allow for both.   Morphh   (talk) 15:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

RFC - WP:BALASPS
This RFC is to help with determining if this edit to WP:BALASPS is preferred, discuss the merits, problems it might create or cures it might solve, and consider compromising alternative language. See prior discussion (Must all "fringe articles" now be weighted so as to implicitly "oppose" the fringe topic?) Morphh   (talk) 15:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Survey

 * Oppose, I think the edit contradicts the purpose of the section, which was intended to cover issues of WP:RECENT and advise editors to also consider the historical viewpoint for a topic when evaluating weight in sources. I find this particularly important for WP:BLP.  Sometimes we have to look beyond what pushes a media headline and equally weigh the retraction that appears a week later on page 6. Sometimes quantity doesn't equal quality and depth, and sometimes, while well sourced, recent news and material can be insignificant for the weight it would represent in the overall topic.  In my opinion, if we changed this policy to remove significance to the subject, the section would have little value and would just be repeating prior UNDUE material.  Morphh   (talk) 15:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment :
 * Support, I am not opposed to finding a better solution, but as is the edit is an improvement to the policy page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Support I agree with Jimbo. The edit clarifies existing policy; it does not change or alter the spirit of our current guidance. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:39, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Support, though I think the wording is a bit, er, wordy - to the extent that it can be borderline confusing in the double negative. Maybe something along the lines of "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, instead striving to treat each aspect in accordance with the body of reliable sources on the subject." clarifies a bit. Then again, I could be overthinking it. --Rachel.dicerbo (talk) 07:06, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Threaded discussion
, when you made the original edit on July 9, you included a couple examples, which I think were great examples of that policy's intent. But I think the change described here, that accompanied the examples, would negate the examples you provided and tell the user to do the exact opposite. Can you explain why that would not be the case and how it helps the reader come to the conclusion offered in those examples? Thanks Morphh   (talk) 14:29, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It's about the difference between the highly visible media, and the reliable sources as a whole. Because the media get flooded at a moment something remarkable happens, it's important to keep in mind there are probably a lot of prior sources, every bit reliable, that don't surface any more, for instance when limiting a search for sources to that day's internet.
 * The direction I'm thinking for the WP:BALASPS section is to point out that two types of sources can put Wikipedia content off-balance:
 * Self-published/primary sources, which also relate to the "in-universe" problem for the writing style sometimes. This is also particularily relevant for the fringe/no fringe issues. Involved policies: WP:PRIMARY (e.g. "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them"), and WP:ABOUTSELF/WP:BLPSELFPUB (for these last two policy sections most prominently the fifth and last point in the list). (I'm not speaking about using self-published/primary sources in articles where they're not allowed, that's already dealt with in those policies as such and doesn't relate to the balancing of aspects)
 * Ad-hoc sources that on a superficial level obfuscate the general focus(ses) of the underlying body of reliable sources. The two examples I added on July 9 were rather about that.
 * I think this should be clarified to help editors. That the "body of reliable sources" may (and often should) include self-published/primary and "ad hoc" sources, but these shouldn't disturbe the balance. (I added "and often should" thinking of Jimbo's "...the best and most reliable source for what a book says is the book itself" (same diff as for the one above the Jimbo quote in the !voting section above))
 * I just re-read WP:BALANCE and better understand your argument now that we're doubling something here in the already very long policy: I wouldn't mind those two sections being joined (again), if the points I made above are made somewhat more explicit (also keeping Flyer22's original K.I.S.S. remark in mind). --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:10, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I've been waiting to see the thoughts of other editors, but don't want to leave you waiting for a response. I don't see that the vision described here is getting across in the edit.  To me, this edit just repeats the first sentence of UNDUE of "proportion to the prominence", but the purpose as described by the examples and existing text in BALASPS was to say that in some cases, proportion to the prominence can be skewed, as you mention here.   I don't know that many users make a distinction between highly visible media and would just consider it the weight of the body of reliable sources. Instead of restating proportion to prominence, the section should help explain when one should restrain from using the "weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources". Significance to the topic, while perhaps a little vague (NPOV sometimes is), was one simple way to do that.  Morphh   (talk) 13:52, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Re. "I don't see that the vision described here is getting across in the edit." — indeed! That's why I fully support Jimbo's invitation not to stop with the July 30 edit. The July 30 edit was the bare minimum, just to avoid this would be perceived as an "exception" granted to fringe topics. That it was perceived thus, and that the edit was thus necessary (and at a fundamental level uncontested and no change to the policy) is illustrated by what happened in the early hours of this discussion above. But indeed, that edit wasn't really anything of much consequence yet and we should try to get our eyes on a further improvement. You know, I've never doubted that, when I pushed the "Save page" button back in July, I was weighing the net benefit of the energy that would go in it then, and didn't think it worth wile then, but now see there isn't much of an alternative than trying to get on the same page with all of you and go ahead with it. (Note, I didn't say "my page", maybe I need to change page, and I have no idea, not even remotely, whether this was something might have had in mind when he encouraged discussion and new participants in the discussion)
 * Note that if I had a concise wording for my above ideas, that would make them come across to any non-suspecting reader, I'd already proposed it or would have tried to edit the policy page accordingly...
 * That being said, "significance to the topic": no, it has been misused in that sense, see example I gave in the July talk page discussion. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:15, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Alternative wording
One of Francis's concerns was that the prior content suggested "finding a balance between self-published/primary sources and third-party sources". Here is a suggested alternative wording that I hope might address that concern but still maintain the purpose of BALASPS. Morphh  (talk) 16:17, 28 October 2014 (UTC) I'd could also see striking "should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but" and just leave it as "an article should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate..." if we want to consider brevity as I'm not sure it adds anything. Morphh  (talk) 16:25, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you completely misunderstood. Imho "finding a balance between self-published/primary sources and third-party sources" is a good thing. The previous version made that less clear. That's also why the July 30 edit was an improvement: the section gets more sense because of that. I think that would have been clear if the previous discussion we had about this wouldn't have been ignored as if it never happened.
 * Further, replacing "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject." by "When considering weight of encyclopedic content in the body of reliable sources, an article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." falls short of the ONLY objection made during the July 2014 discussion: "I prefer that we keep it simple..." (Flyer22). The alternative proposed by Morphh is not an improvement while it fails basic intelligibility for an average newbie and/or reader.
 * "When considering weight of encyclopedic content in the body of reliable sources, an article should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." ...still unpractical and convoluted wording that falls short of K.I.S.S. — still highlights that we're in the process of redoing a discussion that has been done. Recently. Still on this page in another section. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:03, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Further: I think I'm going to close this RfC when all the previous discussion we had about this (in the archive that led to the change; in the lengthy section above) needs to be redone from zero. We need to at least connect this to the previous discussion, take account of what people said there (even when they are elsewhere during this RfC) without needing to redo every argument that has been made. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:45, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I moved the discussion under the main thread, but renamed it to something more appropriate to the overall topic. I also simplified my proposal as mentioned in my other post.  I find it more legible then "with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject."  Morphh   (talk) 17:02, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The prior discussion was digressing and didn't address the edit. The majority that did comment on the edit, disapproved of it.  So I thought this was a way to circle around and regroup and focus the discussion, not to get lost in another sub-sub-thread.  Morphh   (talk) 17:09, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree, not all of it though, but maybe difficult to find. What do you think about what I wrote starting from above? --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:17, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't have an issue with it, though I would offer that in many articles a large portion may go to just describing the topic, which I don't see as pro or con. NPOV primarily covers opinions, so once the facts are described about The Theory of XYZ, you can present opinions regarding the belief or nonsense of it - those opinions may only make up 50% of the article.  Regarding the weight of that 50%, I would defer to the second paragraph of WP:DUE, which might also be in conflict to your proposal of WP:BALASPS.  Even though we make the mainstream view clear, sometimes we need to give a minority view (on an article about that view) a little more space as it's significant to the topic and should be covered in sufficient detail.    Morphh   (talk) 17:37, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that this is worthy of a fresh look with more people paying attention to it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:14, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

What I want here
Taking a step back, what is BALASPS supposed to accomplish? Well, the Wikipedia I want is one where if you summarize a bunch of sources and dutifully cite each one, that work will not be thrown away and will be reasonably accessible to the reader. Doesn't matter if they're fringe or common, primary or secondary, what country or language they're from, or if others agree with them; we want to keep the work. However, the highest-level article on a topic should look like it is a reasonable WP:summary style of an unlimited number of sources, without being skewed according to which sources the editors actually worked on. The way to get there, however, is not by fitting the article to a Procrustean bed where you discard good content outright. The way to get there is to split sections when you can -- acknowledging that when an abundance of reliable sources exist about one particular aspect of a topic, however fringe, it is by definition notable. Even so, since the transition between splitting a section and not splitting it is abrupt, and because some badly needed sections often have no work done on them at all, we can't expect the article to fully match the ideal. In such cases, tags for section expansion, or some other means of indicating deficiency of the most common POV, may be desirable to give the impression of boarding over the obvious gaps.

A source or viewpoint is never "fringe" in isolation. It is only "fringe" compared to another point of view. For example, creationism is a fringe view on evolution, yet the Bishop of Usher's dating scheme for a creationist timeline is a mainstream theory of creationism. Dealing with fringe material should never be a matter of exclusion, but of classification. "What article does this go under?" should be the question, not "is this too loopy to cover?"! Wnt (talk) 04:23, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I do not want this Wikipedia. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 12:33, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


 * For me there are valuable ideas in what Wnt writes, and I agree to most of it (not the conclusion though, which also doesn't seem to follow from what was written before).
 * However, I don't see where this fits in our current discussion on the WP:BALASPS section, even less which version of that section (existing, previous, proposed before or proposed here for the first time) this affects to. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:11, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The second paragraph isn't a conclusion, just a separate point. And I agree that the current discussion doesn't directly address this issue - yet it seems to have an indirect relationship.  The July 9 (I think) edit I referenced above was an example of how it could be explicitly involved, but every time people here talk about "balancing aspects" I think some people are picturing splitting material and others are picturing cutting it, so I don't think we're all on the same page. Wnt (talk) 13:31, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It is neither about "splitting" nor "cutting" every time I read the section. I never understood where these ideas came from, that's why so much of the previous discussion is lost on me. I see a relation of WP:BALASPS to the WP:Editorial discretion essay, meaning WP:BALASPS is one of the policy-level principles that governs what is explained there. But even that essay isn't about a split-or-cut dichotomy when I read it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:03, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite following - confusion between WP:BALANCE & WP:BALASPS? Morphh   (talk) 14:16, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * There's no edit to WP:BALANCE being discussed here.
 * At least this misunderstanding explains the "why" of some of the digressions above, which I didn't follow in detail (I must admit). --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:19, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm speaking of the paragraph with BALASPS beside it. The use and abuse of that text to delete information seems common and obvious. Wnt (talk) 11:03, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Neutral and proportionate point of view
I realize that proposing to rename a central policy of Wikipedia may be quixotic. However there are real, practical problems stemming from the present name. When someone has the "everything must be neutral" frame of mind, s/he often entirely misses how weight and proportionality are essential to NPOV, even after being asked directly to re-read the policy. George Lakoff has written about how ideas "bounce off" a person's mind when they conflict with already-held views (e.g. "everything must be neutral").

If the solution is not renaming, then at least there should be some brainstorming, I think. I have proposed naming it the neutral and proportionate point of view for reasons explained in this essay, which others are free to modify.

Manul 20:45, 28 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Manul, that being neutral on Wikipedia does not mean what being neutral means in common discourse, and that the title of the WP:Neutral policy should perhaps reflect this, has been addressed before; see Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Archive 47. The Four Deuces (TFD), BullRangifer (Brangifer), Francis Schonken and I took part in that relatively small discussion. If you want wider input, you should add a WP:Requested move template to the top of your post above, or a create a subsection for that template and be brief in the description, and then advertise the discussion at related pages, such as the WP:Village pump. Flyer22 (talk) 05:55, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * As a related comment, I admit that I'm somewhat put off by the 'This policy is nonnegotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editor consensus' bit at the end of the lead. While this is certainly true, it is equally true for WP:V and WP:OR, and in fact the nature of WP:NPOV incorporates those two (in that relying on an unverifiable source or putting original research in Wikipedia is by definition also a violation of WP:NPOV).  Stating that NPOV is non-negotiable without that clarification could give inexperienced users the impression that when they believe WP:NPOV and WP:OR or WP:V to be in conflict, WP:NPOV takes precedence.  (To the point where I could easily see people citing that line and saying "yes, everyone else on this page says that what I'm trying to add to this article is unverifiable original research, but I believe leaving it out is a violation of WP:NPOV, and that means that your consensus that it violates WP:OR and WP:V is meaningless because NPOV takes precedence and can't be overridden by consensus!") --Aquillion (talk) 03:52, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * , since renaming a central policy of Wikipedia is a rather extraordinary thing, I figured I would get feedback here first. I notice you have written about the same issue. Even limited feedback would be helpful before proceeding. So ... "the neutral and proportionate point of view" ... what do you think? Manul ~ talk 20:18, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

All Sources Have Bias
Regarding this diff, how can you demonstrate that a source has no bias? There is no such thing as an unbiased source. Every piece of text created by a human is written because that human has an opinion that he/she feels must be expressed. Biases are not necessarily wrong or misguided. For instance, you are biased to believe the Theory of Gravity because you have never gone flying off the face of the planet, because perhaps you have seen experiments that produce data that numerically fits the equations of the Theory, and because plenty of people you respect and trust have told you it is true. However, this remains a bias (i.e. if a random person claimed to have disproven the The Theory of Gravity, you would reflexively find it difficult to take that person seriously, even before seeing their data). The entirety of the scientific endeavor is a mission to establish biases that are rationally-rooted in hard data, logical argument, and the reputations of the investigators. Even in the most reliable of sources, these biases can occasionally be misplaced, so it is important to recognize that nobody's judgement of neutrality is absolutely perfect.

Especially in the case of journalism, biases can even be reflected in the choice of what pieces of information to include or even what to not write. In this sense, it is impossible for any piece of writing to not reflect some sort of bias. For instance, the editorial choice of a newspaper to do an interview with [electoral candidate X] but not [electoral candidate Y] reflects an inherent bias towards diverting attention to [electoral candidate X], no matter how "neutral" the questions asked are. If that media source supports [electoral candidate X], they may omit any difficult questions that would reflect this candidate's failures. If the media source opposes [electoral candidate X], they may neglect to ask any questions that would reflect this candidate's successes.

The point is, all sources have a bias that reflects the consensus beliefs of its authors and editors. There is no such thing as a perfectly neutral source. Even Wikipedia, with millions of peer-reviewing editors and an explicit focus on neutrality, ends up with segments of text that are easily recognizable (by one group or another) as biased. The inherently omnipresent nature of bias should be reflected in this article, rather than implying that there are biased sources and unbiased sources. Merely suggesting that unbiased sources exist harms the Wikipedia project by encouraging a bias against sources that are more honest about their own bias, in favor of sources that fraudulently present their own bias as the indisputable "neutral" point of view. TBSchemer (talk) 18:02, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This edit waters down the intent of the sentence and is untrue. Obvious example: sports statistics. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 20:25, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There, the question is a matter of whose sports statistics are being reported, and whose are not. For instance, reporting statistics from NFL players, but not from players in any of the many other American football leagues reflects a bias in favor of the NFL. That doesn't mean it's an unreasonable bias. But it is a bias, nonetheless. TBSchemer (talk) 21:27, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a frankly ridiculous argument. I'm not talking about systematic bias where baseball may have more articles than cricket. The MLB site is an unbiased site from which a MLB player's stats can be sourced. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 21:51, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Imagine, if you will, a hypothetical debate between editors about the player with the highest batting average. The MLB site lists only MLB players, and claims that an MLB player has the highest batting average in professional baseball. However, another smaller professional league has a player with a higher batting average, and their own site reports this. One group of editors claims that the MLB site is unbiased, and refuses to accept article edits containing statistics from the smaller league. Another group argues the reverse. However, isn't it important to recognize that each league has a bias to emphasize the importance of their own players? This is the sort of understanding that would encourage editors to compromise by including the claims from both leagues in the article, with proper attributions. TBSchemer (talk) 22:48, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, you wrote without qualification, "There is no such thing as an unbiased source." Is the MLB site an unbiased site for sourcing a MLB player's stats? Yes or no? --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 22:52, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * TBSchemer, I disagree, and have reverted again. It's silly, for example, to state that sources are biased for reporting a scientific or medical fact. To me, reporting on facts are not a bias. Many sources simply report the facts, no matter if the source is biased in how it decided to present the information; and by "biased" in this context, I mean a source deciding how much of the fact to report on or something similar. Stating that a celebrity got married, for another example, is not biased reporting unless one wants to state that it's biased that the source decided to report on that matter. I don't see how your text is needed. If I hadn't missed your above post, I would have replied earlier. As for why others had not yet replied (noted in your revert of me): Well, your above post is three decent-sized paragraphs long, and such long posts are commonly ignored...even on policy talk pages; WP:Too long; didn't read is real. Flyer22 (talk) 20:32, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not offended by the delay in discussion. I'm just glad that we have the opportunity to discuss the change now.
 * The question of what is and isn't a fact, and which facts deserve reporting is a matter of bias. I used the example of the Theory of Gravity as an example of how a scientific fact can be held with bias (again, that doesn't necessarily mean the bias is misplaced). Another example more related to the ongoing scientific process is how scientists are generally biased to believe their own work is correct and impactful. Their careers depend on it, so scientists have a tendency to hype up the importance of their work. University press-release offices also have an interest in that bias, and this is how we end up with new popular science articles every other week of the form, "X, the New Superfood!" or "Y, the Cure for Cancer?" Again, this sort of bias isn't always misplaced, but this is why we have peer-review in the scientific process. The idea is that hopefully, the biases of the reviewers will cancel out some of the biases of the researchers, and you end up with an ultimately less-biased publication. However, this process certainly is not perfect, and biases shared between all the authors and reviewers will pass through unscathed.
 * This is why I think it's important to emphasize that the more perspectives you have on content (such as in Wikipedia's "consensus" process), the less-biased the content becomes. But no source is ever entirely unbiased. Even sources that have internal review mechanisms have biases that are shared amongst their editors (example: any news establishment). TBSchemer (talk) 21:23, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that it is important to have multiple perspectives. I disagree with changing the policy to state that there are no unbiased sources, which, as Flyer22 states, is not correct.  The rewording of the policy that TBSchemer proposes is well-meant but waters it down.  I would suggest that any change to this fundamental part of the wording of the policy should be done only by consensus via the Requests for Comments process.  I do not plan to publish the RFC because I think that the wording is all right, but I will go along with the community.  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * This change seems based on a fundamentally faulty and misguided understanding of what bias is. (The theory-of-gravity example, for instance, describes Bayesian updating&mdash;a rational and empirically sound cognitive approach&mdash;rather than "bias"). More to the point, the issue is handled inartfully here. The question isn't really one of bias, but one of attempted objectivity. Some sources present, or aspire to present, an objective viewpoint (these include the reputable scientific literature and high-quality news media). Other sources make no pretense of objectivity (these include agenda-driven blogs and websites, and partisan publications). This distinction is an important one, and we shouldn't dismiss it with a glib phrase about the universality of bias. Finally, from a practical perspective, the proposed change will (either inadvertently or by design) open the floodgates to a wave of false-equivalency claims and crappy sources (as in "the New York Times is no better than ufo-sightings.com, because ALL SOURCES ARE BIASED!"). MastCell Talk 22:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well said. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 22:47, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Biases are not necessarily inherently irrational. Biases do come about through Bayesian updating with differing inputs (everyone has their own experiences) and differing probability estimates (which are rooted in prior biases). The refusal to consider alternative points of view is, by definition, a bias, no matter how rationally that perspective came about. Again, biases aren't always wrong. If we didn't have any biases, then we would be overwhelmed by the need to evaluate every claim, no matter how minimal its chance of being true.
 * Hence, bias is not what makes a source good or bad. For instance, the New York Times is well-known to have biases, that are reflected in their news reporting as well as their editorial columns. It is not the degree or direction of bias that makes the New York Times often a good source, but the many other factors discussed in WP:Reliable.
 * Nevertheless, the New York Times is certainly not infallible, and it's important to recognize that other perspectives in other reliable sources exist and are not just overridden by the New York Times in all cases. It can be very disruptive to attempts to achieve consensus when editors are arguing over whether the the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal is more biased, when both present valid information through their own perspectives. One topic may be more objectively analyzed by the New York Times while the other is more objectively analyzed by the Wall Street Journal. The question is not a matter of who is more biased (as both sources have their own biases), but a question of whether each source has adhered to the highest standards of journalistic integrity in presenting that particular piece of content from their own perspective. I think there are plenty of components of WP:Reliable that we can point to in both of these newspapers that make them more acceptable as sources than ufo-sightings.com.
 * I agree with you that there is a difference between content which is meant to be presented as opinion and content which is meant to be presented as news, but I think we should try to find a way to reflect that without implying that some news reporting organizations are inherently unbiased. TBSchemer (talk) 00:02, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not see how we currently imply in any way that some news reporting organizations are inherently unbiased, or what it even means to be unbiased, or why we should care? The first sentence of this policy reads "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Would it really be a different sentence if it read "representing fairly and proportionately all significant views published by reliable sources? You're making a mountain of not even a molehill here. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 04:30, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

It can't be "proven" that all sources have a bias.

Conversely it can't be "proven" for a single source that it is ultimately bias-free.

As both (philosophical) contentions are irrelevant for the policy, this discussion is a time-sink without actual object.

So, oppose TBSchemer's proposed addition. Significant opposing views should be contained in article namespace, but all of that is currently carefully explained on the policy page without needing to have recourse to unsteady axiomas that have no practical effect on the matter. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:12, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * As a matter of navel gazing philosophy, I think it may be correct to say that all sources have bias... however as a practical matter, I would oppose the edit in question. It does not matter whether all sources have bias (or only some of them). The addition is irrelevant tothe entire point of the sentence, which is to make it clear that it is OK for sources to have a bias.  SOURCES do not have to be neutral on their topic.  The point of the sentence is to tell our editors: Even if you think a source is highly biased - you can not say "this source is biased" and disallow it. That is the point of saying:  "Biased sources are not inherently disallowed based on bias alone."  Blueboar (talk) 13:37, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

"Terrorist" and NPOV
Hello everyone, a conversation has started on Talk:1993 in South Africa about whether or not the term "terrorist" should be used when describing certain individuals or organisations. I would like to get your input on this as I feel it is an important discussion with regards to South African history articles in general especially ones that cover the anti-apartheid phase in the country's history.--Discott (talk) 17:45, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There is actually a guideline that refers to this question directly, and it would be reasonable for the discussion about South Africa to be guided by it. Please see WP:TERRORIST. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


 * In the specific disputed text, whether to add "insurgents" or "terrorists" after mentioning the Azanian People's Liberation Army, I would suggest using neither. TFD (talk) 22:39, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello, WP:TERRORIST and the fact that neither "insurgents" or "terrorists" are satisfactory terms has been mentioned. The best suggestion so far has been to simply say "members of XYZ did ABC".  There are some participants in this conversation who seem unsatisfied with this suggestion either arguing that the act = term (if it is a terrorist type event then it is committed by a terrorist) or the universal argument (that the term is used on pages such as September 11 therefore can be used elsewhere too).--Discott (talk) 08:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Need some help over on the Talk:Jesus page
Right now, another author and I are having a spirited discussion about whether to apply a POV tag to the "Life and Teachings of the New Testament" section of the Jesus article. The other author believes that this entire section has a Christian POV, and thus the tag is needed. But I am arguing that, while the New Testament itself is undoubtedly Christian POV, this section is simply a synopsis of the New Testament, and thus is not in and of itself POV. For evidence I am arguing that a sectarian summary of the New Testament would have very similar content, though of course sectarians would challenge the veracity of several of the claims in the New Testament. Additionally, I am arguing that (if we are to apply the other author's criteria), the section on Jewish, Islamic, Bahai, and Historical perspectives - and undoubtedly many others (perhaps every section in the article) - would also need POV tags. To be clear, the question is do we need a POV tag on NPOV summaries of clearly POV content? Jtrevor99 (talk) 19:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This is obviously an emotional topic that people care a lot about, so I second Jtrevor's request for some guidance. I'm the other editor that Jtrevor is referring to. I'd phrase the issue differently. Should we treat the topic the way the Christian Church has traditionally treated it (conflate the four canonical gospels into a combined narrative and give them roughly equal weight) or the way that mainstream, scholarly, tertiary sources do (treat the sources separately). Like Jtrevor, I'm looking for an NPOV treatment of this content. Unlike him, I think the current treatment is Christian POV. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 20:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi and . This page is mainly for discussing the NPOV policy itself and how the policy should be written. As noted in the 3rd box at the top of this talk page, a better place would be at the noticeboard, which I see a post has already been made at.
 * There's also plenty of other forums (other than the NPOV noticeboard) for resolving content disputes. They are listed at WP:CONTENTDISPUTE and WP:DRR. Stickee (talk) 00:34, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, and it has been posted at the NPOV noticeboard. But I think Jtrevor99 raises a very good question, and it strikes me that this is the right place to ask it: Do we need a POV tag on NPOV summaries of clearly POV content? StAnselm (talk) 03:13, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed with StAnselm. In my opinion this topic actually belongs in both categories: we need to resolve the dispute on this specific article, and we also need to clarify what the policy itself should be.  I've read the entirety of the NPOV through a couple of times, and I haven't extracted a clear-cut answer based on the policy.  But it's certainly possible I missed it. Jtrevor99 (talk) 04:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC) (Edit: I forgot to thank you for the links to the NPOV noticeboard and ContentDispute pages.  I wasn't aware of either of those, and also wasn't aware that a parallel conversation was already taking place on the noticeboard.  I'm also thankful that everyone involved in this discussion has remained civil and done their best to apply WP's policies despite the potentially inflammatory nature of this content.) Jtrevor99 (talk) 04:22, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for helping us out, . There may be an opportunity to clarify a point. Over the years I've noticed that some editors think that we don't need to follow reliable sources if the material we add is in line with the title of a page or section. In this case, editors say that they don't have to follow the examples set by scholarly sources when they present a synthesis of Jesus' life, as told in the New Testament. Since the title is "Jesus in the New Testament," they say that they can conflate the gospels into one story not because RSs do that (they don't) but because that's what the title of the section implies. The way I understand NPOV, every section should describe the topic the way reliable sources treat it. So our section about Jesus in the New Testament should describe the topic the way reliable, neutral, scholarly, tertiary sources do. No one should be able to dodge the NPOV requirements by pointing to a section's title. I've seen this tactic used on other contentious topics, such as evolutionary psychology, where certain editors would say that the "criticism" section should consist of criticism rather than describing the criticism (including what RSs say about the criticism). I've never seen anything official written up about this point, but maybe I just missed it. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 14:44, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Clarify due and undue weight
Does this policy means that if we have a reliable source A then we can not use it until we also have a reliable source saying B? // Liftarn (talk) 23:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If you know that a sizable proportion of the experts hold A, and that another sizable proportion hold B then you should add both. If B is not held by a sizable proportion of experts then there is no reason to include it. And if you know that A is only held by a minority position you should not add it, even if you have a source, if the majority position B is not already fully detailed. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  14:48, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * What is we have an article in a reliable saying A happened and no article criticising the reporting is yet found. Could we add that A happened? // Liftarn (talk)
 * I have found what seems to me to have been a rather significant change in NPOV policy that was made about 10 weeks ago without any consensus about the change having been agreed to beforehand on this talk page. I believe that this "unconsensused" policy change may have been the cause of some of the confusion discussed just above about WP:Due  This change to policy can be found: here.
 * While this July 30th policy change might at first seem to work OK for most articles, it seems to me that it does not apply well to articles about "fringe topics". As is typical policy for any such proposed changes to WP policy, I propose further discussion and attempting to minimally reach some type of a consensus here amongst us on this talk page, regarding this July 30th policy change, before accepting any such significant yet still "unconsensused" change to NPOV policy, simply due to the fact that nobody "caught" the change until now.  Scott P. (talk) 03:47, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that this change makes any difference at all. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Liftarn, it depends on the source and what it's saying. Are you dealing with a self-published source?  A primary source?  A non-independent source?  If the answer to any of those questions is "yes", then reporting its contents might be undue.
 * So imagine that some quack newsletter says that drinking gasoline cures cancer, on the grounds that the newsletter editor drank a teaspoon of gasoline as a kid and hasn't been diagnosed with cancer yet. Everyone agrees that this is a lousy source (self-published and primary) with garbage content.  The most you could say with a source like that is, "In 2014, Quacks R Us said that drinking gasoline cures cancer".  You don't need to bother finding a source that specifically refutes it, because you shouldn't include that anyway.
 * But often, for non-garbagey stuff, it really is better to wait for an independent, secondary source, either written by an expert or based on information gathered from experts, to look over Source A. In that case, you don't need to wait for "a reliable source saying B", but you do need to wait for a source that gives an opinion on Source A (which could be agreeing or disagreeing with it).  WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * What about an independent secondary source that is a trade paper, but not a peer-reviewed journal? // Liftarn (talk) 12:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Does this policy actually allow editors to offer opinion and speculation as matter-of-fact simply by virtue of popular opinion? The "undue weight" ruling seems to hang a lot on the vague term "viewpoint". Name-calling and conjecture about the motivations of others are "viewpoints". Can these be presented on Wikipedia as objective research if they are heavily linked in order to constitute "due weight"? SteveG700 (talk) 21:52, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Does this say that minority viewpoints should not be acknowledged, even if they could be correctSandKitty256 (talk) 15:58, 22 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.237.143.173 (talk)
 * Not quite... The policy certainly does not say minority viewpoints should never be acknowledged. Its much more nuanced than that.  The policy says that minority viewpoints should be given due weight... however, how much weight we should give a viewpoint depends on the specific viewpoint in question.  In some cases the answer to how much weight is "due" may be: "no weight at all". We have to look at the specific viewpoint... the specific article in which there is a desire to mention it, and a host of other things.  In other words, context matters. Blueboar (talk) 20:47, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Taxation is coercive by being involuntary; this is not commonly accepted due to the doublethink enabled through 12 years of indoctrination supported by taxation, which is what government's existence is dependent on. If the majority of people agreed that 2 + 2 = 5, would that still be worthwhile encyclopedic knowledge? Additionally, is not morality inherently a value statement and not neutral? Shyguy76767 (talk) 05:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

RfC of possible interest
The RfC underway at Talk:2015 University of Oklahoma Sigma Alpha Epsilon racism incident revolves in part around whether the language used by the article constitutes a POV issue, it might be good to get some editors from here to weight in on it. Artw (talk) 21:49, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

True NPOV is not possible due to Wikipedia's inherent bias
This may well have been covered before, and I'm sorry, but I'm not going to peruse all 47 archives just to find out. It seems worth mentioning somewhere (and maybe I just missed it) that true neutrality can never be achieved on Wikipedia simply due to its community of editors. Anytime you have one subgroup of a population (in this case, primarily affluent, primarily western, primarily male, primarily academic, primarily urban -- I could go on) you will have ingrained bias. There is little that can be done about it, of course, but it seems worthy of mention in this article. I realize a lot of work has been put in to attempt to counteract it, but it simply cannot be entirely eliminated. The best example I can give is to just start reading talk pages and RfC's. I realize those are not content, but they are where content originates. And they effectively make clear that the majority rules on Wikipedia -- reality has little bearing. Kwagoner (talk) 15:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * First, this isn't an article. It's a policy page.  What you are talking about would be more appropriate to mention in an article discussing the difficulties of achieving a neutral point of view (and yes it is difficult), but on a policy page, it would be a distraction.  The purpose of a policy page is to explain what our policy is.  In this case, our policy is to present material from a Neutral Point of View.  That may be difficult... We may not always achieve the goal of the policy... but it is still the policy never the less.  Something else to consider, mentioning that we don't always live up to the policy would give wikilawyers a "loophole" to exploit). Blueboar (talk) 16:24, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * We have Systemic bias and WikiProject Countering systemic bias. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:32, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * NPOV is not about treating subjects in a neutral way but treating reliable sources in a neutral way. That is certainly achievable.  The fact that the Wikipedia population is mostly affluent, western, male, academic, urban is not a problem because so are the authors of reliable sources.  TFD (talk) 16:33, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * When you think about "Neutrality" in editing, I think it is a sort of a "Holy Grail" of editing. (Please forgive me for this poor analogy that I am about to make.)  Assume that there is an "ultimate truth" in the universe.  Now also imagine that there is also a matching "ultimate point of view," which would be the view of one who was so fortunate as to know the "ultimate truth".  I think that this is what NPOV actually aims for.  It aims for a point of view that is totally objective, and therefore would probably be the best, the most natural, and the most accurate. Scott P. (talk) 12:27, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Not necessarily a good idea to determine weight by amount of published review articles.
The circumcision article on wikipedia has clearly given most weight to medical aspects, because most of the review articles are medical. This makes it appear like people generally are circumcising their kids because of medical reasons, which clearly isn't the case. Most people are circumcising their kids because of cultural fashion, tradition and/or religion. It would therefore be better to have a wikipedia article about circumcision that mainly focuses on cultural fashion, tradition and religion, rather than on medical aspects. The same might be true for other wikipedia articles, that have been "hijacked" by the medical community on wikipedia. 84.210.54.80 (talk) 20:10, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia summarizes accepted knowledge as contained in the best RS. If the aspect of a topic most covered in RS is the medical aspect, Wikipedia shall reflect that. In the case of circumcision, this is demonstrably the case. The suite of articles has ones dedicated to religious, historial and ethical aspects. Alexbrn talk 06:20, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hellow Alex and 84. I read this discussion as I tried to understand the issue more. In that talk of whether to prioritize the religious or medical reasons for circumcision in the main article, I feel it's correct to mention the medical aspect of circumcision first but for a different reason. That discussion started with saying there were more reliable sources pertaining to the medical aspect and to prove that they searched a science website. That seems a fallacy, why not search some religious websites or better yet read some religious historical books? But the number of sources is a bad reason for assigning priorities. What will most people that search wiki for the term "circumcision" be looking for. Hard to say. Which is more important, religion? Or medical. Whether god exists or not and whether he wants us to cut penises or not doesn't matter as much as the real world issue of whether this surgery can kill someone by mistake, whether it can hurt your sex life, whether it actually prevents HIV and STDS or not. So the answer to these questions, as best as they can be answered by reliable sources, should be prioritized. This link is in the main article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_male_circumcision and it should stay, if anyone is wondering about that topic they can click on it. Popish Plot (talk) 19:48, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The Wikipedia phrase, "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources" is a phrase which only "slipped into" Wikipedia Policy last summer.  I personally think that it is far too vague of a phrase, and in fact encourages a certain type of POV in articles.  In the case of this article regarding circumcision, it has apparently caused the editors over there to "drop the ball" as far as I can see.  The WHO clearly advocates for circumcision (using standard modern medical procedures) in all countries, yet the article fails to recognize this.  See the full Britannica article on circumcision  (though the recent WHO literature does focus on African countries, it in no way states that its recommendations re circumcision apply only to Africa).


 * Our editors at the circumcision article have overlooked that one almost central important fact. They became so locked into trying to figure out what the "proportion of the articles" is, that the article itself suffered.  Britannica editors are not forced to have to struggle with such a difficult phrase regarding the supposed "proportion of the articles".  I think that this very ill-defined phrase "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources" should again not be included in Wikipedia policy.  It limits Wikipedia to the POV's of the editors who are best at convincing others that they know whatever the supposed "proportion of articles" is.  The fact that 9 months later, editors are still "choking" on this one phrase here at the NPOV talk page is interesting.  Wikipedia policy should be restored to the more sane way it served us well its first 11 years. Scott P. (talk) 11:48, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The section that helped address this issue, "Balancing aspects", was reworded to make it fairly identical to "Due and undue weight", instead of being the common sense counter-balance it was intended to be. That debate took place in late 2014.  Several disagreed with the change, but there wasn't enough to revert it and we never came up with an alternative.  It's worth more discussion.   Morphh   (talk) 12:38, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Scottperry (Scott P.), you need to stop significantly changing the policy page, like you did here, without WP:Consensus. You tried this before, adding Jimbo material and whatnot, and were thoroughly rejected. Flyer22 (talk) 15:32, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Please feel welcome to explain your reasoning below. Allowing two differing viewpoints in the same article is a different topic.  Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 15:36, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view/Archive_48 --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 15:44, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

RfC at WikiProject Film
There's a discussion that partly concerns this policy at WT:FILM. More input is appreciated. Lapadite (talk) 13:58, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Is Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request an NPOV violation?
A proposal has been made at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request‎ to change the title of the article, Hillary Rodham Clinton to Hillary Clinton. It has now been asserted that this proposal "violates our neutrality policy". Would such a title change be an NPOV violation? bd2412 T 12:04, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Nope.  NPOV should not be an issue in that move request. Blueboar (talk) 13:19, 30 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Hillary Rodham Clinton the Great or Evil Witch Hillary Clinton would be a violation of NPOV. Neither of the proposed versions are. Carrite (talk) 18:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * In theory WP:NPOVN, rather than this page, would be the place to ask this question, although I'd recommend keeping the discussion at the move request page, which already has enough participants/eyes on it. Abecedare (talk) 20:49, 5 May 2015 (UTC)