Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Archive 59

Based upon independent sources
I have been contemplating whether this policy should state clearly something like In principle, all articles should be WP:Based upon independent sources.

It is at least extremely difficult, and probably impossible, to write an article that complies with NPOV if you are using only (or primarily) sources written by the subject of the article.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:52, 2 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure about the exact wording, but I definitely support the idea. Doug Weller  talk 09:49, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:V already states that articles should be based on third-party sources. Yes, third-party is not always independent, but that can be seen as a companion piece to that. --M asem (t) 13:38, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It doesn't seem to actually say that but it does say independent sources several times, including "If no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it (i.e., the topic is not notable)." Independent sources says aka known as third-party, but I don't like using that phrase as it might be confused with tertiary sources. But you are basically right, WP:V already says this is a requirement for an article and thanks for pointing it out. Doug Weller  talk 13:50, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Having an article WP:Based upon independent sources is not quite the same as what WP:V says. Under WP:V#Notability, you could find a couple of good GNG-grade independent sources, say "Look, I've proved this book/film/government agency/business/product/celebrity is worthy of an article", and then ignore those and write the article using only the subject's own sources.
 * I think that produces non-neutral articles, and I think we should say that it shouldn't be done. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:51, 2 March 2022 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict):I think that it sounds good but that actual invoking it would be highly subjective and maybe a wiki-lawyering-fest, and also have unintended consequences. What would one do.....count up text or count up sources? Also, I'm thinking about a common situation.  A few good GNG grade independent sources, and then lots of non-independent sources to cite a lot of facts in the article. A poster child might be a large non-profit organization with a lot of boring organization and history details that are encyclopedic and informative but not typically covered by independent sources. North8000 (talk) 13:53, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that it many cases, if you put enough effort into it, you'd be able to find independent sources for most of the history details that should be included.
 * Also, if you really can't – when the independent sources talk about current scandal and don't really care about the 17 years of boring organizational activities that went before, or don't care that the organization has three levels of management or pays a living wage to all employees – then maybe when you are WP:Balancing aspects, you shouldn't be trying to include so much of that in the article.
 * If you think about this for biographies, there are a few basic facts that we try to include whenever possible (e.g., birth year, university attended, country of residence), but overall, if independent sources don't talk about the subject's ==Personal life== or ==Childhood and education==, then we don't, either (and vice versa). The article gets based upon what the independent sources talk about, not what the subject talks about. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:46, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I think we're talking about different situations. You're talking about the intended ones (where it's in danger of becoming a PR piece) and I'm talking about the unintended ones. For example, on quick glance, there is an immense amount of enclyclopedic and important information at Girl Scouts of the USA that is from non-independent sources. What would happen with that?  And if nobody steps forward to tackle the "if you put effort into it" to spend an immense amount of time to substitute the type of sources?  AFD?   Delete 1/2 the article?  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:37, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Realistically, I think we'd slap third-party sources on the article and otherwise ignore it for a decade or so. This is explicitly a statement of principle, which is different from the approach we took to unsourced BLPs back in the day. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:57, 7 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree with this. Though I wouldn't link to an essay. Ideally we tie this into to relevant sections at WP:V or WP:OR. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:03, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Independent sources is only a marked as a "supplement" because I haven't cleaned it up enough to make it worth spending two months shepherding it through the WP:PROPOSAL process. It is as widely accepted as BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and What "Ignore all rules" means, and possibly even as widely accepted as Five pillars – none of which are marked as being guidelines or policies.  The difference between policies, guidelines and essays is not always important. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:59, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * There being no real disagreement (just a realistic level of despair that it won't make much difference), I've added that sentence to the policy, with a tag that links straight to this discussion. I hope that will attract additional thoughts. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:26, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The placement seems ... questionable. That section is titled "due and undue weight" -- before the addition, the concept of due weight was introduced in the first paragraph, but now there's a digression into a totally different topic (independence of sources).  Surely there is some more appropriate location? --JBL (talk) 03:30, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with JBL. The placement takes the "undue weight" section off on a tangent, and creates confusion: do we strive for independent sources all the time, or only when it comes to determining weight? A much better location for it is Selecting sources. I'm going to try putting it there, but I'm open to other suggestions. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:57, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks -- I think it goes very well where you've added it.  --JBL (talk) 01:35, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * So do I. Thanks for making that change.  I was not satisfied with the place that I originally chose, and I think this is much better. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:42, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm glad this works for everyone. This is mostly a restatement of existing policy, so it's not too controversial. Feel free to remove the under discussion tag whenever you feel like this discussion has stalled out. Shooterwalker (talk) 05:33, 12 March 2022 (UTC)


 * The only thing I might add is that while the bulk of an article should be based on independent sources, this is not a “ban” on citing dependent sources. Citing an occasional dependent (primary) source (especially with in-text attribution) can be very appropriate in limited circumstances. Blueboar (talk) 12:45, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm open to clarifying how to balance dependent and independent sources, in accordance with due weight. It's just a matter of finding the right language. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:02, 12 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I 100% support the suggestion of to clarify a balance between independent and dependent sources here. It would be just as important an aspect of NPOV as any other. Huggums537 (talk) 22:02, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I oppose WhatamIdoing's change. It depends on an essay -- written originally by WhatamIdoing -- that says 50% or more must be independent, and an essay-class information page saying an independent source is a source that "has no vested interest", but I expect that there's no way to tell whether someone writing about Sam Jones has a selfish reason for writing unless that someone is Sam Jones, so this could have the effect of limiting only Sam Jones and not his opponents. A few comments seem to be support for what WhatAmIDoing actually did, but a few are vague, so I'm not sure that's enough to claim consensus. So I'm hopeful the change will not stand. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:42, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * If anyone else felt strongly enough, I would de-link the essay(s), because essays are not policy. But the overall policy that we require independent sources is consistent with numerous other guidelines, and I continue to support the recent changes. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:57, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @Peter Gulutzan, Independent sources has been around since 2006, and it's linked in basically all of the core policies and guidelines. Saying that it's "an essay-class information page" is like calling the Five pillars an essay.  It's true enough in a technical sense, but it's not an indication that it's not widely supported. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:46, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * "Essay-class" is just a nice way of saying what WP:INFOPAGES says even more bluntly: "In comparison to policies and guidelines, information pages, like essay pages, have a limited status, and can reflect varying levels of consensus and vetting." And I see that WP:POLICY explains that "The five pillars are a popular summary of the most pertinent principles." so for your analogy to fit we would have to accept that description fits this essay-class page, but it doesn't, so let's not. And I see you're not even trying to defend your reference to your essay in a policy. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:20, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't feel a need to "defend" it; it's normal practice. See also the links in this policy to NPOV tutorial, Neutral point of view/FAQ, Neutral point of view/Examples, What is an article?, Recentism, Academic bias, Help:Talk pages, Writing better articles, and Core content policies, none of which are policies or guidelines and several of which are directly labeled as being Wikipedia essays.  This policy also links to mailing list discussions, Reference desk, a content/mainspace category, several internet archives (in the history section), and so many mainspace articles that I lost count.
 * This is not generally considered to be a problem. Were you under the impression that there was a rule against linking to helpful and relevant pages in policies? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:58, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Two (not several) begin with the essay template (if that's what you mean by "directly labeled"), and one of those has a note ""This Wikipedia page has been superseded ...", so all you've got is "Further information: Wikipedia:Academic bias", added 19 February 2022. I don't know who "generally" is, I am under no misimpression about a rule, I do not believe your change is helpful. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:16, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we are thinking of different links. For me, the important link is Independent sources.  The important link is not Based upon.  Both of these pages are "essays", i.e., pages that provide advice without having gone through the WP:PROPOSAL process to be officially labeled as policies or guidelines.  If you believe that there is a meaningful distinction (e.g., in terms of enforcement) between a page that someone boldly tagged with essay vs a page that someone boldly tagged with supplement, then I could make sure that both of them are tagged with supplement.  Would that resolve your concern about linking to a mere essay? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:27, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * We are talking about the links you supplied, and I explained what I thought you meant. And now in addition to changing policy you want to change essays to supplementals without seeking "well-established consensus" as is required by Template:Supplement, my concern is greatly increased by the fact that you could propose such a thing. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:05, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Did you know that the template in question was originally called Template:Supplemental essay? See also this comment on its talk page, from the editor who seems to have put the "well-established consensus" language in the /doc without bothering to first make sure that there was a "well-established consensus" to require "well-established consensus" – though I suspect that it is at least an approximately accurate sentiment of the time.
 * The discussion at TFD when it was fairly new suggests that editors thought "supplements" were meant to be a type of essay, not a near-guideline ("created to serve as a variant of the essay tag (providing a convenient link to the relevant policy or guideline)", "Keep as long as it remains clear it is a type of essay", "Supplement describes the article as an essay and explains what [guideline or policy] the essay is based on").
 * Maybe we should move it back to the longer name. It might be clearer for the sort of editors who think that The difference between policies, guidelines and essays is of prime importance.
 * As for your concern over editors boldly tagging pages as "supplements" when they believe that those pages are generally liked: I'm generally slow to change tags, but I've seen other editors (including admins) boldly change essay to supplement, and the complaints are generally rare (and possibly half of them from me).  If you are interested, the consensus-demonstrating discussion for INDY can be read at Wikipedia talk:Independent sources/Archive 1.  If you genuinely would feel better if Based upon were to have a similar tag, then I'm sure we could arrange to have a similar consensus-demonstrating discussion for that page.  It is not usually difficult to get editors to agree that a page that exists solely to define a couple of words in a couple of policies is some sort of "supplement" to those policies.
 * Perhaps more pointfully, if there is anything at all in WP:Based upon that you think is missing, wrong, or even not-quite-right, I hope you will post it to Wikipedia talk:Based upon (and ping me, because I'd be happy to help you improve it). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:12, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That's interesting, I welcome evidence that supplements have been considered essay-class since the start, I don't welcome edits without consensus affecting them but can't right all wrongs. As for participating in your essay, no, that might imply respect for it, I respect NPOV, that is why I participate on this page, I opposed your change, I gave my reason. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:01, 30 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I think “based upon” requires fleshing out. I agree if it means like the foundation of a building is what the building is based on. Independent sources must define the thrust of an article, but non-independent sources are best for verifying the bulk of the word count of the article, and consequently non-independent sources can dominate the reference count. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:29, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Go for it. I'd be happy to see what you do with WP:Based upon.  Keep in mind that this phrase appears in a couple of policies and guidelines (not just this one), and that the page's goal is merely to inform the occasional editor what it means to comply with (any or all of) those policies and guidelines.  For example, as Blueboar notes, an article that is "based upon" something is not necessarily exclusively sourced to that thing (although an article could cite independent sources exclusively; there are precious few non-independent sources for subjects like Igneous rock or Socrates), and as you note, merely counting the number of sources isn't necessarily the only or best way to determine the basis.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:35, 23 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree with Blueboar as well, and will add that we have a wide range of topics, such as livestock, horses, ranching, dogs, cats, agriculture, that rely on primary sources, historic references, relative breed registries, parent kennel clubs, relative association magazines, etc. Sometimes the sponsors of feed and livestock supplies, or insurance companies publish historic accounts or other important information about the topic (where no COI exists) simply because they want to provide such a service and have the professional & financial capabilities to do so. Historic references (1800s) probably never had fact-checking services; rather, the articles/books/documents were authored by experts, or reflect first-hand accounts written by witnesses/actual participants, etc. We need wiggle room to allow editorial judgment to take precedence without creating a mindset that automatically requires independent sources with fact-checkers to be considered a RS. CONTEXTMATTERS also needs more emphasis.  Atsme 💬 📧 00:30, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree. A feed company that publishes a history of laying mash can be independent for that material, except for any bits that mention the company's own history. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:41, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE - change "reliable sources" to "reliable secondary sources"?
The word "secondary" is not mentioned once in WP:UNDUE. But in my opinion, this is a huge part of it. Insisting on secondary sources is how you get the balance right. If you use primary sources, you can cherry pick whatever you want and paste it together into original research supporting any conclusion. Thoughts on changing "reliable sources" to "reliable secondary sources" in the WP:UNDUE section? – Novem Linguae (talk) 20:04, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * There should be far more weight given to secondary sources, but the are lots of primary sources often used for justifying majority views, namely mainstream news coverage that is not strictly opinions. Still primary sources should be weighted far less than secondary when considering weight. --M asem (t) 20:31, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Insisting that articles be based upon secondary sources would mean that whole articles can't be written at all. Consider what would happen to In the news if editors couldn't cite WP:PRIMARYNEWS sources.
 * I suspect that for many non-science-related subjects, when editors say that they want secondary sources, they really want independent sources, but Secondary does not mean independent. Also, Secondary does not mean good. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:09, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Nice essays, thanks for writing them and linking them. Clearly lots of nuance to this topic. – Novem Linguae (talk) 05:18, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I think this is worth clarifying. I think that "independent" would be more accurate than "secondary". None of this would exclude primary or non-independent sources (which are two different things). It's just a question of avoiding too much weight on a source where it could lead to bias. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:21, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree with @WhatamIdoing and @Shooterwalker. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 04:46, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * i strongly agree with you on this. it'd be more appropriate to request for independent sources than secondary sources. however, independent sources are now even becoming questionable as articles written by third-parties mostly give positive reviews on such references, if you get what i mean. Nauteeq (talk) 09:34, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Depending on the genre, you'd expect that. It's a rare travel magazine that publishes complaints about bad options, rather than filling their pages with positive recommendations for the good ones. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:17, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Some industry publications aren't sufficiently independent in their tone, even if they are technically independent. But I think we have to start somewhere. Better to have some guidance than to chase down every exception. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:51, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll assume the proposal is to change all occurrences of the phrase in the section. Oppose. Secondariness is just one of the things that could be used for evaluation. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:07, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Article structure
has added the following to WP:STRUCTURE: "The structure of the article should broadly reflect how the subject is covered in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, the same sources that provide notability." I think it's fair to say that reliable sources that provide overviews are often helpful for finding a good article structure (and for ensuring the article structure is neutral). However, there are a few reasons I think this may not be good advice in some cases and so I think this should be phrased more cautiously. That's especially important given WP:NPOV is not just a guideline but a policy. Specific issues:


 * 1) Often there is no single source that covers all or even most aspects of an article topic. If different sources cover different aspects of the topic, the article structure can't be taken from any single source.
 * 2) Where comprehensive overview sources can be found, they may still emphasize certain aspects disproportionately to the emphasis of those aspects in the broader body of reliable sources.
 * 3) Wikipedia allows biased and opinionated sources (see WP:BIASED), so if the sources giving notability are biased (perhaps each in a different way), they may themselves have non-neutral structures, which would actually make things worse.

Because of these problems, I propose that the sentence be changed to the following: "Reliable sources that provide overviews of an article's topic can often be helpful as guides for how to structure the article neutrally." Does this sound reasonable? Gazelle55 (talk) 17:21, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I like your suggested version, . I have the same qualms with Cuñado's wording. It might make sense in a limited set of cases, but I don't think it's useful guidance in general. Schazjmd   (talk)  17:28, 15 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I would tend to argee, particularly to people or groups that tend to be the subject of criticism. RSes will tend to not focus on objective elements of a biography that we would normally have (eg "Early life", "Career") and jump right into "Controversies". Definitely should use RSes as a guide and the structure should be a natural result of how RSes cover that subject and similar topics in general. --M asem (t) 17:31, 15 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree with the suggested language from Gazelle55. Basing an article outline on a reliable source is a decent goal, but a lot of good advice also comes from style guides about specific topic areas. We've developed our own consistent structures based on consensus best practices. Perhaps we should mention consensus best practices and style guides too. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:57, 15 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback, I replaced the sentence with my version., it may be a good idea to mention the topic-specific style guides in WP:STRUCTURE, but I don't know enough to suggest anything specific. Gazelle55 (talk) 20:43, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

How about this?:
 * An article's structure should generally be modeled on how the subject is covered in the preponderance of independent reliable sources, especially tertiary sources that provide an overview of the subject, but not all such sources cover the subject neutrally, nor are all notable subjects given an overview.

Trying to incorporate less passive language and incorporate the bullet points above. A little wordy though. Cuñado ☼ - Talk  23:58, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Why should? What problem are we trying to solve here? Schazjmd   (talk)  00:06, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I think we should be very cautious adding to a longstanding and central Wikipedia policy. Along the lines of what asked, what specific types of non-neutral structures are you worried about? It is true that the guidance on structure is quite general, but I think that flexibility can be helpful. Gazelle55 (talk) 02:19, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Good effort, but you can't derive structure of a Wikipedia article from sources used for the material used in it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:36, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Let me give a relatively neutral example: if we were discussing the broad history of the U.S. Supreme Court, nearly all major historical sources would break it down based on the eras by Chief Justice, though there are alternatively approaches too. But our article does follow that History of the Supreme Court of the United States. What likely would be inappropriate would be would to break down the history of the Supreme Court via, say, the current president or by major world events, given how insulated the court tends to be from these, though one could take, for example, many of the current issues of the current in light of the ongoing culture wars and try to structure it around that, for example. That would be very likely OR and not appropriate for an article structure. This is the point I think this type of advice is getting, to follow how the main sources typical organize content that we're summarizing most of the time. --M asem (t) 03:59, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It sounds like something that is occasionally / in special cases a good and workable idea for editors to do, not something to mandate in a core policy. Sincerely,North8000 (talk) 13:15, 16 April 2022 (UTC)


 * This whole idea is hopeless and damaging. In some fields (e.g. medicine) the structure of the WP:BESTSOURCES is completely at odds with what one would expect for encyclopedic coverage (see MOS:MED). Alexbrn (talk) 06:15, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes. In the sciences generally, the best sources are often textbooks, but that's not what we're building: the organization of a textbook is necessarily different from that of an encyclopedia article. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:27, 16 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I think the point I'm trying to make is intuitive. If someone comes along and adds a new section dedicated to Row v. Wade on the article on the US Supreme Court, who is to say that is wrong? It is perhaps the most prominent ruling of the court and gets an enormous amount of coverage from independent reliable sources. On a subject as big as the US Supreme Court, it's hard to establish weight. A one-page summary of the court by secondary or tertiary sources can establish a guide for what is included and how to structure (sometimes you need to take the average of several). On less notable subjects these overviews usually come from sources that establish notability and provide a guide for weight.
 * The current description of WP:STRUCTURE is not actually very helpful and could benefit from clarification. Cuñado ☼ - Talk  19:00, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Or in the case of criticism of the court, there are numerous criticisms that could be included, but the structure should be based on summaries of significant criticisms, like and . Cuñado ☼ -  Talk  19:10, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * So would it be fair to say your concern is not about article structure per se, but rather about how to know when content is too specific or obscure to belong on a more general page? Gazelle55 (talk) 19:40, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

WP:RNPOV is Hilarious and Apropos
Was this recently written? Or has it always been there and no one bothered to read it or cite in content disputes? For the last two years I have been editing articles intersecting with religion, with occasional content disputes, and trying to explain this principle of neutral coverage, due weight, and avoiding wikivoice when giving sectarian positions, and this describes it almost perfectly. The doctrine of the Frisebeetarians and the inquiries of the Ultimate Frisbeetarians can each be described with reference to cited authorities and sources deemed reliable by their own standards, and generally held to be representative of the respective team, league, religious group, school of thought or whatever. To investigate and report sources of Fribeetarianism, does not imply that it is true or worth anyone's time to consider. And to give a historical-critical analysis does not imply that the Ultimate version is better than, say, playing golf with it instead. But these investigations must be done on articles pertaining to Frisbeetarian books and histories, or else the faith can be neither believed, nor adequately critiqued, since it is not understood. This approach allows readers caught in the middle of some theological or historical snafu where consensus is not present and not likely to occur in the near future, to investigate all sides of a question, before either blindly accepting some creed or else giving up the project and moving on. If an editor would please answer with a wikilink to the talk archive where this was discussed and finalized, I would appreciate reading the discussions before venturing any further contributions to this policy guideline. Jaredscribe (talk) 05:41, 18 April 2022 (UTC)


 * you can check Page History > Find addition/removal, it will open the WikiBlame tool and you can search for a phrase. The tool will then display who inserted that phrase and when. For the particular section, it was added on 6 June 2009 here: diff taken from Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ, which in turn was a move from the main content policy in 2006 and there that passage was added on 19 July 2004.
 * So, the answer is: No this was not recently written :D it has been part of WP policy since July 2004. Mvbaron (talk) 08:22, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

New essay: User:Apaugasma/No. We are not biased.
I wrote a new essay on the neutral point of view policy. It is a counterpoint to User:Guy Macon/Yes. We are biased., arguing that we are in fact WP:NOTBIASED, and that claiming that we are is detrimental to the goals of this project. Constructive comments are welcome at its talk page. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 00:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Most excellent essay. Highly recommended. Huggums537 (talk) 20:41, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Two different articles - one question
Compare this edit by (which still stands) and which inspired this edit of mine (which was reverted by ). Do we believe that it is acceptable, per our policy, to use the the word "refused" in this context because the cited source uses it, or not? -- DeFacto (talk). 14:14, 4 May 2022 (UTC)


 * As far as I know, policy allows this, provided the words used are clearly attributed. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:33, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @DeFacto, are you assuming that "continues to refuse to accept the law had been broken" means "the person didn't answer the journalist's question"? That might be something of a leap.  What if a spokesperson actually said "As I have told you every day for the last week, the prime minister does not accept that any laws were broken"?  That's "continu[ing] to refuse to accept the law had been broken", but it is not refusing to answer a journalist's question.
 * IMO the relevant question is whether this is WP:DUE. Imagine that you look back at this in WP:10YEARS.  Can you imagine anyone in 2032 reading that paragraph and thinking, "Now here's a significant point:  on April 4th, he still didn't agree that he had broken the law!"  I can't, especially after reading in the previous paragraph that this was just days after some fixed penalty notices were issued, and still within the 28-day appeal period, and that even paying the fine doesn't constitute an admission of guilt.  I suspect that the whole thing needs to be cut to a much smaller summary that says little more than the fact that the police recommended that ARCO issue a few dozen FPNs, and the prime minister responded with a semi-apology that was widely criticized.  The whole article is likely twice as long as it ought to be. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:56, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @WhatamIdoing, thanks for your input. It looks like you are supporting my edit then, this one, and that you disagree with the revert that followed and which restored the controversial content because the "material is fully attributed and sourced to WP:RS". -- DeFacto (talk). 20:16, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I suspect that the main difficulty with this exchange was your edit summary. If you had instead claimed that it was overemphasis on a relatively unimportant point, the response might have been different. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:22, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Dictator and kleptocrat ?
The lead sentence of the Ferdinand Marcos lead paragraph states, "Ferdinand Emmanuel Edralin Marcos Sr. (/ˈmɑːrkɔːs/ MAR-kawss;[5] September 11, 1917 – September 28, 1989) was a Filipino politician, lawyer, dictator,[6][7][8] and kleptocrat[9][10][11] who was the 10th president of the Philippines from 1965 to 1986."
 * The last sentence of the lead paragraph states, "One of the most controversial leaders of the 20th century, Marcos' rule was infamous for its corruption,[15][16][17] extravagance,[18][19][20] and brutality.[21][22][23]"

The lead sentence of the Imelda Marcos lead paragraph states, "Imelda Romualdez Marcos[4] (locally [ɪˈmelda ˈmaɾkɔs]; born Imelda Remedios Visitacion Trinidad Romualdez; July 2, 1929) is a Filipina politician and convicted criminal who was First Lady of the Philippines for 20 years,[5] during which she and her husband Ferdinand Marcos stole billions of pesos[6][7]: 176  from the Filipino people,[8][9][10] amassing a personal fortune estimated to have been worth US$5 billion to US$10 billion by the time they were deposed in 1986.[11][12][13]"

The last sentence of the lead paragraph of the entry for their son Bongbong Marcos states, "He is the second child and only son of former president, dictator and kleptocrat[8] Ferdinand Marcos Sr. and former first lady and convicted criminal[9][10] Imelda Romualdez Marcos.[2]"
 * Wikipedia policy has been that individuals should be described as they are described in WP:RELIABLE SOURCES and it is undeniable that authoritarian and totalitarian leaders have engendered strong feelings against them.
 * Taking into account that WP:OTHER STUFF EXISTS and that authoritarians / totalitarians will not be described in the same manner (the lead sentences of the entries for Josip Broz Tito and Ho Chi Minh describe each as a "statesman"), the use of such terms as "dictator", "corruption", "extravagance", "brutality", "stole billions of pesos from the Filipino people", "convicted criminal" and "kleptocrat" in lead sentences of articles seems unique. In fact, no other head of state appears to be described as a "kleptocrat" and certainly not in an article's lead sentence.
 * Between December 2020 and March 2022, there have been three discussions — Talk:Ferdinand Marcos/Archive 5 — Talk:Ferdinand Marcos — Talk:Ferdinand Marcos, but all of those discussions have been held upon Talk:Ferdinand Marcos and that specific talk page may not be watchlisted by a large number of editors. Perhaps a notice posted here may elicit additional responses. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 00:13, 19 May 2022 (UTC)


 * This seems more appropriate for WP:NPOVN. Galobtter (pingó mió) 00:21, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * My thanks for pointing out the correct venue and I am reposting this text on that talk page. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 02:36, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Are the only significant views on pseudoscience topics those of scientists?
In the current Astrology RfC, I pointed out that the great majority of reliable sources on astrology are written by historians and philosophers of science, as well as other humanities scholars (see, e.g., Google Scholar, or this survey of tertiary sources on the topic), and I have quoted from them at length to make a point that scholars routinely warn against lumping in premodern astrology with its modern pseudoscientific variant (scholars quoted include Francesca Rochberg, Paul Thagard, Lynn Thorndike, Wouter Hanegraaff, David Pingree). Now an argument has been made that these sources are irrelevant and should be ignored, because they are not scientists: (courtesy ping, who wrote this)

"Here at wikipedia, we go with the scientific consensus, which is defined by scientists today, not by historians or by philosophers. You may want to shift the burden of proof, but that's not policy. [...] I have read WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE and there you will clearly see 'Conversely, by its very nature, scientific consensus is the majority viewpoint of scientists towards a topic.' This does not say, contra Apaugasma, 'historians of science' or 'philosophers of science', it says 'scientists'. [...] You are claiming that historians establish scientific consensus. They do not. Scientists do. [...] This is not open for RfC, it is policy."

Of course I disagree with the underlying position in the RfC, which is not of any relevance here. But what concerns me is that the text of our policy can apparently be used to argue that reliable sources should be ignored, just because they stem from the humanities. Our current text seems to presume that the only relevant sources on pseudoscience are (natural) scientists. But in fact, most scientists are happy to ignore pseudoscience, and the scholars who explicitly write about it are primarily philosophers of science, historians, religious studies scholars, anthropologists, etc. Now obviously, the scientific consensus is established by scientists, and only by scientists. Humanities scholars who are RS follow that consensus almost without exception, and we should too. But there is more to say about pseudoscientific topics than the basic fact that they are rejected by science, and it is primarily humanities scholars who are doing this 'saying'. To leave them out would be to leave out the most significant published views on the topic.

I think that the current text of WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE is very good in its first three sentences. But then it goes badly wrong, stressing for a full four sentences that the mainstream views of the scientific community and how scientists have reacted to pseudoscientific theories should be prominently included. But what if 'how scientists have reacted' makes up only a small minority of the reliable sources (I'm not talking about WP:PARITY here, but cases like astrology where there is an abundance of RS)? What if the 'mainstream views of the scientific community' are crystal clear and can be stated in one or two sentences? It is very important that we should clearly state that scientific view, but there is no a priori reason why it should take up any more space or be featured any more prominently than is the case in our sources. The current text strongly suggests that it should, and more importantly, it suggests that any view other than those expressed by (natural) scientists is suspect: such views would only obfuscate the scientific view (it only suggests this, but this is at least how the policy is often cited).

We need to rewrite our policy avoiding this false binary where only the pseudoscientific view and the scientific view are relevant. Most RS on pseudoscience are not written by scientists, and we should encourage the inclusion of these RS' views, not their exclusion. Sometimes these RS will only characterize certain aspects of a topic as pseudoscientific, in which case we too should only describe these aspects as such. An example text might be the following:

☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 19:22, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Fringe ideas need the context of rational, sane sources. For pseudoscience it's science sources; for pseudohistory, historical sources, and so on. The only problem with WP:PSCI is that some people miss its first para's closing sentence, which is all-important: "This also applies to other fringe subjects ...". it's not just about "science". Alexbrn (talk) 19:37, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping. I am not saying that non-scientist opinions are irrelevant or should be ignored completely, but yes we should start with the scientific consensus where there is one to be had,especially in the lead of a page like Astrology. And even more so on WP:MEDRS pages. To define astrology as only recently a pseudoscience is to engage in a type of chronological relativism that is extremely academic if not POV pushing. This does not serve our readers. If we were talking about a page about the history of astrology or astrology in other cultures, I think such experts would be notable and relevant to the lead. Yes, for instance, exorcism was once medicine. That's historically accurate. I don't think we would want readers to leave the page on exorcism thinking it's a good way to deal with their mental problems. DolyaIskrina (talk) 19:50, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, I have looked at your proposed text and I think it is a terrible idea to add "philosophers of science". It's literally a backdoor for the Galileo Gambit which was pretty much invented by noted Philosopher of Science Paul Feyerabend. Philosophers of Science make their bones by saying all sorts of interesting things that, in the wrong context, will only make Wikipedia a mosh pit of fringe ideas. Seriously Apaugasma, you looked across the encyclopedia and worried that too many people will be prioritizing the opinions of scientists? That's your concern? DolyaIskrina (talk) 20:13, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Only if it unduly deprioritizes the opinions expressed in what often is more relevant scholarship. But as always, we should represent the mainstream of that scholarship. Are Feyerabend's views considered authoritative? Is the whole field of the philosophy of science in such a bad state? (These are honest questions, I'm by no means an expert on this.) If it is, what about replacing them with historians, anthropologists, sociologists, and other scholars from the humanities? ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 20:36, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Hopefully this won't be too much of a tangent, but the book "What Is This Thing Called Science?" spans a couple dozen chapters, four editions and the entire life of a brilliant and scrupulous Professor of Philosopher of Science, AF Chalmers. The chapters progress from seemingly simple definitions of science (which are promptly proven wrong), to increasingly more complex. The punchline is that there really isn't a single rigorous definition of science that philosophers of science can all agree on. Feyerabend's anarchistic approach is a little fringy, but certainly considered worth a dissertation. Even more ironic is that most scientists are woefully ignorant and disdainful of philosophy in general and Philosophy of Science in particular. Scientist often blithely hover in their understanding around Chapter 3 on Popper, confidently proclaiming falsifiability like any old B minus undergrad. I think you can see how this quickly gets into the weeds and provides a lot of ground cover to unscrupulous advocates of pseudoscience to launch bad faith skeptical attacks on scientific consensus. I mean, if Newton was "proved wrong" by Einstein, then who's to say Psychokinesis isn't also science? Luckily for us, we don't need to resolve these irresolvable disputes, we go with the rough and ready definition that science is that which scientists do (on a good day), and the scientific consensus is that which most scientists generally agree on. DolyaIskrina (talk) 23:37, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I guess I was coming from my experience with the astrology article where there's a whole section discussing the views of philosophers of science like Kuhn, Popper, Thagard, using sources like Hansson in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, etc. It's a de facto reality that we are mainly using non-scientists to discuss pseudoscientific topics. I agree though that philosophers of science in particular may not be very helpful (that astrology section needs serious trimming and clarification; I'd appreciate it if you'd take a look at it), but what about my proposal to name historians, anthropologists, sociologists, etc. as potentially relevant sources instead? ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 10:40, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

When the term pseudoscience is properly applied (and in Wikipedia it is often mis-applied) it includes a claim to be scientific. When it enters that realm, IMO we use a scientific lens when covering it (unlike e.g. purely faith based items) "Philosophy of Science" is not scientific, even though it has the word "science" in it. North8000</b> (talk) 20:59, 23 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Unless you believe that philosophy, because it includes logic, is a formal science. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:35, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Arguably, with pseudoscience while we are going to show it is nonsense with scientific sources, we should not omit very high level claims of those that support it. Ideally those are going to be stated in the same scientific sources dusprovening it, but sometimes this doesn't happen. In such cases very narrow and limited use of primary sources, written with attribution and only in brief terms, should be included. It may be as little as a sentence if we have to take from primary sources. But ideally something of why its claimed the pseudoscience works should be offered as to use scientific lit to show absolutely why it doesn't.--M asem (t) 22:52, 23 June 2022 (UTC)


 * We must omit "high level claims" if they've not received attention in decent sources, because that's core policy. It's enough for Wikipedia to say that Naomi Wolf had spread myths and misinformation about vaccines and female fertility without going into the supposed "reasons" behind these pronouncements (including time travel). Wikipedia isn't a space for airing fringe nonsense every other respectable source on the planet has ignored. Alexbrn (talk) 04:40, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I see there's an opinion here that pseudoscience should be covered with science sources. But the question is, why? Reliable sources out there on pseudoscience are by and large not written by scientists, and we are in fact mainly using non-scientists as sources in our actual articles. Deciding to give more weight to a minority of RS and less weight to a majority is an important editorial intervention. Since it goes against the grain of the wider NPOV policy, it seems that a particular argument is needed to justify this intervention? What is that argument? ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 10:40, 24 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Sorry, is there an actual problem here that needs fixing or is this just musing? Perhaps, you could give a few examples of where Wikipedia's "badly wrong" NPOV policy has led to poor results wrt fringe topics? Alexbrn (talk) 10:49, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, I opened this with the current astrology lead and the way WP:PSCI is used to support it as an obvious example. There are many other examples, but I don't want to get dragged into the underlying content disputes here, which are broader and often also depend on other factors than this policy. What they share is simply that this policy text is cited to dismiss RS, solely because they are not written by scientists. My proposed text above tries to make up for this blind spot; do you see any problem with it? If so, please substantiate your objection. I would also like to hear if other editors object, and especially why. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 11:53, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * But isn't the whole point of the discussion at Astrology, that only one aspect of it is pseudoscience per se (its supposed predictive function), which is why the lede is being rewritten? The NPOV policy isn't stopping that happening. So when you say "this policy text is cited to dismiss RS" (insofar as that makes sense given that WP:CONTEXTMATTERS), where is that happening? Alexbrn (talk) 12:00, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * In the quote I gave in my original post here? I think this !vote is also essentially doing that by citing WP:PSCI to justify directly contradicting the RSs quoted (editor: "the fact that it is, and always has been, pseudoscience" vs RSs: "should be judged as not pseudoscientific in classical or Renaissance times", "was not a pseudoscience until the modern era", "recognized as a science—not as a pseudo-science—until the 18th century"). Also note the doubling down here, where the editor responds with calling the source mistaken and proposing that the mistake is rooted in a way of thinking that is in fact exactly how RS think about it (cf. my response here).But again, this is not about any particular content dispute or the outcome of any particular RfC. There are other reasons for taking specific positions there. I just think that the current WP:PSCI text has a blind spot in not recognizing that the large majority of RS on pseudoscience are not written by scientists, and that a different WP:PSCI text, stressing more explicitly that we should portray the subject as the relevant RS do, is needed to prevent editorial dismissal of sources. So, what about the text proposed above? ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 13:13, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, this is just rehashing the content dispute at Astrology, but Thagard as a source is reliable for Thagard's view, not necessarily for any assertion of fact or knowledge. As saying something "is" pseudoscience does not mean it "ever was" pseudoscience in any case, as multiple editors have pointed-out to you (same's true of many other pseudosciences, like homeopathy). In general it's a bad idea attempt to change core policy off the back of content dispute in which one is deeply involved. You general argument, which seems to be that if something was every taken seriously by anyone it can't be called "pseudoscience", is illogical and wrong. Alexbrn (talk) 13:50, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That is not my argument, and I have no wish to further any content dispute here. My actual proposal for this page is set out above. If you are not planning to formulate a substantial objection to it, please refrain from filibustering. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 14:47, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with the comments above that opening the door specifically to "philosophers of science" risks opening the door to credulous fringe views. Just because a "philosopher of science" reckons something's feasible (cryonics? cold fusion?) shouldn't prevent Wikipedia being forthright about the actual state of knowledge among relevant experts. There will be occasions when philosophers specializing in pseudoscience are apt (e.g. Massimo Pigliucci, who incidentally calls astrology "an almost perfect example of pseudoscience") as well as other non-hard-science good sources (like relevant sceptics, especially per WP:PARITY). But this happens anyway without giving what looks like dangerous license, with a change to NPOV, that would lend a whole patchily-sensible category of people dubious authority with policy force. Alexbrn (talk) 15:10, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for that. As I explained in my reply to the comments above, I agree that philosophy of science may be somewhat of a dubious category to single out. What about Relevant sources may include those written by scientists as well as historians, anthropologists, sociologists, and other scholars in the humanities? It's not meant to give humanities scholars any kind of special license, just to acknowledge that they are among the relevant RS. Of course such an acknowledgment would not endorse giving undue weight to any minority opinion in these RS, let alone fringe. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 15:37, 24 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Same problem. "Anthropologists, sociologists, and other scholars in the humanities" being named potentially does give license to a large cohort of scientifically illiterate people straying out of their lane. Putting this kind of permission in NPOV would be asking for trouble. For science we need reputable science publications, or proxy sources which are well-reputed and known to be accurate in their representation of science and scientific consensus. You keep saying "RS" as though it's a global binary, but humanities scholars are not RS for contentious science topics, they're only RS for their own views or maybe their humanities specialism. Naomi Wolf is not RS for vaccine safety, but your proposed re-wording would open that door, or at least cause arguments and confusion. Alexbrn (talk) 15:48, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That's a sensible objection. If I may quibble I would say though that science scholars are also not RS for many aspects of pseudoscience-related topics. Scientists decide whether something is legitimate science or not, but their expertise ends there. They often have no historical understanding, they tend to be philosophically illiterate, and they are generally ignorant of the social processes involved in knowledge construction. All of these are essential to properly understand pseudoscience, as opposed to science itself. There's a reason why the majority of reliable sources on pseudoscientific topics are not written by scientists. I believe you may be thinking too much about all the science-related articles in which some editors try to insert pseudoscientific nonsense. Of course scientists will make up the majority (or even the totality) of RSs there, but not so in articles on subjects that are themselves pseudoscientific. Our policy somehow needs to cover both adequately.But yes, we should absolutely avoid the kind of trouble you describe with non-science scholars straying out of their lane on science-related subjects. As you say, wp:context matters a lot, and that is perhaps the primary reason why it would be madness to cite scholars without any medical training on vaccine safety. Naomi Wolf is a particularly bad example though, since looking at the publishers of her writings, I think it would be a stretch to even call her a scholar at all. Like I wrote above, humanities scholars who are RS follow the scientific consensus almost without exception. But admittedly, the rare occasion will crop up where an otherwise respectable scholar publishing with high-quality academic publishers suddenly (or sometimes not so suddenly) starts to spout pseudoscientific nonsense. That's why I added a rather forceful clause to my proposal not found in the current version: All content on Wikipedia must be in accordance with the mainstream views of the scientific community. Non-scientific RSs may be relevant, but only if they are in accordance with mainstream scientific views. Perhaps there is some better way to word this in conjunction with the due acknowledgment that sources from the humanities may in some cases be relevant? What about Relevant sources may include those written by scientists as well as historians, anthropologists and other scholars in the humanities, as long as they do not contradict mainstream scientific views? ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 17:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the "stay in your lane" thing applies to everyone. If the material is historical in nature ("He was famous for inventing the concept of Billable hours"), cite a history book, not a scientific paper.  If the material is sociological in nature ("Consultations with astrologers tend to increase during periods of economic and social uncertainty"), then cite a sociologist.  If it's scientific ("It doesn't work, and you'd actually be better off consulting a fortune teller, because they at least might have some Cold reading skills"), then cite a scientific paper. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:43, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Science is a particular process which includes starting with disprovable claims/hypothesis and then rigorous testing / vetting of such. The body of knowledge that came through that process is also called science.  That "science" body of information is given much higher credibility because it has gone through that process.  If some other field claims to be scientific, to have scientifically based tenets etc then it inherently should subject it's claims / tenets to scrutiny by the scientific process. I think that Wikipedia (rightly) follows this concept regarding sources for those.  They must be ones who apply the scientific process to explicit and implicit claims of scientificity. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 18:10, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Inputs request @ a concern over systemic bias
A concern over systemic bias is raised @ discussion @ Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles with following relevant comment

".. IMHO MOS:HON and MOS:MUHAMMAD discussion when closely related to WP:NPOV policy formation itself then be discussed @ WT:NPOV and not doing so amounts to inadvertent systemic bias. .."

Thanks for inputs

&#32;Bookku, &#39;Encyclopedias &#61; expanding information &#38; knowledge&#39; (talk) 10:40, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Statement of purpose as part of NPOV policy of avoiding honorifics
Greetings,

IMHO all policies should have a 'Statement of purpose' with site wide consensus  through long enough discussions and later formalized by RfC.

Herewith I am proposing Statement of purpose as part of NPOV policy of avoiding honorifics.


 * Statement of purpose: A) NPOV policy of avoiding honorifics expects neutral titles without honorifics to encourage multiple viewpoints, responsible article writing, adds value to encyclopedic neutrality hence helps build encyclopedic credibility ..", B) Discussions surrounding and encouraging NPOV policy of avoiding honorifics  helps educates readers, new editors of encyclopedic neutrality and works as all time neutrality reminder  to even established editors hence help Wikipedia community to maintain a good track record in respect to neutrality, C) Refocusing towards neutrality, whenever neutrality slides down due to excessive exemption seeking.
 * D) NPOV policy of avoiding honorifics may have exemptions only where necessary with maximum weightage for avoiding  honorifics  wherever avoidance is possible, Any facility of exemption should not be used to turn Wikipedia's Value of NPOV Upside-down
 * E) NPOV policy of avoiding honorifics should have 'principle of parity' across domains and classes in application or exemption.
 * F) NPOV policy of avoiding honorifics should fundamentally be applicable to all honorifics, across all articles including article titles.
 * Please note this is just a discussion stage hence just a call for inputs and not RfC so at this stage only discussions and no voting support or oppose.
 * Any such policy update would need site wide and long long discussions so there is no hurry. I do not mind if consensus generation process 2 or even 4 years.

Thanks for inputs

&#32;Bookku, &#39;Encyclopedias &#61; expanding information &#38; knowledge&#39; (talk) 16:56, 4 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't agree that all policies need a statement of purpose. I also don't agree that we need to explain and justify our decisions in the policies.  We especially don't need to change the NPOV policy to justify decisions about writing style.  It is our stylistic choice to write "the Islamic prophet Muhammad" or simply "Muhammad" instead of "The Prophet", just like we write "Woodrow Wilson" or "the then-President Wilson", and not "the former President, Professor Governor Woodrow Wilson, Ph.D."  This is not solely or even primarily an NPOV decision.  Among other things, it makes articles shorter/less cluttered, it discourages Argument from authority, and in the case of the central figure of Islam, it recognizes that there is only one Muhammad in the world whom we can assume readers will recognize without introduction.  See also Shakespeare, who is not written as "Mr. William Shakespeare, Bard of Avon" or Napoleon, who is not "Napoleon I, Emperor of the French" on wiki. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:04, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for inputs but proposition here is only NPOV centric; neither it is writing style centric nor Islam centric.
 * &#32;Bookku, &#39;Encyclopedias &#61; expanding information &#38; knowledge&#39; (talk) 01:14, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * This seems to me the epitome of pointless bureaucracy, for no conceivable gain. Echoing WaId: I don't agree that policies need a statement of purpose, nor do we need to justify decisions in the policies. If you want justification, consult the discussions and/or edit history that led to the status quo. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 03:01, 5 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Proposition is now updated to add ".. C) Refocusing towards neutrality, whenever neutrality slides down due to excessive exemption seeking. .."
 * &#32;Bookku, &#39;Encyclopedias &#61; expanding information &#38; knowledge&#39; (talk) 03:37, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Honorifics are not mentioned in NPOV at all. We can't have anything that is "part of NPOV policy of avoiding honorifics" because there is no "NPOV policy of avoiding honorifics" in existence. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:13, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Since beginning of Wikipedia always there have been several users who consider usage of honorifics amount to undermining of core Wikipedia principle of neutrality. For those to whom neutrality concern paramount, in principle, any policy of relating to neutrality belongs to WP:NPOV
 * ".. IMHO MOS:HON and MOS:MUHAMMAD discussion when closely related to WP:NPOV policy formation itself then be discussed @ WT:NPOV and not doing so amounts to inadvertent systemic bias. .." &#32;Bookku, &#39;Encyclopedias &#61; expanding information &#38; knowledge&#39; (talk) 08:13, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Well we should perhaps be thankful that we are community of more than several users, since this has meant that such things remain a matter of editorial style. This is just the same as any newspaper having an editorial style guide that determines if to use and where to use (or not) the likes of His Highness, Her Excellence, His Holiness, etc - though "prophet" is incidentally not a clear "honorific" in any case, but more a job role, much like pope, bishop, saint in Christianity - "saint", you will note, is not in WP:HON, but in MOS:SAINT (a part of WP:NCCL, the clergy style guide) - titles and honorific titles are distinct subjects. MOS:MUHAMMAD is currently nested under MOS:ISLAMHON, but this is a misnomer and should perhaps be addressed. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:49, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * In 2001 on 30th day of Wikipedia foundation Wikipedia founders were discussing NPOV policy, and no bias policy was there in their mind even before. Core content policies lists WP:NPOV first. So WP:NPOV is expected to be a primary commitment for Wikipedian editor.
 * There may be need of n–number of exception as practicability or other reasons. The above proposition very much keeps space for separate deliberation of any such required exception. Purpose of above proposition is to establish unequivocal primacy of neutrality  as a basic principle. If any one is committed to   neutrality as foundational principle then need not be afraid of the proposition in principle.
 * &#32;Bookku, &#39;Encyclopedias &#61; expanding information &#38; knowledge&#39; (talk) 10:16, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The core content policies are meant to work together, in a balanced, integrated system. There is no single policy that has "unequivocal primacy" over the others.  NPOV must be limited to what is verifiable, even if the result feels "not neutral" to an editor, and verifiable content must be limited to what is neutral, even if an editor could source non-neutral content.   WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:19, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * WAID, I think you went a bit too far ("verifiable content must be limited to what is neutral, even if an editor could source non-neutral content."). NPOV expressly allows the use of non-neutral sourcing and non-neutral content that results from accurately documenting what such non-neutral reliable sources say. We must remember that the primary focus of NPOV is neutral editing, IOW editorial neutrality, not neutral sources or content. Editors must not "get in the way" (=edit without editorial bias) of how they document what non-neutral sources say. They should just do it, even if the result is non-neutral language. They must not censor or neuter what non-neutral reliable sources say. They should convey the meaning and spirit of the source. To interfere in that process violates NPOV by placing editorial opinion and interpretation above what RS say. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:37, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think we disagree. NPOV does not permit un-verifiable content.  Content verified in a WP:BIASED source is still verifiable content.  You must not censor or neuter what the reliable sources say, but you must also not make up stuff that cannot be found in any reliable source ("NPOV must be limited to what is verifiable"), and you must not over-emphasize the sources you happen to agree with ("verifiable content must be limited to what is neutral"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:41, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Idk if it is my own limitation, some how proposition is being misunderstood and discussion seem to be digressing from main positive intention of the proposition. First of all we are not doing any changes without multiple long discussions, and we do not have any negative intentions, so one need not be afraid.
 * I believe confirmation bias come naturally to humans where as inculcating attitude of neutrality needs some extra effort, training of minds and continued practice.  Specially Wikipedia's most readership and first time editors do not come with any such training. Every time a newcomer raises objection with their own confirmation bias  @ talk pages that creates an opportunity to educate them about Wikipedia's principle of NPOV and how it works.  Avoidance of honorifics and titles helps user to train their minds to distance themselves from confirmation bias es and  discourages Argument from authority.
 * When Users used to MOS HON think those policies has nothing to do NPOV since they are not informed that discussions were started from side of users who objected Honorifics and titles etc over NPOV issues itself. One of such discussion we can find @ Talk:Jesus/Archive 1  in mid 2001 itself.   That discussion is as follows:
 * ".. Should we really call this page "Jesus Christ"? Calling him Jesus Christ, implies he was/is the Christ (i.e. the annointed one, the Messiah), and a lot of people who don't think he is the Christ wouldn't want to call him that. Wouldn't "Jesus of Nazareth" be a more neutral name for him? -- SJK
 * Hmm, Jesus "the Christ"? That looks really goofy. :-) The way-NPOV name would be Yeshua benYousef or Yeshua benMiriyam. I don't think that'll work either.  .."
 * So I am not inventing some new NPOV concern. Nor ".. Neutral titles encourage multiple viewpoints and responsible article writing. .." is my own invention but is already stated in WP:POVNAMING.  Just I am trying to add value to it
 * When I talk of primacy of NPOV is basically over other MOS related discussions, since while conducting those exception asking discussions ideal of NPOV  need to be at the back of everyone's mind otherwise natural instincts of confirmation bias can inadvertently trump  NPOV.
 * Whether we incorporate or not, try to write your own positive statement of purpose in good faith and see where it goes, I am sure every one will come up with some positive results.
 * &#32;Bookku, &#39;Encyclopedias &#61; expanding information &#38; knowledge&#39; (talk) 09:18, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * These primitive discussions from 2001 do little but illustrate how weakly developed the notion of NPOV was at the time, and how straightforward naming guidelines were yet to be hashed out. For instance, the view that Yeshua benYousef was a neutral name with respect to the collected body of sourcing with respect to Jesus was an interesting one to say the least. And these days, aside from WP:COMMONNAME, the argument that would cut at the heart of a hypothetical naming debate between a title of 'Jesus Christ' and just 'Jesus' would simply be by way of WP:CRITERIA - Jesus being more concise, natural, just as recognizable and precise, and consistent with WP:SINGLENAME for names from antiquity. No recourse to NPOV is needed for most naming discussions. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:25, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

We should have and enshrine a few statements of purpose somewhere, but since they in effect drive everything else they need to be very few, not overly detailed, and and ultra consensused. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 11:34, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:UO" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Wikipedia:UO and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 14 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Q𝟤𝟪 08:26, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Discrepancy between POVNAME and POVNAMING
WP:POVNAMING says that we should prefer a neutral name unless the use of a neutral name will cause recognizability issues; it then suggests that if a name widely used in reliable sources then it is likely to be well recognized. However, WP:POVNAME says that we should generally use the WP:COMMONNAME of a subject, even when the common name is not neutral, without consideration of whether a neutral name would be sufficiently recognizable to use.

This discrepancy needs to be corrected, with POVNAME, part of a guideline, being adapted to match POVNAMING, part of a core policy. However, I also propose altering POVNAMING by replacing the third sentence with the bolded text in the following: In some cases, the name chosen for a topic can give an appearance of bias. While neutral terms are generally preferable, this must be balanced against clarity; if a non-neutral name is significantly more recognizable to readers than more neutral alternatives it may be used.

The current third sentence, If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English) and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased. could be interpreted as meaning that WP:NATURALNESS is sufficient reason to use a non-neutral title; the second sentence, While neutral terms are generally preferable, this must be balanced against clarity. makes it clear that the justification is WP:RECOGNIZABILITY, but this lack of clarity is problematic, and is likely the cause of the discrepancy between POVNAMING and POVNAME. BilledMammal (talk) 15:34, 3 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I don’t see any discrepancy… they both say the same thing (although they approach it from opposite directions): Recognizability out weighs perceived neutrality… because the most Neutral name IS the most COMMONLY USED name. Blueboar (talk) 16:05, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * They don't say quite the same thing; POVNAMING says that recognizability outweighs neutrality, POVNAME says that naturalness outweighs neutrality. In addition, the common name is not always the most neutral name; for example, Alexander the Great and Ivan the Terrible - more neutral alternatives would be Alexander III of Macedon and Ivan Vasilyevich. We don't use either of those names because of a lack of recognizability, but it isn't always the case that less common names are less recognizable. BilledMammal (talk) 16:42, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It may be worthwhile to establish what we want both to say by establishing what the expectation is regardless of existing language, just to make sure we can then write both to match that. M asem (t) 16:44, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. Considering the principles of WP:NPOV which state that to whatever extent possible, encyclopedic writing should steer clear of taking any particular stance other than the stance of the neutral point of view, I think an exception for recognizability is warranted, but not for naturalness.
 * The problems that not using the natural name cause can easily be addressed through redirects; considering the mandate of "whatever extent possible", I don't believe these problems justify an exemption.
 * Recognizability, however, cannot be as easily addressed; articles are most useful for our readers when they permit the reader to connect what they read in the article with their existing knowledge, and for this to happen we need to use names that the reader will recognize; Ivan the Terrible, not Ivan Vasilyevich. Since significantly reducing the usefulness of our articles is not an acceptable option an exception here is warranted - neutrality should be balanced with recognizability. BilledMammal (talk) 19:29, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Are there any further thoughts on this, before I try a bold edit to WP:POVNAME or open an RfC? BilledMammal (talk) 12:12, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I would ask that you go the RFC route… and propose specific language. Blueboar (talk) 12:42, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Will do. I would propose clarifying WP:POVNAMING by replacing the first three sentences with In some cases, the name chosen for a topic can give an appearance of bias. While neutral terms are generally preferable, this must be balanced against clarity; if a non-neutral name is significantly more recognizable to readers than more neutral alternatives it may be used., and replacing the content of WP:POVNAME with a link here - duplicating the guidance will just lead to confusion. BilledMammal (talk) 14:00, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * No strong objection… but some concerns… part of the thinking behind POVNAME’s stress on recognizability is to note that WP should not (in a misguided attempt to be neutral) invent OUR OWN names for things that already HAVE a recognizable name in the real world. To do so actually places our judgement of what is acceptable over the judgement of the real world - which is, paradoxically, non-neutral. Blueboar (talk) 14:45, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I assume you mean POVNAME's stress on naturalness?
 * If you do, I disagree with your point; the real world doesn't always choose neutral or accurate titles, but recognizing this doesn't require us to use our own judgement of what is acceptable. To go back to our previous example, describing Ivan the Terrible as Terrible is not neutral. This isn't because we are using our own judgement, but because because while reliable sources use that name, they don't describe him as "Terrible", and in fact reject that description. BilledMammal (talk) 15:11, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * No… I am talking about POVNAME’s stress on using the COMMONNAME (if there is one). Remember that NPOV applies to you and me (as WP editors). Now, when it comes to what names to use, the most neutral thing we (as editors) can do is put OUR OWN preferences to one side… and use the names that a majority of sources use (even if we think that name is biased). IF the sources are split over what names THEY use, THEN we can use our own judgement to choose between them (and can choose the name that WE prefer)… but when there IS a COMMONNAME, the most neutral thing we can do is use that. Blueboar (talk) 15:45, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if we're misunderstanding each other or just disagreeing, but do you agree that "Ivan the Terrible" is not a neutral title, even though it is the WP:COMMONNAME? BilledMammal (talk) 22:48, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @BilledMammal, does the name "Ivan the Terrible" represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources about what this person's name was? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:04, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Not exactly. Reliable sources agree that he is commonly called "Ivan the Terrible". However, they agree that his name was Ivan Vasilyevich, they agree that "Terrible", and thus "Ivan the Terrible", has a different meaning today ("defective" or "evil") than it did originally ("formidable", among others), and they agree that it isn't an accurate or neutral description. BilledMammal (talk) 03:15, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * NPOV means neutrality with respect to sourcing, so if Ivan the Terrible is almost universally called that in the sourcing, that is his NPOV name. In the very specific context here, a recent theory that the name might not be completely fair because of dab of semantic drift does not override the source consensus that his name is his name. In any case, I think this is a bad example and the issue overwrought. 'Terrible' does have a slight onus of the villain to it, but still in a 'formidable' leader sense, and is understood in historical context. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:18, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Specifics aside, my position is that it is both possible for something to be a WP:COMMONNAME but also to be interpreted as a descriptive name, and as a descriptive name be non-neutral. For example, there isn't a scholarly consensus that Ivan the Terrible was terrible, though there is a scholarly consensus that he is commonly called Terrible. BilledMammal (talk) 07:56, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * "There isn't a scholarly consensus that Ivan the Terrible was terrible" – hmm, but which definition? There might not be a scholarly consensus that Ivan was "Dreadful; causing terror, alarm and fear"; however, isn't there something of a consensus that Ivan was "Formidable, powerful"?  That's the second definition at Wiktionary, and very similar to the second definition at https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/terrible.  These are not marked as archaic meanings.  It would be silly to say that editors can only use words according to the dictionary's first meaning. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:15, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * WAID makes an excellent point here. Huggums537 (talk) 09:22, 31 July 2022 (UTC)