Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Archive 57

Theological sources in the articles about history
I would like to understand what the policy says about theological sources (Biblical study sources) that describe, for example, the events that happened, or allegedly happened in I - II AD in East Mediterranean. There are tons of sources authored by scholars who have a degree in theology about Christ and similar topics, and the number of works authored by the scholars who see the same events from secular perspective is much smaller. Should the POV of theologists be considered a mainstream just based on the fact that their works are historically more numerous?--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:04, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The Bible and its Old Testament are a blend of history, folklore, beliefs, etc. A lot of the historical material is accurate and confirmed by other methods, so those bits are fair game. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:32, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The study of Christian origins/the ancient Israelites is not "theology", it is part of Religious studies, archaeology and history. "Theologians" do not work in these fields, although people with degrees in theology/divinity sometimes do, and some of them do teach at divinity schools/seminaries. To call them theologians misrepresents what they are, and is an ad hominem attack on their research.
 * To elaborate: we say at The Exodus that scholarly consensus is that it didn't happen as in the bible. This is the consensus among historians and archeologists, "theologians" have no say in the matter, although many of these same archaeologists and historians teach at divinity schools or may even be religious Jews and Christians. At Historicity of Jesus, we say that the view that Jesus did not exist is a fringe view, because the overwhelming consensus among historians is that Jesus existed. Again, this has nothing to do with theology or Christian belief. Paul, on the other hand, assumes that this scholarly consensus is false, allegedly because the scholarly consensus is among Christians. He has yet to provide any evidence of "secular" scholars who disagree, however, besides a few fringe figures like Richard Carrier, and is currently making the same baseless argument at Tacitus on Christ.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:32, 16 January 2020 (UTC)


 * First of all, I would be grateful if you stopped putting your words in my mouth. I am pretty capable of explaining what I think by myself.
 * Second, I am not discussing historicity of Jesus. My question is more general. It seems logical to expect that majority of sources that are directly or indirectly associated with some religious organisations, schools, or specialised religious institutions of higher education resemble, in some aspects, the research groups that conduct climate change studies sponsored by, e.g. Exxon Mobil. In other words, we can speak about some conflict of interest. Obviously, many biblical scholars are affected by religious doctrine, and, although some of them may be atheists or agnostics, the presence of a large amount of religious scholarships influenced by a religious doctrines creates a significant bias. And I am thinking about possible ways to compensate for that bias.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:22, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It's fairly clear what agenda you are following by doing so - how can anyone have this discussion without concrete examples? You continue to dismiss out of hand people you identify as "theologians" (which is incorrect) or Christians (which is absurd) without any evidence that this has any affect on their scholarship. The only other places you have made these arguments have been in attempts to deny the historicity of Jesus or else, most recently, to deny that Tacitus has anything to say about it because the scholars saying he does are "biased". You have provided no evidence that mainstream scholars who happen to be Christian have reached conslusions any different than anyone else's. Ask anyone who edits in this area: scholars following a non-mainstream, fundamentalist view are regularly removed from Wikipedia. There is no problem on Wikipedia with the POV of theologists be considered a mainstream just based on the fact that their works are historically more numerous. This is just your own POV.--Ermenrich (talk) 00:53, 17 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I am not sure speaking about your opponent's "agenda" is totally civil. My original post was inspired by this exchange. Obviously, my first post in that thread is a generalisation of that problem. Indeed, if we have a topic that is a core topic for theologians, so 100 authors with PhD in theology (50% of whom are devoted Christians) wrote 1 article each, and, at the same time, this topic is only marginally important to secular historians, so only 5 authors have written articles on that account, then, if we will treat all sources as having equal weight, then the opinion of non-theologians (the authors like Russel or Dawkins) becomes dramatically diluted by the works of theologians (both religious and agnostics). I want to know how our policy deals with that.
 * This question is general, and it has no relationship to our old dispute. Please, do not bring the dispute about some narrow topic to this general discussion.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Paul Siebert, I suspect you might be misusing the term "theological sources" - theologians discuss God, not history. Can you give us some examples of sources you might mean?Achar Sva (talk) 00:29, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Quite correct. Theology is the study of God, plain and simple.  It is arguably one of the oldest, if not the oldest, fields of study since the beginning of time.  It is not the study of religion or anything else, however perverted that definition has become over the years.  It is my belief that it must be kept separate from the concept of religion.  Religion is defined as a set of beliefs while theology is a study attempting to ascertain facts concerning the existence of God. --KitchM (talk) 14:29, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Does the NPOV tag require consensus before it is put up and what do you do when someone pulls it down for lack of consensus
I'm having trouble figuring out what to do in an NPOV tag situation. There's been about a month of discussion on a US political controversial page, Deep state in the United States. There's been about a month of back and forth on the topic with me (and others) putting up material and getting it reverted. I know, I know, par for the course in a lot of circumstances but here's the thing. The controversy is over material that is already on the page recognizing that there are non-conspiracy theories of the Deep State in the United States. A history section for the article has been squashed and recognition of the already included material in the lead paragraph has been squashed, and it's unlikely that any further development of non-conspiratorial Deep State theories will be accepted because the dominant side is saying this is only a page about the conspiracy theory even though that's not supported by the text or the RS footnotes. So I put up an NPOV tag and have been told by multiple editors that to put up such a tag would require consensus prior to it being put up. They quickly pulled it down. Since I can't find where consensus is a Wikipedia requirement for the NPOV tag, I figure either I need to get up to date on how to ask for sanctions or I need to work on the NPOV template page to clarify that consensus actually is a requirement. What would be a good next step? TMLutas (talk) 17:48, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * (Without looking at any specifics) It doesn't require consensus to be placed, but requires some consensus to remain otherwise drive-bag taggers could add "hostage" tags to articles and keep them there so long as the article displeased them. As a rule of thumb if there's significant push-back to placing the tag, back off. Such notices are of less importance than talk page discussion to resolve any issue in any case: that is where effort should be going. Alexbrn (talk) 17:57, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll stand corrected of there's guideline somewhere that says otherwise, but IMO consensus is too high of a bar for retention of a tag.  To me requiring a consensus to remove it seems about right and also the normal practice. North8000 (talk) 18:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I was under the same impression but I was starting to wonder if I were the crazy one or I was being gaslighted. TMLutas (talk) 02:44, 13 May 2020 (UTC)


 * See also WP:NPOVN., see also WP:FORUMSHOP. Other than that, I'd wait for the outcome of Talk:Deep state in the United States – that is, without edit-warring over the tag. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * We ask editors to be bold, so no prior consensus is needed to add a tag. Afterwards, it's not something to edit war over, one way or another.  Follow WP:DR.—Bagumba (talk) 05:19, 13 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Template:POV has clear usage material. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:35, 13 May 2020 (UTC)


 * While placing the tag shouldn’t necessarily require a consensus, shouldn’t a tagger be required to actually note on the talk page what the neutrality issues are? I see a lot of NPOV tags around and sometimes I can figure it out pretty easily and sometimes I can’t figure out the problems at all. I would think that if someone feels the need to drop a tag out there but can’t be bothered to note their concerns the tag should just be removed. Just one way to clean up drive-by tagging by busybodies that can’t spend some time doing some actual work. TastyPoutine  talk (if you dare) 21:34, 24 June 2020 (UTC)


 * As Flyer says above. "Template:POV has clear usage material". I wish people would refer to it. It says among other things  The editor who adds the tag should discuss concerns on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies. In the absence of such a discussion, or where it remains unclear what the NPOV violation is, the tag may be removed by any editor. and The purpose of this group of templates is to attract editors with different viewpoints to edit articles that need additional insight. This template should not be used as a badge of shame. Do not use this template to "warn" readers about the article although that often appears to me exactly how it used, to flash a red "warning" sign indicating "Someone thinks this article is no good." Re removal You may remove this template whenever any one of the following is true:There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved.It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given.the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.
 * Take it to the NPOV Noticeboard if there is difficulty.Smeat75 (talk) 23:12, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Request for Comment about descriptions of reputation in the ledes of articles about colleges and universities
A Request for Comments has been opened at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Higher education asking the following question: How should the ledes of articles about colleges and universities describe the general reputation, prestige, or relative ranking(s) of the institution? Your participation and input would be greatly appreciated! ElKevbo (talk) 03:59, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Please note that this discussion may impact WP:SUBJECTIVE. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:44, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Use of "controversial" in the lead and beyond references to people in WP:LABEL. Dispute at the Blanchard's transsexualism typology article.
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Blanchard's transsexualism typology. A permalink for it is here. The discussion concerns not only whether or not "controversial" should be used in the first (lead) sentence of the article, but also whether or not "controversial" applies beyond references to people in WP:LABEL. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:12, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This should probably be at WP:NPOVN. Alexbrn (talk) 06:02, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , it's incredibly controversial. Thios is one of the cases where the word is unambiguously correct. Guy (help!) 11:56, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Alexbrn, yeah, I know about alerting that noticeboard. And I do alert that noticeboard to things at times, but that noticeboard is usually awfully slow. Always has a backlog. Posts there are ignored more than posts are ignored here, and (as seen above and in the archives), this talk page is used at times to ask for opinions on a WP:Neutral matter happening at an article. Anyway, that discussion is now closed, and more opinions on it aren't needed.


 * JzG, I'm aware that the typology is very controversial, especially within the transgender community. We've talked about that before. But I (like others who have commented on the talk page about it) disagree with starting off the lead sentence with the word controversial. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:49, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

NPOV quiz for new users
Per the discussion here, I've started work on a quiz for the new editor tutorial that asks editors to identify examples of neutral/non-neutral passages. The half-finished draft is at Help:Introduction to policies and guidelines/neutrality quiz — if anyone is interested in contributing, I'd appreciate a second pair of eyes to help refine the questions/explanations and add a few more. (If it's more up your alley, the draft of the reliable sources quiz here also needs some more work.) Thanks, &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 23:37, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * As an update, the quiz is finished enough that I've made it live for the tutorial. Feedback would still be welcome if anyone wants, though, and the reliable sources quiz still needs writing. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 01:10, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Move request discussion: Title for the Suicide of Kurt Cobain article
Opinions are needed on the following: Talk:Suicide of Kurt Cobain/Archive 1. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:44, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Missing Image
The file File:Verifiability and Neutral point of view (Common Craft)-en.ogv is the most-used non-existent image on Wikipedia. Can anyone reupload it? TheThingy Talk 22:39, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Undermining WP:NPOV through Reliable sources/Noticeboard
WP:UNDUE demands covering major viewpoints published in reliable sources according to their weight. WP:BIASED, from the other hand, further explains that a reliable source does not ought to be "neutral, unbiased, or objective". These two parts of POV policy provide the possibility of using sources which are not part of the mainstream media, perhaps functioning to reduce the level of a massive systematic bias. However, if it would not be possible to use a state media for the state's POV, then editors have no option left but to use the POV of those mainstream sources. But there is a recent trend aimed at muting the voices that are out of the so-called mainstream media. These discussions are kinda removing the sources not matching the liberal-democrat standards for reliable sources. The trend started by acting against the Russian media, now is dealing with the Iranian outlets and probably will go to Chinese and Arab sources in near future. The long term consequence of such an approach would be nothing but an even stronger systematic bias.

However, if the community has changed its position on WP:UNDUE and WP:Biased, so that the media which run or support by nonliberal-democratic states are considered as unreliable sources even for representation of the position of those states, then this new consensus which undermines the current explicit terms of WP:NPOV should be discussed here. Finally, we need a broader consensus to remain the current policy and neglect those case by case RFCs or rewrite the policy. I mean, it is clear that the community should not follow an approach which clearly contradicts with the main policy, unless after revision of that policy.-- Seyyed(t-c) 05:07, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * RT and PressTV are state propaganda. This isn't about "liberal-democratic" it's about state propaganda. Levivich&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 06:06, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Exactly. According to the current policy, the state propaganda is necessary to narrate the state position from its own viewpoint.-- Seyyed(t-c) 08:38, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , you presuppose that certain points of view are available only in unreliable sources. That's rarely true. Normally, there are reliable sources that comment on the unreliable sources and provide context. We use those instead.
 * There are plenty of independent sources for Russia and Iran. Guy (help!) 11:55, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It is clear that if there is a better source, then we should use that one. However, most of the local issues does not cover by such international media. In addition, even when the issues are covered by those media, they usually narrate them from their own viewpoint. Thus this trend will lead to undermining the WP:UNDUE and replace it with this one "The viewpoint of reliable news source (based on reliberal democratic standards for media) is regarded as the main viewpoint and even the opposite viewpoint should be narrated from their views."-- Seyyed(t-c) 12:16, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , no, we don't drop our sourcing standards as needed in order to include stuff we want. That would be insane. Guy (help!) 15:02, 28 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Assuming that DUE has been met... Minority viewpoints that are contained only in questionable sources can be presented, but must be presented with (or hedged by) in-text attribution. Don’t say “Fearless Leader is the best” (and cite State Media)... instead say “According to State Media, Fearless Leader is the best” (and cite State Media).
 * Doing this shifts how we use the questionable source. from being used as an unreliable secondary source about Fearless Leader, it goes to being used as a reliable Primary source about what State Media’s view of Fearless Leader is (primary sources are considered reliable for statements about their own content). Blueboar (talk) 12:37, 28 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Curbing the use of state propaganda sources (i.e., state media that lacks editorial independence) brings us closer to NPOV, not further away from it. It is not correct to say that this policy "excludes important voices," nor is it correct to say that "state propaganda is necessary to narrate the state position." If a statement is noteworthy, it will be picked up by actually independent sources, which provide proper context, as noted. Examples are abundant. Reuters, for example, frequently reports on Iranian officials' comments, including those originally made to/channeled through state media (for example,  example 1; example 2; example 3. We use sources like those rather than unfiltered foreign propaganda. Neutralitytalk 22:44, 28 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I view WP:RS/N as a major noticeboard with a wide audience, and decisions made there by definition cannot be against policy, because decisions on what our policies and guidelines mean are made there. – King of ♥ ♦ ♣<b style="color:black"> ♠</b> 03:40, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

According to @user:JzG, the Consensus we have reached based on the current policies is this:
 *  The consensus is, as far as I can ascertain it, the traditional Wikipedia fudge. There are precedents for this in treatment of other government-controlled news organisations and other news sources with a long history of ideological bias (e.g RT, the Daily Mail). In general they are sources to be treated with caution and the default should be not to include: they may be acceptable, subject to prior consensus, for uncontroversial facts or as a reflection of the views of the government in question, but are rarely, if ever, appropriate for contentious claims where the ideology of the source may be in conflict with neutrality. It's especially important where the subject is a living person. It is wiser, overall, to avoid using these sources: genuinely significant information will generally be available from a less biased source and claims which are uncorroborated – especially if they have failed active attempts at corroboration – should be clearly identified by attribution and certainly not treated as fact. Guy (Help!) 07:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC) 

There is another consensus which contradicts with the former one:
 * There is general consensus that RT is an unreliable source for Wikipedia content, and that it publishes false or fabricated information and should be deprecated along the lines of the Daily Mail. MastCell Talk 19:03, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

However, if the position of the community has been changed, then it should be mentioned in the policy. -- Seyyed(t-c) 06:47, 29 July 2020 (UTC)


 * OK. Then please clarify in the policy or guideline that the wikipedia community has changed its position and at present, there is a consensus about total restriction on usage of the sources which promote state propaganda.-- Seyyed(t-c) 07:01, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , the two statements are not in tension. These are unreliable sources, but can be included if there is a pressing need and unambiguous consensus. But the bar is high, because they are unreliable. Even an accurate story will be wrapped around with propaganda. We have a small number of citations to Breitbart, for example, but this is done with care and only by exception. Guy (help!) 08:09, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It is clear that considering the source as deprecated» is more harsh than what you conclude in 2015 as there is written in Effects of deprecation. -- Seyyed(t-c) 08:46, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , the effect of deprecation depends on how shitty the source is. Sources that spread conspiracy theories are handled with more prejudice than those which are merely unreliable. It's also true that five years of experience have shown that we have to be more blunt with people who don't really get the whole concept, and choose to interpret cautious language as a green light to include a shitty source because ti says a thing they think needs saying. Guy (help!) 09:00, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * If we notice to several coups which are guided or carried out by CIA such as 1953 Iranian coup d'état, 1954 Guatemalan coup d'état and 1973 Chilean coup d'état as well as what has done to justify Iraq war and what is done by the US President at present, is it strange that a news source believe in a system for conspiracy? Is it justifiable and neutral to mute opposite voices? Do the mainstream sources cover all aspects of reality? (For example the real number of Casualties of 2020 Iranian attack on U.S. forces in Iraq?) However, if the community has reached the consensus to mute non main stream sources, I just want to clarify it in the this policy.-- Seyyed(t-c) 09:41, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopaedia. Mainstream is the opposite of fringe. But these sources were not deprecated for not being mainstream, they were deprecated for not being truthful. Including state sponsored propaganda to provide criticism of events that are already the subject of substantial scholarly criticism is completely unnecessary and actually degrades the articles – bad faith state actors are worse than Randy from Boise. Guy (help!) 10:16, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Nobody is saying that all pro-Iranian government sources should be deprecated, as I noted in the RSN discussion there are plenty of other English language Iranian based sources, including Islamic Republic News Agency, AhlulBayt News Agency (ABNA), Tasnim News Agency, Fars News Agency and Iran Press, many of which are closely alligned to the Iranian goverment and can be used in the place of Press TV, In the same way TASS can be used for the voice of the Russian government instead of RT. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:40, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * What are the criteria?-- Seyyed(t-c) 17:46, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Islamic Republic News Agency is a direct organ of the Iranian Govt and is therefore equivalent to Press TV, and can definitely be used as a replacement. Is there anything valuable from Press TV that isn't covered by IRNA? Hemiauchenia (talk)


 * WP:NPOV says "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 editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." If the views are only presented in a non-reliable, state propaganda source, then they should not be included, and by definition that is not a WP:NPOV violation. For the same reason, we should not cite Nazi propaganda directly, instead using scholarly sources that discuss it. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  21:12, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Let's clarify the situations. 1- If there are substantial scholarly writings then we do not use weak sources. Even in such cases we do not use main stream news media. Because scholarly writing is more valuable. For example, we prefer to use Academic works instead of BBC to cover World War II. 2- For the current issues, there is not substantial scholarly writings, thus we use news media. In such cases if all of the viewpoints are covered by main stream news media, then we do not use other media to cover minority viewpoints. 3- There is a current event which is not covered by the unbiased or main stream media. For example, 2020 Iranian attack on U.S. forces in Iraq is an example for a current event that main stream media can not cover it comprehensively due to some restrictions by the authorities. In such cases truth is not clear. The governments of US and Iran, each one try to promote their own propaganda. Now, what should we do in this situation? 4- There are a lot of local events which are not important for international news media to cover comprehensively. This may happen for many events in Africa. What should we do in these cases.-- Seyyed(t-c) 04:55, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , the "situation" doesn't need clarifying. These are unreliable sources. We don't include them unless there is a compelling reason. The fact that they are the only source presenting a specific perspective will never be that compelling reason, because they are unreliable sources. If something is not covered in reliable mainstream sources, it has no place on Wikipedia. We are not a newspaper. You don't provide "balance" by introducing unreliable sources, that is false balance, and normally indicative of POV-pushing. If mainstream sources don't publish The Truth&trade; then we don't include The Truth&trade;, because it's probably not, you know, true. Guy (help!) 08:24, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Adding to that, my feeling it that "scholarly writings" aren't necessarily appropriate. The important thing is sources with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, providing an independent view. WP:NPOV gives good guidance. . . dave souza, talk 12:25, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Buidhe is correct. A balanced view is based on all reliable sources not all sources. No reliable sources = no need to cover. If an event is not adequately covered by reliable sources (e.g. if you're right about the 2020 Iranian attack) we remain silent rather than go to non-reliable sources. We're not a newspaper, and we can assume reliable sources will emerge in time. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:17, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

The WP:Biased says: ''Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering.  and WP:NPOV says: A common argument in a dispute about reliable sources is that one source is biased and so another source should be given preference. Some editors argue that biased sources should not be used because they introduce improper POV to an article. However, biased sources are not inherently disallowed based on bias alone, although other aspects of the source may make it invalid. Neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the editor's point of view. This does not mean any biased source must be used; it may well serve an article better to exclude the material altogether. ''

However, as it clear some people who participate in RFCs in Notice Board propose different understanding which we can paraphrase like this: ''There are some sources which are totally unreliable due to their political or ideological viewpoints like antisemitism. In other words, the reliability of a source depends on particular interpretation of Political correctness which is common in main stream media.'' -- Seyyed(t-c) 12:21, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Holocaust denial is not a viewpoint. You need to go to core policy (see WP:GEVAL) to understand that nonsense ideas are either (a) presented with a mainstream framing or, (b) not included at all. Alexbrn (talk) 12:42, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Apparently, there is a misunderstanding. I did not we add Holocaust denial can be added from those sources. I mean some wikipedians discredit the source totally, due to Holocaust denial. For example, if the source has such a viewpoint, does it affect its narration about Pakistan's election?!-- Seyyed(t-c) 15:47, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That where another core policy, WP:V, comes in. Readers must be able to see that citations used are to reliable sources. If the citation is to a source which is known to be howl-at-the-moon daft (because e.g. it promotes Holocaust denial), then WP:V is not satisfied. Of course, even whacky publications are "reliable" for their own pronouncements, but then WP:WEIGHT comes in: if such pronouncements are not covered in reputable secondary sources, then there is no WP:WEIGHT to them. Alexbrn (talk) 16:10, 1 August 2020 (UTC)


 * A general issue I have found with how NPOV and RS is editors do become far too focused on just what RSes say and perhaps forget the forest through the trees, though as many have said, we still have to be careful of what sourcing we can use. We don't have to be blind to what the whole of a problem or controversy is just because part of it isn't covered in RSes, even if that's FRINGE. For controversies that have had the test of time (decades), and coverage in academic sources to be readily disproven like flat-earth or Holocaust denial, this is where we don't have to worry about anything else. But for those fresher controversies that are still going or still yet "decided" in enough coverage by academics, instead our goal should simply be to document the controversy without trying to decide a winner, with the only stipulation being to apply WEIGHT to which side has more prevalence. And to this end, this might require dipping toes into weak or non-RSes to get statements if the RSes aren't giving sufficient coverage to that.
 * As a hypothetical and extreme example, we can take the way China is treating Hong Kong as a current controversy. If we stuck to RSes and ignored those run by Chinese-state owned media, the near-predominate view is that China is clearly trying to usurp the HK's autonomy and bring it back into China which every nation in the world sees as a crime. If we wrote our article and left it at that, without explaining any of China's rational for doing what it's doing, we'd be failing our NPOV mission. And as I said, if in this hypothetical if the only way to get that was from dippin7g into the state-run media, so be it. We'd simply add appropriate attribution for that, and use only just enough to establish those reasons. Obviously in the real situation, we don't have to do that (China's reasoning is well covered), but this is the type of thing that we need a bit of common sense for, at other cases. We are not so beholden to RSes to have only a tunnel view on what they say, we only want to keep as much of our information coming from RSes as possible, and only turn to non-RSes if that's necessary to complete a NPOV action. --M asem (t) 16:37, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it's interesting *that the "hypothetical and extreme example" doesn't shift the argument because "Obviously in the real situation, we don't have to do that". I suspect in reality this is always the case. Can any editor point to a real instance where not being able to use some ${shitty source} is harmful to the encyclopedia? Alexbrn (talk) 16:44, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * A case that I can attest to – but also why I also now soapbox on NOT#NEWS and RECENTISM and waiting some time before getting too deep with any type of opinion/analysis of a breaking controversy – was with Gamergate. Until about 6 months when things got really really ugly, there was at least apparently a side of the story that, from the 60,000 ft level, that appeared to say that part of the controversy was more than just "ethics in video game journalism" (but wholly unrelated to the BLP-related charges that were plaguing it). Points that would clarify why some parts were calling themselves part of a movement and had reasonable justification, but that were being mostly ignored because the other 90% of Gamergate at the start was going around harassing women and the media was deadset on that facet. You could go to weaker RSes and get their story points, which I had suggested early in the article development but this was solidly refused because both not RS and claims that it was against UNDUE. Now, hindsight, that part long since vanished, and the way sources looking back now seem best to describe that as a possible smokescreen for other factors, so at the end of the day, the fact it wasn't added was good.
 * That case gave me clarity of what we should be doing in nearly all similar controversies is to try to wait for the dust to settle before we get hands dirty on writing about who is right or wrong, and stick to the facts. If we have to describe the controversy's basis, we need to give some weight to both/all sides – not full blown opinion or analysis but enough of "A said this, B said that", and that type of brief summation should be possible through RSes (if those RSes are doing their jobs), but we need to be aware and not closed minded to the slim chance that a non-RS may be needed to source this type of statement. We always should try to use the RSes, and we should inform what we know what the non-RSes are saying so we can look for the RSes to include, which is key. We don't want to be a walled garden and pretend there is no worthwhile opinions that exist outside the body of RSes. It's basically an IAR-type situation this might come up, no change needed in any policy but there's that very very slim chance consensus may deem it required. --M asem (t) 17:04, 1 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Here's an actual example of how deprecating PressTV could harm NPOV ( and others). Last year Iran sanctioned the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, which our article describes as a neo-conservative and hawkish think tank. This was covered by the Atlantic and the Jerusalem Post, but compare their coverage with PressTV's:
 * Both sources only briefly cover why Iran sanctioned the group. The Atlantic agrees that FDD helped design some sanctions against Iran, but doesn't mention their devastating humanitarian impact. Only PressTV mentioned that the sanctions "have endangered the lives, health, and freedom of the Iranian people". (Numerous other sources would agree with PressTV on that "US Economic Sanctions Harm Iranians’ Right to Health", but it would be WP:SYNTH to use two sources to make a point).
 * Both mentioned that Iran implicitly threatened violence against the FDD, yet in the PressTv version the statement was "the Islamic Republic will resort to any legal and legitimate means to defend the 'fundamental' rights of its citizens in line with the norms of international law". Neither The Atlantic nor Jerusalem Post mentions that Iran is promising to following international law in this context.VR talk  14:29, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that example actually works against your argument. Nothing from the PressTV sources fit into the category of "accepted knowledge" we are meant to be reflecting. In the first case, we should use the "numerous" decent sources; in the second case the supposed "promise" of the Iranian regime is (knowing their record) just propaganda. Alexbrn (talk) 14:54, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * In the first case, we are prevented from using those "numerous" sources per WP:SYNTH. PressTV is the only source I found, in this context, that highlights the well known reality of US sanctions hurting Iranian people.
 * In the second case, you seem to be letting your personal views get in the way of neutrality. Here the Iranian government's statement contradicts allegations against them, and so it's pertinent for us to quote that part.VR talk  01:40, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, so if this claim is not covered by "numerous" sources, but by PressTV alone, it has no reliable source and shouldn't be relayed; same for the second example. What you are essentially arguing is "only this crap source says some things which aren't covered by reliable sources". So, by definition including these things would violate WP:NPOV, which requires that we mirror significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Alexbrn (talk) 05:20, 4 August 2020 (UTC)


 * @, he did not say either of those things that you said he did in your responses, and I honestly don't see how picking out two or three word phrases from an editors post and arguing against only those couple of words while ignoring the rest of what was said, and thereby misrepresenting the meaning of what they wrote can be anything other than bad faith.


 * What @ said can be summed up like this: There are numerous reliable sources that cover both A and B separately, but none that cover them both in the same article. PressTV is the only source that says Iran's action B was in part due to facts A (which by themselves are already well documented to reliable sources, but not in connexion with B). I hope that was explained clearly – if not, apologies.


 * On the second point – it sounds as if you're trying to make the case that if 'reliable sources' say 'Iran threatened violence', but do not report the actual words of said statement, which is available from PressTV but no other source, AND which, as it turns out, contain no such threat......then, Wikipedia practice ought to be to report false information/accusations – which are clearly shown to be so – for no other reason than that they are from 'RS'? are reliable sources permitted to report false information with impunity, by virtue of their most excellent reliability? Surely you did not honestly mean to say that... Firejuggler86 (talk) 12:27, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Please take care that this discussion is about the interpretation of this policy, therefor please move the what relates to Press TV case to Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Thank you.-- Seyyed(t-c) 08:24, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * PressTV is merely an example, and pertinent to this wider discussion. Alexbrn (talk) 08:35, 4 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I think the "Many Voices, One World" by MacBride would be clarifying here, which according to my understanding says mainstream media are mostly headquartered in the developed countries and hence don't pay as much attention as the developing countries should receive. That's why I fully concur with the idea that tending to use the mainstream media, without paying attention to what the rest say, would be against the NPOV. Needless to say that these so-called mainstream media have shown questionable performance throughout their histories (for this one may check the works like "Covering Islam: How the Media and the Experts Determine How We See the Rest of the World" by Edward W. Said – I think the title is itself indicative of the content, so I'm not going through the details). So, as Masem said, we should let other voices be heard under some circumstances. That's how the Wikipedia may (should?) enjoy the benefit of creating a balanced collection of viewpoints. Any more than necessary adherence to the words may be against the soul of the policy, i.e. adding all major viewpoints according to their weight. Finally, I agree that we are not in "a walled garden" and think this should be highlighted somewhere in the policy. Maybe it worth trying an RFC. -- M h hossein   talk 12:20, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * NPOV policy does not require us to reflect "mainstream media", but reliable sources. Which is why terrible sources like the Daily Mail (which in many senses is thoroughly "mainstream") are deprecated. Alexbrn (talk) 12:34, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Finally there would not be so much difference in the subsequent result. Btw, the first lines of NPOV: "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 editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." -- M h hossein   talk 13:50, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * For all purposes, our "reliable sources" covering current event are "mainstream media, less the tabloid journalism". Which, for purposes of trying to be reliable, is great, but as I am cautioning, can be poor at covering certain viewpoints in the world that are not fringe, with Islam being probably a good example. Not that smart news outlet have not worked to bring reporters with expertise in this area, but that only goes far; there are still far far more journalists that know how to maneuver and analyze Western politics than Islamic ones. And that's just a systematic bias, because these English-language sources are serving those audience. Arguably we (WPians) could be better by getting into the non-English reliable sources (which are allowed, no policy against those outside reliable translations) and build out, but this is rarely the step take; most article end when Google's English search results stop.
 * This is why I go back to my soapbox that it is far better that we do not get too far involved in trying to include the analysis and opinions on a fresh controversy where most of the NPOV issues will start to arise (which side has more WEIGHT, etc. ) and just report as best as we can the fundamental conflicts, the base claims of why the controversy exists, which if our RSes are truly good sources, should be stated this at the top and we shouldn't have to dig. Wait for academics or sources written in hindsight to help establish the analysis and opinion stages well after the controversy has died down. We should never have to go outside the RSes, but we can't be blind to what is outside (which I have seen argued at times), and we have to be prepared to a concensus-allowed IAR use of non-RS at times where it makes sense to logically complete the base picture of the core of the controversy if for some reason the RSes simply don't cover it, which I could see happening if it were sometime related to Islam, to something in central African countries, or the like where Western media simply don't have that knowledge set. --M asem (t) 14:11, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

MOS:GENDERID being used in place of WP:Article titles and for category arguments
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 20:46, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Asserting Objective Falsehoods vs Explaining Objective Falsehoods
In the last several years, a journalistic practice has emerged in which news analysis and spot news reports will assert false equivalencies or objective falsehoods rather than explain false equivalencies or objective falsehoods. For example – John Dow made the false claim that the sky is green. – instead of – John Dow claimed the sky is green. According to a 2010 report from NASA, the sky is blue. The blue coloring of the sky has also been described by other scientists, including Jane Smith and Jane Dow. This is a recent evolution in journalism responding to a political communications strategy by which an outrageous claim can be made and the journalist, rather than describing the outrage of the claim, is required to source the perspective of the other side, creating the impression that the outrageous claim is equal to the factual one. A less discussed reason has to do with the economic limitations of journalism, that is, it takes no resources to make an outrageous claim but significant resources to rapidly counter-explain such a claim. Without getting into the argument as to whether this is good journalism – because we are not a journalistic endeavor – I would like to briefly discuss whether this is good encyclopedia writing. This practice has crept into many of our articles. On WP we have never obligated ourselves to rapidly respond to evolving news stories and we have no space limitations on our articles. Should we, therefore, be asserting objective falsehoods or explaining objective falsehoods? On the one hand, we "go by what RS say," however, we also recognize a stylistic dissymmetry between journalistic writing and encyclopedic writing, as described in WP:NEWSSTYLE. I think we've reached a point where these two maxims have become incongruous insofar as this specific, recently popular, phrasing is concerned. I am not making any specific suggestion or proposal. This thread is merely to seek input and opinion. Chetsford (talk) 04:23, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If it's not clear, my preference is that we should start moving away from asserting falsehoods; falsehoods should, instead, be explained. For a person coming to WP seeking to find reliable information on a controversial topic, the use of this blunt and commanding language can be very off-putting and disincline them to consider underlying facts, undermining the very purpose of those who choose this phrasing. It creates the appearance of non-WP:NPOV and, even though it may not be POV, I believe it does our readers a disservice when even an appearance of partiality exists. It has the odor of WP:RGW when it is applied even though the conditions created by its use in newswriting don't exist here, as previously described. We should assume a basic level of intelligence in our readers and have the faith that they would be able to comprehend and identify a falsehood if it is clearly explained without us needing to assert it. I think this is consistent with our WP:PURPOSE. Chetsford (talk) 04:38, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , neither NPOV nor RGW applies when stating that bullshit is bullshit. I don't object to the idea of explaining why it's bullshit, but only after we say it is.
 * Your second formulation above frames "the sky is green" as a valid (or good faith or at least defensible) assertion contradicted by some people. It's not: it's bullshit. So either you need a better example, or you're falling for the false equivalency that has kept climate change denial and antivaccine activism alive for decades. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:02, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Your second formulation above frames "the sky is green" as a valid (or good faith or at least defensible) assertion contradicted by some people. It's not: it's bullshit. So either you need a better example, or you're falling for the false equivalency that has kept climate change denial and antivaccine activism alive for decades. It was intended to be a fantastical example only to avoid the potential that a real-world example might result in the discussion focusing on the example — instead of the underlying intent of question — and evolve into a series of denouncements about each other's intelligence/gullibility. Obviously that didn't work out as I'd hoped. Anyway, thanks for your feedback and input. Chetsford (talk) 06:57, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * We should always assert falsehood when described as such by the sources (and as far as I am aware, doing so has always been our practice and has always been required by our policies); I would strenuously oppose language like that in your second example, which feels weird, awkwardly-worded and WP:SYNTHy even when it isn't, and which gives the false claim more credence than it needs by presenting it as competing claims. More generally, the "competing claims" way of describing things is WP:FALSEBALANCE when the sources are unambiguous that a claim is false. I would go so far as to suggest a policy or guideline which specifically requires us to state the falsehood of a claim unambiguously, in the article text, ideally in the same sentence where the claim itself is presented, whenever the unanimous rejection of that claim among reliable sources is clear. Otherwise we run the risk of running afoul of WP:PROFRINGE by presenting a fringe position as a legitimate difference of opinion. I'll also note that (contrary to the slightly weird way you presented this as an either-or thing) we don't have to choose one or the other - we can, and, indeed, in most cases are required both unambiguously label fringe claims and to give the mainstream position more prominent, in-depth coverage.  This means that the correct way to cover the situation you described is something like John Dow falsely claimed the sky is green. According to a 2010 report from NASA, the sky is blue. The blue coloring of the sky has also been described by other scientists, including Jane Smith and Jane Dow.  --Aquillion (talk) 07:05, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Replicating the very dictatorial opressors agenda
By replicating the very dictatorial opressors agenda, for example the very dictatorial opressing Quranic text. The replicators instill fear and chaos into the non-muslims. Which makes the world less peaceful and sane. Who are the replicators of Quran then? Some wikipedia creators for example. Which is bad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.136.46.120 (talk) 15:47, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

|"There is no such things as objectivity"(?!)
That is not the case, and that fact was mathematically proven. Briefly, if two persons discuss some subject that is not a matter of taste (for example, "is the Moon made of blue cheese?"), and they agree to use only logical arguments, and they have no hidden agenda (i.e. they openly disclose all facts and considerations their arguments are based upon), they will inevitably come to some common agreement. Since majority of Wikipedia topics are not a matter of someone's taste, but are based on published reliable sources, the space for disagreement is very narrow. We can agree to disagree on what picture would be better to add to some article, but a situation when editors agree to disagree about interpretation of some source cannot be considered normal. At least, the title of that section must be changed to something less categorical, for example "Sometimes, objectivity is hard to achieve". Again, the current statement is factually incorrect.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:33, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it should be changed back. It wasn't endorsing that as true. The whole point was that that philosophical idea, which some do hold, has no relevance to Wikipedia. It's very relevant as it was, since it's a popular sentiment these days. Crossroads -talk- 21:39, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess it wasn't totally clear it wasn't endorsing the idea. But we should be very clear that the objection "objectivity does not exist" (sometimes phrased as something like "objectivity is a Western construct" or whatever) is not a flaw that needs to be fixed, but a misunderstanding of policy. Crossroads -talk- 21:51, 4 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Then let's think how to make it more clear. I understood the previous version of the policy as "there is no such thing as objectivity" is an indisputable premise, and the only think we can do is to stay neutral. I am not sure we need such postmodernist stuff in the policy.


 * I think we should use more cautious and less ambiguous wording in our policy.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:59, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I too think it should be changed back, as I have not witnessed the inevitability of editors coming to common agreement when a matter is disputed (and if it isn't they won't need to check WP:NPOV). Also I think that WP:WPEDIT applies -- this is a substantial change to a policy page so should be discussed on the talk page "first". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:13, 4 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Peter Gulutzan, you have not witnessed black holes either, but we know they do exist :). Of course, it is very hard to achieve objectivity, but that dies not mean we should stop trying. --Paul Siebert (talk) 02:51, 5 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Aumann's agreement theorem is unrelated to "objectivity". --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:34, 4 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Then you don't understand it.
 * 1. The theorem says


 * "if two people are genuine Bayesian rationalists with common priors, and if they each have common knowledge of their individual posterior probabilities, then their posteriors must be equal."


 * "posteriors must be equal" means that the posterior does not depend on the Bayesisan rationalists' personality, i.e. the lack of bias.
 * 2. "Objectivity" means lack of favoritism toward one side or another : freedom from bias.


 * 3. Therefore, objectivity directly and inevitably follows from Aumann's theorem.


 * QED.


 * In addition, a significant part of Wikipedia is devoted to science, and science is inseparable from objectivity. Note, my task is much simpler than yours: to prove that "there is no such a thing as objectivity" is wrong, I can provide just one single example. Here it is. All mathematicians agree that Fermat theorem is valid, and that is an objective truth. Look, I have already sustained my burden of evidence, so what I am saying is correct and what you are saying is wrong.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:49, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You dont understand the difference between rationality and objectivity. Suffice to say Aumann's is about the former, not the latter. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:55, 4 December 2020 (UTC)


 * No, I do. Per Aumann, rationality is a premise for objectivity. If rationally thinking persons A and B always come to equal conclusions, that means that conclusion does not depend on personality of these persons, so the objectivity is achieved.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:51, 5 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Maybe we could reword it as "Isn't there no such thing as objectivity?" Thus not seeming in any way to endorse it, but at the same time making clear that the claim that "objectivity is impossible and therefore the NPOV policy is invalid" has already been answered. Crossroads -talk- 23:11, 4 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I think the idea behind the FAQ was more like "Some people believe that..." rather than trying to make a statement about reality. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:50, 4 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:18, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Actually, my major objection was caused by the FAQ statement "There's no such thing as objectivity. Everybody with any philosophical sophistication knows that," which is a pure postmodernist nonsense. I replaced it with what the policy says (which is non-controversial), and added quotation marks to "There is no such things as objectivity", which, imo, makes clear that that is not the statement of fact, but more like "some people believe" (as |WhatamIdoing noted). I hope that resolves the problem, at least, temporarily.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:48, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * To say objectivity exists is, as Paul Siebert notes, mathematically provable, however, the social constructionist view of reality — which has more or less become the consensus on the sociological nature of reality — posits humans are unable to experience objective reality. Since this is an encyclopedia which will only be read — and edited by — human beings, I would be strongly opposed to making this suggested change. If, at some point in the future, non-humans begin using WP then maybe we could revisit this question if needed to account for any cognitive differences between our species. Chetsford (talk) 20:25, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Deletion
I think this article should be deleted. Wikipedia has no right to claim that it is NPOV, as it is extremely ideologically biased to the left. This rule is a joke. The Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger has even said so. NorfolkIsland123 (talk) 17:47, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Presumably, the above rant refers to this comment the user made at Talk:Donald Trump. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:12, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

ATTRIBUTEPOV
WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV says that "biased statements of opinion" must be qualified with WP:INTEXT attribution. I don't think that we want to say that all opinions must be attributed to specific sources, but I wonder whether this is the right place to draw the line. Is the problem area bias (who decides whether my opinion is biased?), or is the problem contentiousness? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * IMO it is a pretty mild requirement and so when in doubt (or when questioned) it should be done. I think that the bigger questions arise when even that is not enough. Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 22:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

"in proportion to their representation in reliable sources"
I would like to understand how that "proportion" should be determined. One interpretation is that to determine relative weights of different views on some subject, an editor is expected to examine the whole body of sources that discuss that subject, and after that to make a conclusion based on some more or less objective criterion (for example, if majority of supporters of the viewpoint A publish their articles in top journals and are being widely cited, whereas the proponents of the viewpoint B publish in less reputable journals and are being cited less frequently, then the view A is prevalent).

However, a second interpretation is also possible. The quote from Wales says:


 * "If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts"

That may imply that to determine if some viewpoint is a majority view, we need to provide some reliable source that explicitly says so, otherwise all viewpoints should be treated as significant minority views. However, that immediately raises a question on how can we make sure that the RS saying "A is a majority view" by itself expressed a majority viewpoint. In connection to that the third interpretation is that NPOV provides no strict instruction on how the above mentioned proportion can be determined, and we should use common sense instead. In connection to that, I am wondering which interpretation seems more correct. Any thoughts?--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:20, 8 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I would have thought that the paraphrase of Wales means If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate [that viewpoint] with reference to commonly accepted reference texts, i.e., "If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to find RS that have that viewpoint". —2d37 (talk) 10:05, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I've always understood it to mean the same thing that 2d37 says: if a viewpoint is in the majority, you will have no trouble citing sources for a description of that viewpoint.  You may not be able to find a source that says "The majority viewpoint is that children should be taught to read", but you will definitely be able to find sources that say "children should be taught to read". The obvious corollary may be the more important point:  If we can't source a viewpoint at all, then it's not the majority view.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:23, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * All of that works in extreme cases (for the views that are obviously marginal or obviously mainstream/majority). However, what if some schools of thought discuss the same subject from different perspectives, and they do not interact or ignore each other. How can we determine if one of them is a majority view, or they both should be considered minority views?--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:35, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps both are majority views. It is possible, for example, for a chemical to simultaneously be the basis of a critical industry and a nasty pollutant, and the 'how to make this more efficiently' and 'it kills frogs and birds' researchers might not really interact.  The first group would be the majority POV for its synthesis and the second group would be the majority POV for the pollution aspects. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)


 * My question is different. I am asking if there is any procedure in the policy that defines how to determine relative weights, or the policy is made deliberately vague, and leaves that question on our discretion?--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:48, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Aside from saying that you need to consider both the volume and the quality of the sources, I believe that there is no consensus about how to do this.
 * To give a simple example: Imagine that Chris Celebrity and Joe Film announce that they're getting married.  To determine whether this needs to be mentioned in one or both articles, you would need to think about how many sources mention it (including all the ways of thinking about volume:  number of articles, publications, authors, over what time period, whether this is more or less attention given to other marriage announcements, etc.) plus the quality of those sources (e.g., whether its just the gossip rags, or if it's appearing in more mainstream news).  If you find a high volume of high-quality sources, then it's obviously DUE.  If you find a low volume of low-quality sources, then it's probably not.  And if it's in between, then editors need to use their best judgment.
 * To give a more complicated example: Imagine that a poem is analyzed, and someone says that Shakespeare wrote it, and someone says that Ben Jonson wrote it.  You would perform the same simple analysis, and if you get an easy answer, then you go with it.  If you end up in the middle, then you'd want to look at how widely each view seemed to be held by relevant experts, and how strongly those experts hold those views (are they indicating that they lean only slightly this way or that, or are they staking their reputations on their belief?), and then write something on a range from "Probably Shakespeare but could have been Jonson" through "scholars are evenly divided" out to "probably Jonson but could have been Shakespeare".  WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:27, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

The spirit of WP:BESTSOURCES
I feel like the spirit of WP:BESTSOURCES is that very reliable sources outrank less reliable sources. But I do not feel like this is currently said clearly. Instead it says it obliquely by talking about "good and unbiased research". Is there any interest in adding the following paragraph to the WP:BESTSOURCES section?

Not all sources are created equal. If two sources of different reliability levels say different things, the source that is more reliable should be assumed to be the correct source. For example, if one source is primary and one source is secondary, or (on the reliable sources list) one source is "no consensus" and one source is "generally reliable", or one source is not academic and one source is academic.

– Novem Linguae (talk) 19:00, 18 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose. A primary can be better than a secondary, a source which didn't happen to get attention can be better than one that's listed on the essay-class RSP page, and a source's academicness is not the same as its goodness or unbiasedness. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:30, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with @Peter Gulutzan. Sometimes the primary, non-academic, or non-independent source is not merely reliable, but actually authoritative.  Consider, e.g., what the most authoritative source is for a direct quotation of something by Donald Trump on social media would be:  A news report that might have misquoted the original post, or the original post itself?
 * We additionally have a problem that these recommendations are intended to give advice to the person who wants to write Featured articles from scratch, but they are sometimes 'enforced' against people who are trying to make incremental improvements to articles. We don't want people removing accurate, encyclopedic content because BESTSOURCES says that a 'merely' reliable source isn't good enough.
 * I also worry that this would turn into a tool for POV pushers. Imagine "I have an academic secondary source from Journal of Crackpots, and you only have Quackwatch website on your side, and the policy at BESTSOURCES says that Crackpots wins!"
 * As a tangent, I think it is instructive to compare the FAQ at the top of WT:V with the spirit of Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources's self-appointed enforcers. Any and every source, including the "GUNREL" ones, is reliable for something.  It might not be reliable for anything other than "This source contains the following words:" (and that, thankfully, would almost always be WP:UNDUE for an encyclopedia), but every source is reliable for something.  It amazes me that we have ended up in a situation in which editors readily accept propaganda films as reliable primary sources for a description of the film's contents, but we reject major English-language news sources from Russia and China even when the source is being used to support a direct quotation from the news article over the fear of these sources' political biases. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:44, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Interpretation
The first sentence under WP:DUE reads as such:

"Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources."

I need the "in proportion to prominence of each viewpoint" to be clarified more please. What does it mean exactly?

For instance, if we are talking about POV-A and POV-B and there are 10 and 5 sources respectively for POV-A and POV-B, does DUE say the amount of the content on POV-A and POV-B to be represented in the page should keep the same proportion as 10 and 5? -- M h hossein   talk 19:38, 21 December 2020 (UTC)


 * It's not just about counting the sources. The prominence of the sources themselves is a big part of it. One standard academic reference should get more weight than a dozen blog posts (even if written by PhD's). Evaluating the relative prominence is not easy and not an exact science, but we have to try our best. A strong WP:TERTIARY source (like an academic encyclopedia) can be a big help for this. Eperoton (talk) 04:02, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This is the weakest aspect of this rule. Every POV pusher uses this to game the system and introduce whatever they want, or refute changes based on how little (according to them) a view is present in RS. This is way too subjective and makes the whole NPOV policy almost useless in common practicality. Loganmac (talk) 00:07, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Undue and lawsuits
Please see Wikipedia talk:Notability for a discussion that might interest readers of this talk page. Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 09:12, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Due-ness should not be determined by primary sources
Currently policy says in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. But shouldn't this be limited to secondary and tertiary sources that are independent of the subject? I see someone talked about something like this a while back. For example, an article about a book should not use the book itself to establish DUE-ness. If a sentence exists in a book (or a book's translation), but that sentence hasn't been covered by any reliable, secondary sources then wikipedia article should also not be covering that sentence.VR <b style="color:Black">talk</b> 05:23, 16 January 2021 (UTC)


 * @Vice regent, I think it's more complicated than that, and impossible when people forget that Secondary does not mean independent (which is something that many editors struggle with).
 * Your comment here suggests that there's a specific dispute behind this. If that's the case, then you might be better off talking about this problem at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:30, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * this is an ongoing pattern that I've observed, especially with regards to famous books. User shows up saying if there exists a sentence in the Bible or Quran that they think is important (or even a non-scripture book that might be prone to controversy) then that ought to be covered in the article. They don't cite any secondary sources for its importance, claiming its existence in the primary source is enough. This is bad logic and I can't see any context in which we can use a WP:PRIMARY source alone to establish weight without any supporting secondary sources.VR <b style="color:Black">talk</b> 02:19, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I suppose that whatever part of the book strikes us the most is "obviously" an important one.
 * We might name, as important qualities for our sources, these three:
 * Reliable (for the given statement)
 * Independent (of the subject matter)
 * Secondary (e.g., providing analysis rather than an unadorned repetition of simple facts)
 * In this situation, I'm not sure that reliability is the key point. For the other two, I see these scenarios:
 * I want all articles to be Based upon independent sources – but that would mean writing an article about a book (for example) without ever citing the author's own statements about it. I'm not really going to get a complete and balanced article if I ignore what the author says, right?
 * I want all articles to be based upon secondary sources. This might work for significant religious texts or particularly famous works (e.g., anything by Shakespeare), but it might make it impossible to write articles for more run-of-the-mill books.  In particular, since the sources that qualify a book for an article under Notability (books) either don't summarize the plot (if it's fiction) at all, or they don't include any spoilers, but Spoiler says that we should tell the whole story, then I'm not sure how you would source a plot summary without using the primary source alone to establish weight in most articles about books.
 * This is a difficult question,VR. At the moment, I wonder whether the solution might lie in saying something about editors needing to balance the goal of basing the overall article on independent sources with the goal of writing a comprehensive encyclopedia article (which might require using a non-independent and/or primary source to fill in a few holes in the plot).  WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:14, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

joke
wikipedia is an absolute joke when it comes to any controversial topic. All it does is echo the blatant lies of the corporate media uncritically. Here's a suggestion: a source isn't a source unless it links to data that substantiates the claim. A bare assertion by a journalist is worthless, no matter how prestigious the venue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:20C:7500:5D85:7CBF:BD2F:4203 (talk) 05:16, 6 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I doubt that this would work in practice. What kind of "data" would you expect the newspaper to link to, if we were using it to support a sentence such as "Steve Sisolak is the governor of Nevada"?   WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:31, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Offensive section on religion
I ask to change the section about religion. It's formulated in an offensive fashion designed to ridicule religious believers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.235.159.39 (talk) 23:30, 15 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what your concern is. Are you objecting to the silly name in the example?  (It's probably a bad idea to use a 'serious' name, because it might overlap with a real religion.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:18, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Proposal to remove newspapers and magazines as sources.
Magazines and newspapers are, by definition, not NPOV. They shouldn't be among the sources of a serious knowledge enterprise.

Sources to be taken into account should only be peer-reviewed journals, academic publications, other encyclopedias and non-academic essays aimed to the general public. Lacking a significant amount of such sources, the subject should be treated as non-encyclopedic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.235.159.39 (talk • contribs) 23:34, 15 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Sources aren't required to be neutral. Only Wikipedia articles are.  Our definition of "neutral" is not the same as "unbiased" or "even-handed".  Our definition of neutral is that the Wikipedia article must represent the balance of all the reliable sources.  This means that we include all the biased sources and contrast the different views, instead of pretending that there is a single "real" answer.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I think the IP is talking about a real problem, but I think the problem is better addressed from the primary source versus secondary source angle. Magazines and newspapers write about recent events.  With the passage of time, Magazine and newspaper articles become primary sources, supplanted by later sources as secondary sources for comment and analysis.  For example, for the 1906 San Francisco earthquake, a 1906 newspaper article on the earthquake will now be considered a primary source for the event, or a primary source for the commentary and analysis of the time.
 * WP:NOTNEWS addresses this. While it is OK, or great, that Wikipedia covers current events, for an event to be notable there needs to be ongoing coverage, not just magazines and newspapers covering recent events.  So, magazines and newspapers are ok if they are the best we have for a recent event, but they are not quality sources, and in time need to be replaced by better sources.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:57, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Proposal to remove Blender magazine as a reliable source
Blender does not reflect the legitimate criticism allowed to be mentioned by the neutral point of view policy. The magazine was notorious for bashing any artist based on the reviewer's hatred for a certain genre, as evidenced by the Top 50 Worst Songs list, who's rule of only allowing songs that were popular hits practically reflects its bias towards indie music and hatred of pop music. Plus, it no longer exists in print nor online form. It should be removed as a reliable source and banned from WP:NPOV. --174.255.66.157 (talk) 16:58, 20 February 2021 (UTC)


 * If the piece is an opinion piece, it falls under WP:RSOPINION and thus, like for any opinion piece out of any reliable source, should not be used for supporting factual information, but can be used for attributed opinion. Not being in print is no concern for us, since archives exist. --M asem (t) 17:47, 20 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Then how about we start a consensus to remove it from WP:RSOPINION status? --2601:199:4181:E00:38BE:60A5:11AE:9B76 (talk) 17:57, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Updated definition of "Obvious pseudoscience" in FAQ § Pseudoscience
In Special:Diff/996952192, I edited the definition of "Obvious pseudoscience" in to keep it in sync with the ArbCom ruling in the Pseudoscience case, from which this definition explicitly is quoted. In particular, I updated the quoted definition to reflect the ruling's 2 July 2010 amendment. Especially as I am fairly new as an editor, I felt I should post a notice of my edit here at WP:NPOV's talk page — which has over ten times as many watchers as WP:NPOVFAQ — so that, in case I made some mistake in making this change, the community has a better chance to catch the mistake. —2d37 (talk) 09:53, 29 December 2020 (UTC)


 * @2d37, I'm not sure that was ultimately helpful. We have a bit of a problem with people disagreeing about what constitutes "obvious" pseudoscience.  When you tell them that it has to be as obvious as Time Cube, then people stop trying to say that things like Lamaze technique or Prayer are obvious pseudoscience. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I've tried to WP:Build the web to some related terms in the FAQ: paranormal, protoscience, and non-scientific. Maybe if editors are more aware of the more specific and relevant alternatives, then they'll have fewer disputes over whether an article must include the exact word pseudoscience. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:50, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I won't object if you or someone else prefers to revert my boldness. In case it might be helpful, I note that I see that links to WP:FRINGE/PS, which offers some alternative examples of pseudoscience, such as astrology and water memory. —2d37 (talk) 08:25, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I suppose it doesn't help, though, as none of its examples is as obvious as Time Cube. —2d37 (talk) 08:27, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Added considerations of RECENTISM/time-factors to UNDUE
Something that I've long considered and think this is one of those aspects to add is that within the advise of UNDUE, that we should caution editors about trying to establish UNDUE/DUE/WEIGHT too soon after some event or the like, as WP:RECENTISM outlines. I don't know exactly how to word it, and so this is more throwing the idea there, but basically we'd want editors to give time for viewpoints to settle down after some event (particularly ones that are emotional or contentious) before trying to write in opinions, analysis, etc. into an article. (This is separate from "Reactions" to disasters or other similar events, which are generally factual statements of how gov't reacted to events). Ideally we'd want editors to wait for longer-term secondary analysis (academic) of those viewpoints but that usually is years in the making, but the short-term should avoid trying to establish what is DUE or UNDUE in the hours and days after such an event. Some weeks or so after the event has settled out, then editors will have a better place to start judging where DUE/WEIGHT sits to include commentary and analysis, ideally using sources displaced farthest from said event to use to judge DUEness. The DUE/WEIGHT view that is set out immediately after an event may not change in those weeks (eg most of the same views related to the Jan 6 Capitol attacks remain the same today), but it is better if we don't rush in include that right after an event until we can judge if that's really the correct view or not.

By extension, this also implies that UNDUE/DUE/WEIGHT should be best judged by sources far removed in time from the event or situation, if possible. Eg: the US media's view of the Gulf war while it was happening compared to modern sources is far different. With that, we do have to be aware of WP:PRESENTISM issues that can arise if we're too far separated from the event and there have been major shifts in social and political norms that would put that event in a different light if one moves too far.

How to word this in, however, I don't know how it would best fit. --M asem (t) 15:57, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Think tanks, NGOs, mission-based organisations
The discussion at RSN is increasingly focused on DUE weight and balance - things that fall under the NPOV policy - rather than just reliability. As such, the conversation may be of interest to watchers of this page, and your input would be appreciated. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:51, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Reliable_sources/Noticeboard

Genocide is evil
Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. Sometimes, when genocide is sanctioned by God, it is a necessary evil, but it absolutely always may be described using the word "evil". Wikipedia shouldn't say in an instructional article For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action" Here is a better example ...an article should not state that pepperoni pizza is the best flavor.... Genocide being evil is not in the realm of opinion, while pizza toppings superiority is in the realm of opinion. You the man(converse) 09:44, 14 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia must stay pretty much amoral, even with respect to genocide. Whether genocide is evil or not is still an opinion that cannot be spoken in Wikivoice, mostly on the basis that we would have the issue of when certain actions are to be called genocide or the like. --M asem (t) 13:16, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Plus, we are here to provide and people come here to get information, not characterizations.<b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 13:22, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

What if a certain topic is hard to stomach
As someone who edits on some controversial topics. There are moments where I realize certain information or sources are problematic. But I feel guilty for removing a problematic source.

Or there are times where I afraid to put a certain detail in a article because I know it’s controversial.

Like I have to put in certain facts that come off as controversial to certain religious groups or certain minority groups.CycoMa (talk) 07:24, 24 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Would it help to classify the sources as “reputable” or not? SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:45, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * well here’s the thing, in some situations reliable sources contradict each other, and this isn’t like minor differences in some situations in like major differences. In other cases sources may agree on something but, they are inconsistent with each other.
 * Also sometimes some facts aren’t just controversial to religious groups. They may controversial too the point they may come off as sexist, homophobic, racist, transphobic, or bigoted in nature. I don’t know it just feels wrong to put in information that may be used by hate groups to justify bigotry.CycoMa (talk) 18:14, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * If it's controversial, it's probably best to clarify that it is "widely believed" or use an in-text citation (i.e. "A report by the Blue Sky Research Agency indicates that the sky is blue."). This gives less of an impression of bias than just inserting controversial facts with references. -  ZLEA  T \ C 13:48, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * So much depends on the specifics (information and sources) that there is no “one-size-fits-all, right answer”. Broadly speaking - Wikipedia is not censored, so we should cover controversial topics if they are noteworthy… the question is HOW to cover them. When a noteworthy topic is controversial, we normally don’t phrase things as being fact… instead we phrase them as being opinions, and mention who holds which opinion - and let the reader determine for themselves who they trust more.  However, some opinions are so fringe that there really isn’t any controversy, except perhaps in the minds of a few adherents.  This is when our WP:UNDUE policy steps in. Blueboar (talk) 18:56, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That makes sense since we don’t, for example use allegedly in the sentence The shape of Earth is nearly spherical. There is a small flattening at the poles and bulging around the equator due to Earth's rotation in the Earth article because some flat earthers you YouTube dispute it.--70.24.249.16 (talk) 22:02, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I know we have a shortcut for a situation like this (it's not on NPOV, and I can't recall what it was) but its related to that we are not censored. If it is a "hard to stomach" topic but reported in RSes (and considering UNDUE if that's an issue) without any exaggeration, there is no reason we should not report that the same way; we don't need to weaken or hide a fact that may be disgusting to some. If its only coming from one source, or if only non-RSes are reporting it that way, and other sources avoid the issue, we can avoid the issue too. If its the point where the sources are reliable but split, I would definitely hedge on the less-descriptive versions, unless its clear that the description version is needed (eg if we're using a direct quote).
 * I do note "without exaggeration" as you'll sometimes see even quality RSes slip in a few unnecessary words when talking about gruesome acts, eg ("The suspect then plunged the bloody knife into the husband's chest." rather than "The suspect then stabbed the husband." We'd prefer the latter if that's what is most offer used.) --M asem (t) 19:15, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

"WPL:WEIGHT" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect WPL:WEIGHT. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 10 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  dud  hhr  Contribs 04:38, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

What if other editors refuse to listen to your arguments?
Here is something that I have always been considered about.

Editors have their own personal beliefs and points of views, at times it hard to convince them why a certain source is reliable or whether on how mainstream a certain view is.

I’m not entirely sure where I should comment this at.CycoMa (talk) 05:31, 25 July 2021 (UTC)


 * The best evidence of being right is having others agree with you. Do not attempt to convert your opponents, try to convert their audience.taken from User:DGG SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:54, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * In my experience, if you feel like your arguments are being ignored, there is often some miscommunication. Maybe the other person didn't realise what the significance of your point was, or maybe they have a reason why it's irrelevant and you don't understand that yet. In any case it may be worth simply asking directly about that ("Okay. What about my point about XYZ?"). This way you don't only kind of force them to respond to it, you're also showing that you are interested in what the other person has to say. But that's just my two cents. &horbar;Jochem van Hees (talk) 10:12, 25 July 2021 (UTC)