Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Archive 025

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

[edit] This talk page is getting really excessive...

The amount of activity on this talk page in the last couple weeks has been rather excessive to say the least. Since at least some of these are the result of content disputes being dragged to this talk page, I propose we put a notice of some sort at the top of the page saying that this is not the place for the discussion of individual content disputes, but rather the policy itself. --tjstrf 23:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

This is typical when individuals with personal agendas try to shape policy to better accommodate their views. If an individual or faction repeatedly hammers away at a proposed but rejected change to the point of taking over discussions on other topics and thus the page, it will at that point be obviously disruptive. Such single-minded yammering then can be removed to a subpage or a user's talk page. Should they continue to disrupt this page there's always RFC. FeloniousMonk 18:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I've archived the page. The previous major discussion was fruitless and getting disruptive. FeloniousMonk 18:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Excessive and disruptive. How? It seems that some folks actually were beginning to see that certain administrators and editors have been gaming the system for too long, and the need to mandate neutral, non-polemical language was making certain folks uncomfortable.
The Wikilawyering and misuse of the NPOV rule has been the issue.
The NPOV rule needs plain language to prevent admins/editors with visible agendas from gaming the system, and using their power to make the rule meaningless. Let's allow the system to work, instead of resorting to personal attacks against well-meaning individuals whose views make certain people ::feel threatened.
I appeal to the Wikipedia community to make the NPOV rule all that it should be, guaranteeing that even the most controversial figures and movements are treated fairly and non-polemically.
If neutrality doesn't mean what it says, then it's meaningless. Opinions in content are unavoidable no matter who includes the material, but slant and bias in included POV and language nullify the NPOV rule. Plain language is needed to keep the unscrupulous from gaming the system and undermining it.
--Pravknight 21:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
You are forgetting the official policy of WP:AGF. We assume the good faith of our editors, admins and bureacrats. Your comment above about "visible agendas", "gaming the system", "using their powers", "resorting to personal attacks" etc. is specious unless you have specific cases that you want to bring to the attention of the community (via the proper channels of dispute resolution, please). As for your concerns about living people being treated fairly in articles, see WP:BLP. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
You may want to see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pravknight. He's been trying to reshape policy ever since. FeloniousMonk 22:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I question the nuetrality of the workers at wickpedia. It seems as though the liberal media have taken over once again. The idea that this is neutal is a joke.

What's so wrong with wanting to make Wikipedia a better more credible place? Let's stop these personal attacks and discuss policy not personalities. Why are you so threatened by my desire to make Wikipedia more, professional, fair and balanced? I follow the rules based upon what I read, then you delete verifiable, sourced material when it disagrees with your agenda, such as where you said that my post undermines your opinion that Dominionism is a threat.
This is supposed to be an encyclopedia where people aren't supposed to have any agendas whatsoever.
Let's discuss the merits of policy here, and not engage in personal attacks.--Pravknight 23:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
"This is supposed to be an encyclopedia where people aren't supposed to have any agendas whatsoever" Sure, let us know when you're ready to start.
"Let's discuss the merits of policy here" This page isn't for discussion of "the merits of policy," but for earnest talk on adjustments and corrections. So far you've made no specific suggestions, other than the one you made at your RFC, "I vote for changing NPOV to LPOV=Left-wing points of view only. At least the policy would be honest." Do we really need to be discussing that one?
Another policy, WP:AGF requires me to "Assume that others are trying to help Wikipedia rather than harm it...". But it follows this enjoinder up with " ...unless there is clear and present evidence to the contrary." And documented in the evidence at your RFC, there's ample clear and present evidence to the contrary, hence my concern over your participation here, which others endorsing there share. FeloniousMonk 17:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
On the point, "let the policy and guidelines use plain language", I completely agree. If we can make it so obvious that a policy would be hard to misunderstand, we will have gone a great distance toward reducing policy discussion. Simple phrases that editors can quote to support their edits would be helpful. Clean definitions instead of erudite, hot air wiki-speak, common uses of common words will save us all a lot of discussion. Terryeo 16:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
The policy is already in plain English and easy to understand. What's attributed to a lack of clarity can usually be better explained by a lack of thorough reading or a want of honesty. I've been watching and participating at this page for over two years, and during that time the pattern I've seen is that those who repeatedly hammer away at this policy claiming it needs to the reformulated have largely those seeking to promote a particular viewpoint or campaign. Arguments made by our RFC'd friend here are a case in point. Most claims of this policy being unclear are simply transparent attempts to weaken or alter the policy to its detriment. Successful, credible long term contributors to the project already find this policy plainly obvious and hard to misunderstand. Of course, that has a lot of explanatory power for why they are successful over the long term. FeloniousMonk 17:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Good Monk, I would never agree to it being reformulated. But I do think it could be made more clear. For example, NPOV clearly states that any information used in Wikipedia must have been published, i.e. "all significant published points of view are to be presented". I have gotten into huge and ongoing disagreements over this trivial point. A point of view was unpublished, but an editor had a copy of it. I certainly don't want reformulation. But I do think it could be written for better understanding. I would present the word "published" very early and present it in the nutshell and present it often. I think problems happen because the most basic concepts are not clearly grasped. Terryeo 18:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

And in the instance you are referring to Terryeo, you kept attempting to force your own POV definition of "publish" into the discussion instead of the common dictionary definition. --Fahrenheit451 02:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I remember that discussion well, F. The Church published a book which I quoted, citing the page number, ISBN, etc. and you didn't have a copy of it. It says "lecture xyz is unpublished". You didn't have a copy of the hardbound, but had a copy of the softbound which doesn't have that chapter in it. So therefore, my information was a "FORCE !" and not a normal, good faith citation. Right, I follow your reasoning. Then my quotations and links to dictionarys too were typed onto the page with FORCE ! right, I follow your reasoning. Terryeo 08:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

---

I note in the above discussion, the preponderance of ad hominem fallacy rather than addressing the soundness of what the editor has written--a pattern displayed by many of the various differences of opinion above. I also note the repeated reference to WP:AGF--which judging from its use on all sides above is so ambiguously and poorly written that even explicit quotes from WP:AGF policy are used above to stifle good problem-solving ideas both by the 1) consensus editors and by those 2) who criticize the consensus position. Here again, the underlying flaw in Wikipedia policy (WP:NPOV, WP:AGF, . . . ) is that the minority view has no safe harbor for discussing--even on TalkPages--very concrete suggestions for improving the Wikipedia policy text without being hounded from the discussion by the tactics of the localized consensus faction. So how do we fix these serious flaws in Wikipedia policy text? Where--even--can serious discussions for improving Wikipedia policy text occur without the localized consensus faction breaking up the discussion? --Rednblu 17:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

One problem is cliques (or maybe even sockpuppets) acting in concert to intimidate dissenters, particularly on the policy pages. There is at least one such operating here. No point in naming names, you know who you are.
A favorite technique is to allege a concensus and pretend the pesky dissenter is antisocial and a definite menace to society for not agreeing with their particular POV. Some of their techniques are pretty sophisticated, if you know the game. E.g., "Good-Guy, Bad Guy", where one of the clique will pretend to befriend the pest to get him to agree with their artifactual "concensus". Another is to simply gang up until the dissentor goes away. It helps if you have a lot of time on your hands. Interestingly, Wikipedia:concensus recognizes the possibility of such concerted actions and specifically states that a decision reached by such means is "Not a concensus". Pproctor 22:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

---

Well said. You point to the high noise factor in the room. But the challenge, it seems to me, is to develop some team work--even in the high noise--for devising some clear and self-consistent wording for Wikipedia policy, such as WP:NPOV. I am thinking there may be some opportunity to write some good clear advice for those that the consensus calls "cranks". The advice might go something like the following.

  • If the consensus repeatedly calls you a "crank," you have an increased duty to follow WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:V, and WP:RS even when you think the consensus flagrantly violates all rules. If you really do have something important to say and the consensus keeps calling you a "crank," then you must take responsibility and have compassion for the long and arduous learning it will take for the consensus to understand the WP:V and WP:RS that you present.

Something like that. I see too many good people go up the wall, as above--just because of the high noise factor in the room. What do you think? --Rednblu 07:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:sock puppetry sez re cliques: "It is considered highly inappropriate or unacceptable to advertise Wikipedia articles that are being debated in order to attract users with known views and bias, in order to strengthen one side of a debate. It is also considered highly inappropriate to ask friends or family members to create accounts for the purpose of giving additional support. Advertising or soliciting meatpuppet activity is not an acceptable practice on Wikipedia. On-Wikipedia canvassing should be reverted if possible." Not that this ever slowed anybody Pproctor 01:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

---

I am curious. What do you think is the greatest difficulty with the policy text, such as WP:NPOV text: 1) the parked "owners" of the page, such as by the mechanisms you note, or 2) the inherent difficulty of designing a clear system, or 3) something else? What do you think? --Rednblu 04:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The biggest problem with the page is probably that very few people think to demonstrate a specific need for or benefit to the changes they propose. --tjstrf 04:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree, I think that is right. But I would add that when people do post "examples" those examples are far removed from the issue that prompts them to come to this page in the first place. Not every time, but pretty often. Terryeo 12:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC

[edit] "Appropriate Weight" loophole

"This article is about fruit, except strawberries". Does that violate any WP policies? Fourtildas 04:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean to ask. It is all about applied good sense, really. These many discussions and modifications are really about arriving at agreements which are just good sense, that everyone can apply, ideally, that everyone understands immediately and without difficulty. Terryeo 06:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
We are supposed to give appropriate weight to all aspects of the topic/subject. But if I don't want to give appropriate weight to strawberries, can I arbitrarily exclude them from the topic of "Fruit"? I could give many examples of this ploy being used in WP articles. Often the topic is not explicitly stated, or is stated in a vague and ambiguous way so it is impossible to judge whether it "gives appropriate weight to all aspects of the topic". (This is a bad example since strawberries aren't really fruit).
For example, "This article is about the country X, but excluding the aboriginal people who formerly inhabited the territory of X". There are such articles in WP. Fourtildas 05:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
You're bringing up USA again? That decision is necessary for stylistic reasons. As I mentioned last time, America is almost the size of Europe. Covering the history of all notable American Indian tribes in the USA article makes as much sense as covering the history of all notable European ethnic groups in the main Europe article. --tjstrf 08:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I didn't mention the vast USA, but how about microscopic Israel / Palestine. How would you define the topic/subject of Palestine? The best I can do is "Times and places in the Palestine geographical region when the Jewish race was not dominant". And the topic/subject of Israel: "Times and places in the Palestine geographical region when the Jewish race was dominant". (If you don't know what "race" means, look it up in a dictionary).
My point is that if we are to take the policy about "appropriate weight to all aspects of the topic/subject" seriously then we need to clearly delineate the topic/subject.
And BTW, why does it "make sense" to devote most of the article to the doings of white colonials, and hardly anything to the vast majority of (non-white) people who have lived in the region? Why is it more important to tell our readers where some Swedish or Dutch farmers settled but not mention the Indian Nations that were ethnically cleansed (or insert your favourite euphemism) to make way for them? I can read about Swedish or Dutch farmers elsewhere in WP if I'm interested. Fourtildas 06:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I think the undue weight principle is a giant loop hole in NPOV that can be used by the majority to censor out minority viewpoints. See Scientific issues and Undue weight in this page. --Ron Marshall 14:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Making necessary assumptions

Currently the section on the FAQ says:

  • What about the case where, in order to write any of a long series of articles on some general subject, we must make some controversial assumptions? That's the case, e.g., in writing about evolution. Surely we won't have to hash out the evolution-vs.-creationism debate on every such page?
No, surely not. There are virtually no topics that could proceed without making some assumptions that someone would find controversial. This is true not only in evolutionary biology, but also in philosophy, history, physics, etc.
It is difficult to draw up general principles on which to rule in specific cases, but the following might help: there is probably not a good reason to discuss some assumption on a given page, if an assumption is best discussed in depth on some other page. Some brief, unobtrusive pointer might be apropos, however. E.g., in an article about the evolutionary development of horses, we might have one brief sentence to the effect that some creationists do not believe that horses (or any other animals) underwent any evolution, and point the reader to the relevant article. If there is much specific argument over some particular point, it might be placed on a special page of its own.

Should it say some thing like:

  • What about the case where, in order to write any of a long series of articles on some general subject, we must make some controversial assumptions? That's the case, e.g., in writing about evolution. Surely we won't have to hash out the evolution-vs.-creationism debate on every such page?
Wikipedia policy is verifiability, not truth WP:V. If an assumption is made, it is helpful to express it. If the assumption is expressed, it is less likely that a statement will be actively contested, compared with saying something occured and not expressing the assumption. E.g., "according to evolutionary theory, the cow came into existence approximately....etc.". If necessary, several viewpoints based on different assumptions can be mentioned in this manner while retaining a neutral point of view. Remember: "Let the facts speak for themselves." In certain cases of popular non-scholarly consensus (basically most people believe something occurred) with dissident on the part of some but not all scholars, it may be helpful to give the popular consensus first (attributing it as "popular"), followed by an "if not": e.g.,"So-and-so is popularly attributed with inventing the gadget (or finding the thing or accomplishing the feat)... If this was not the case, it has been speculated that...."
In the case of a majority of consensus of scholarship on a given point, it is helpful to identify this consensus. E.g., in an article about the origin of an specific animal, the article would explain that the majority of biologists (or other scholars) have concluded (or believe, or profess, or teach, or publicly hold) that the approximate origin of a certain species was approximately ____ million years ago. In this case, it is unnecessary to explain creationist or religious views of the origin of an animal (views which can be explained on articles about creationist and religious theory) unless it specifically applies to that animal (such as with a cow, the Christian origin would be unnecessary, but if the Hindu origin was that cows were the original rulers of the earth before humans, this would be significant--I doubt Hindus believe that but hopefully you get the point). It also makes it unnecessary to engage in a controversy as to the precise date among scholars (in the case of the evolution of an animal species, precise dates as to the origin of a species would be rare) unless it is necessary to make such a delineation. Although the actual origin of an animal may be contested (any references Wikipedia can use were only written within the past 10,000 years at most), it is highly unlikely that the fact that there is a "majority consensus of scholars" on a topic will be disputed unless there is a significant number of scholars who believe (or profess, teach, etc.) otherwise. In this case it may be important to include this different scholarly viewpoint. If this is done, it may be helpful to include the approximate percentages of scholars who hold such a view (such as: at the US National Council of Biology in May of 2005, a poll of 4000 of the leading biologists was conducted in which 74% of biologists attending professed that the cow and the horse were more closely related by evolution than the horse and the giraffe, 19% professed that the giraffe and horse were more closely related by evolution than the horse and cow, and 7% professed that that all three species were of equal evolutionary distance from one another--this is not the true, but just an example for lack of another right now).

I did an awful job of it (and I would never want this used in its current form!) I will check back later.JBogdan 12:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that a large expose about another policy belongs in this policy. Apart of that, I think that you're right that reference must be made to WP:V. Harald88 21:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] should we be prefer the information from "secondary" sources over that of "primary" sources?

Recently the following sentence was added to WP:NOR:

Articles which draw predominantly on primary sources are generally discouraged, in favor of articles based predominantly on secondary sources

IMO that sentence not only doesn't belong there as it even may cause conflict with WP:NPOV as well as WP:V. Please comment on its Talk page [1]

I have a hard time taking this subtle distinction seriously, since so many "sources" quoted in WP are the opinionated ramblings of "Some guy on the internet" - the reader has no way of knowing even if they are fact or fiction. I don't understand why we don't require peer reviewed sources. Give an example of something that can't make it into the peer reviewed literature but should be in WP. All that garbage that "some people believe", I guess. Fourtildas 06:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
You may want to read the NOR policy (WP:NOR)on that: no rambling internet guys are allowed as source on Wikipedia, except of course to verify (WP:V} a relevant claim about the existence of such sources.
IOW, that is moot, beside the point. Harald88 20:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
well, Fourtildas, I think you're right. I think that WP:V or WP:RS should develop a priority of reference, spelling out from strongly preferred to weakly allowed to borderline and finally, "below our reliablility threshold". Of course peer reviewed would be well up such a list and all of our articles would gravitate toward those kind of sources. But without such a list, it is all hit and miss, cut and poke (or whatever you call it). Terryeo 03:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
That's already well explained in the policies, see above. Harald88 20:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
You don't need "such a list". The academic world operates on a few simple principles. I will think for a few weeks and explain what they are. But here is my first draft:
(1)There is the notion of "the literature". The academic world doesn't care what you say in letters to the editor or talk shows but if you publish in "the literature" you have to defend your facts and logic. If someone points out flaws in your facts or logic and you can't defend it this must be mentioned by other publications in "the literature".
Thank you for your confidence in me. I don't think I need such a list but there are times when I have questions about which source is more reliable. Perhaps the word should be "reputable", I'm not sure. One of the elements is, with the internet, we have a very wide range of reliability. From newgroups, to blogs, to google personal pages, to paid for IPs which host a personal website, to very reliable sites. I don't think it would hurt us to at least have a priority list which spells out that "attributed legal responsibility" (of a source) says the source is more reliable than an attributed website, which in turn is more reliable than an unattributable website. Terryeo 23:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
(2) In WP we have a distinction between "new research" and quoting sources. In the academic world there is a distinction between raw data (eg. ancient writings of questionable provenance) and scholarly writing (which is subject to criticism and needs to be defended by the author). I will compare and contrast these in future ramblings. [unsigned apparently by Fourtildas - Harald88 20:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)]
What I'm trying to get across is that the Peer Reviewed Literature provides a way to see if anyone has pointed out flaws (you can look up a paper in the Citation Index). But if I see a WP article sourced to the Bible or some propaganda pamphlet or Alice in Wonderland, how do I know which is fact or fiction? We should require that a source be an actual person who has studied the Bible or some propaganda pamphlet or Alice in Wonderland and published hir conclusions in some forum where comments and criticisms can be tracked. Material like " the Bible or some propaganda pamphlet or Alice in Wonderland" should be considered "Raw Data" and analysis of it should be considered "Original Research". Fourtildas 06:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dispassionate narrative

I read this phrase in an Wikipedian's essay somewhere (help out if it rings a bell) about the best manifestation of an NPOV tone is one that is dispassionate and not appearing emotionally involved with the subject. Much to my suprise, this point is not really incorporated into the current guideline. (Though it is somewhat alluded to in the line that NPOV is "neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject." and in Karada's Sadam Hussein quote ) All in all the guideline is currently "conflict-driven" in how it presents itself, as if an NPOV tone is only used in articles where there is an inherent conflict between views (ala Abortion). But in practice, I think it is more of a matter of what is an encyclopedic tone--regardless if there is a conflict present. I think the phrase "Dispassionate narrative" conveys this point well and I would like to see it included in the guideline as a way of describing what an encyclopedic, NPOV tone would be. Would there be consensus for this inclusion? Agne 00:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

"Dispassionate narrative" or "Dispassionate, encyclopedic narrative" communicate the idea of presenting information without emotional heat. Possibly, in an encyclopedia created purely by scholars the other end of the spectrum would manifest. That is to say, the thing could be so dry and encyclopedic as to be colorless and uninteresting. But here, with thousands of editors, that possibility seems remote in the extreme. Therefore YES ! Terryeo 00:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't think we could ever get to the point of being so dry as to be colorless. However, we do tend to swing quite easily to the other end of the spectrum with a lot of emotional writing. I always cringe when I see an article with exclamation points (talk pages excluded, of course :p) or the word "actually" in it. Agne 00:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
LOL ! Terryeo 03:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Mmmhm. Nobody can truly write an article (not even a whole bunch of scholars!) that is 100% free of emotion. It is not humanly possible. The thing is that any emotionality in the article should not lead to significant biases that would degrade the encyclopedicity (is that a real word?) of it. 70.101.147.224 05:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nutshells

This issue is unfortunately being simultaneously discussed in various parallel places, including the respective policy Talk pages as well as here. I think that since the nutshells are clearly the status quo, regardless of how we got there, it makes sense to discuss this issue on a site-wide basis before acting. Personally, I think that nutshells are an extremely useful vehicle for a newcomer to get up to speed quickly. Speaking as a recent newcomer, following the nut icons and crispy graphical box in the policy pages played an important role in helping me quickly get an overall picture of the WP policies. I think losing this important benefit would make life harder on future newcomers and would hurt WP; I would like to be absolutely sure we all understand the consequences and agree to the change, if any, with a wide margin consensus. Thanks, Crum375 19:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I would rather see well written first paragraphs. Nutshells aren't wrong, but well written first paragraphs present themselves to the eye of the reader in the same way. And they can contain the same information. Almost every damn page is developing some head template of special meaning. Warnings, alerts, and other things which a person has to wade through before they begin to read about what they came to read about. Let's drop the nutshells and make the first paragraph do the work. In several cases both the nutshell and the first paragraph say almost the same thing, anyway. Terryeo 18:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't think one contradicts the other. I think we need both good nutshells and good intros. I think they often serve different functions. For the people (mostly newcomers) following the graphical 'nut icons' on their path to quickly learning the ropes, we need to have good (i.e. contain the bare essentials, short and to the point) nutshells. To those with a bit more time and/or patience, the intros have to do a good job introducing the topics to be discussed. Yes, they often overlap, but not necessarily, and in any case they are both important, each in each own right. Crum375 19:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Why are you assuming that newcomers need Fisher Price toys? —Centrx→talk • 19:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I know for myself, having been a newcomer only recently, that following the clearly visible 'nut' icon and the nutshell boxes helped me get up to speed quickly on the many policies and guidelines, and in general made my learning experience easier. I would like future newcomers to have that same advantage. Crum375 20:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Tangentially related question... it is apparent to me that many novice users (by which I mean nobody in particular) have several misconceptions of how Wikipedia works. At first glance, the cause of this is the fact that we have way too many policy and guideline pages, and of course the prime fallacy of such pages is assuming that people will read them all. So, assuming that we can't make everybody read everything, and we can't actually get consensus to delete half of them (a fair assumption), how would you propose giving a better wikeducation to newbies? >Radiant< 22:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with your assuptions; we do have a messy designed-by-committee-camel type of policy/guideline structure. And it is tough for newbies to digest, and it does eat up valuable time - for them to learn, for the more experienced ones to teach, and for unfortunately a lot of unnecessary arguments and misunderstandings too. Obviously we need a big simplification, although I think the current WP:5P is a good start, and helped me a lot. The problem is that following 5P you end up very quickly in a maze, and then you discover a lot of inconsistencies, redundancies etc. - not fun, as a newbie especially.
One idea: I think we can have a kind of a 'newcomer path' - like various walking/biking sight-seeing trails in various locales. Like a special color icon with 'next' and 'previous' that the newbie can follow, that takes him/her just to the crucial items (like the 5P), ignoring the more esoteric stuff. The current nutshells could be part of that; we can have, for example, a 'nutshell tour' or 'follow the nuts' - kind of a quick policy tutorial. Any thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crum375 (talk • contribs)
  • Hm. My first aim would be to remove the inconsistencies (please point out any that you see). I've been meaning to prune all policy/guideline pages to remove excess verbosity, but doing so would cause a big hassle on most p/g pages when people think it "hasn't been properly discussed". I'm afraid that a newcomer path would still be a large amount of texts that novice users cannot reasonably be expected to read. I think the "basic" stuff is fine, and novices usually get that; it's the "moderate" stuff that people get confused about, because by then they aren't reading {{welcome}} any more and tend to have made a lot of assumptions on how Wikipedia ought to work, even if it doesn't. >Radiant< 23:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Desperate help needed at the Black people article! Please get involved!!

This article is an absolute mess. It provides no coherent well sourced definition of a Black person and just rambles on and on about various people who were labled Black in different times, places, and languages, and tries to merge them all together as a coherent ethnic group. It would be like trying to merge Native Americans and people from India into a coherent article called Indian people. It makes no sense. We had requested mediation and the mediator said we should use the census as our source. Here's what the U.S. census says:

A Black is “ a person having origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa. It includes people who indicate their race as "Black, African Am., or Negro,"or provide written entries such as African American, Afro American, Kenyan, Nigerian, or Haitian.”

Black Africa is a synonym of sub-Saharan Africa and all of the non-African groups mentioned (i.e. African-Americans, Haitains) are descendents of the recent African diasporas. And yet we still have editors insisting that South Asians be given equal weight in the article and be considered Black. These people provide no cited definitions or census classifications to defend their assertions, instead they cherry pick from different sources in different countries for examples of South Asians being labeled Black, often in different languages. But by the same logic, I could argue that the Black Irish are Black. The point is the people editing that article need to be forced to adheare to a coherent sourced authoritative definition of a Black person, or the entire article should just be deleted as POV and unencyclopedic.

Dictionary.com[[2]], the free dictionary online[[3]]., the U.S. census[[4]], and the British census[[5]] all emphasize the idea that Blacks are of African origin-in fact it is against the law for a dark-skinned person of South Asian or Australian origin to claim to be black in the census. An article by the BBC makes a clear distinction between Blacks and the dark skinned people of South Asian ancestry[[6]]. This article about race in biomedicines says “The entities we call ‘racial groups’ essentially represent individuals united by a common descent — a huge extended family, as evolutionary biologists like to say. Blacks, for example, are a racial group defined by their possessing some degree of recent African ancestry (recent because, after all, everyone of us is out of Africa, the origin of Homo sapiens)."[[7]]. I really need help getting the editors of that article to stick to a coherent definition, instead of just pushing their own POV. Editingoprah 06:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

An early subtitled paragraph in the article presented a narrowly used information about black people (other uses) and I cut it out of there and pasted it near the end section of the article where it is more appropriate. good luck. Terryeo 18:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested NPOV language borrowed from sister Wiki

What do you all think of the following language borrowed from the Orthodox Wiki? I was thinking it could be modified for Wikipedia's use: "OrthodoxWiki will be, so far as is reasonably possible, worded from a neutral point of view (NPOV). That is, disputes between Orthodox Christian groups will be characterized and described rather than entered into."--Pravknight 03:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Antireligious bias

What do you think about adding a provision regarding antireligious bias to the NPOV rule? Hostility to religion is every bit as much of a form of bigotry as is religious bigotry against other religions or atheism for that matter.

I think allowing antireligious biases undermines Wikipedia's neutrality. --Pravknight 03:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC) So does pro-religious bias. No need to specify further. Septentrionalis 05:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

It's necessary to demonstrate Wikipedia's absolute neutrality, such that anti-religious people can't get a pass for pressing their bigotry. I think it needs to be explicit. Saying religious biases aren't allowed, but anti-religious biases are allowed undermines the spirit of the NPOV doctrine. Bigotry is bigotry, plain and simple.

Considering the rise of anti-religious bigotry in Western Europe and North America, I say it's imperative to keep the playing field level. We should talk about issues, but never in a tone that advocates those issues. I find it fascinating how anti-religious people rationalize their bigotry (antipathy) to religion as neutrality. Taking a stance against religion is hardly neutral.

Glad to hear that. I believe that thunder is caused by Thor dropping his saucepans. Do my beliefs get equal time? (and BTW, AFAIK, western Europe is SECULAR).
But I think there are separate issues here: We are not supposed to advocate particular races, religions or nationalities. But is it OK to say that people are "white" or "negro" or "Caucasian" or Muslim or Xian. That is not "Racist" according to WP policy. Whatever. But if somebody blows up a truckload of explosives in Oklahoma we don't mention his race or religion. Fourtildas 08:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
However, not everyone is secular, and sensitivity should be exercised in the tone or in expressing a hostility to religion. If something is based in verifiable fact about a sect or person, such that the editors do not become a voice advocating any particular side in a sotry, fine.
I love secularists. (I'm speaking generally and not attacking you personally, so don't take this as such)
I fervently believe in the spirit of toleration of various religious perspectives per my American ideals, but I don't believe secularists believe in toleration in the same vein in the other direction. Actions speak louder than words.
Many Secularists are every bit as bigoted as the Ku Klux Klan, the Nazis or Al-Qaeda when it comes to traditional Christianity, Judaism or other religions. Allowing anti-religious bigotry gives religious people
who do not believe in imposing the draconian penalties of the Book of ::Leviticus, killing people or blowing people up the impression that Wikipedia hates them. I challenge the secular editors to be truly inclusive of religious people, because how is intolerance of religion any different than religious intolerance of other religions or unbelief?
Chesterton once put it this way, "There are those who hate Christianity and call their hatred an all-embracing love for all religions." - ILN, 1/13/06 [8]
I believe all perspectives should be included, such that they do not degenerate into being polemics. Let's talk about disputes and not enter into them personally. That's all I'm asking. Hate is hate, whether the person is religious or secular. I respect opposing views, but I object to making it seem that Wikipedia has an axe to grind against religion--Christianity in particular. See the suggested addition I posted above--Pravknight 14:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

What I'm after is clarity to prevent room for Wikilawyering.--Pravknight 05:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Can't you just work it into the point on religious bias? We don't need a seperate bullet for it when we can just add ", as well as bias against religion." onto the end of the current sentence. --tjstrf 15:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I've removed it. This provision is too easy to game and misuse. All one has to do to exclude content that runs counter to their ideological bent is to make a specious claim that it is biased against their religious views, something the nom here has been trying to disruptively do for over a month. FeloniousMonk 05:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Sometimes reasonable opposition to the openly-stated secular goals of religious groups who politicise their particular belief system (e.g., on abortion or "Creation Science") is unfairly categorized as "antireligious bias". Such religious groups can't have it both ways-- It is like killing your parents and then asking for mercy because you are now an orphan. Pproctor 15:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
NPOV obviously does apply to anti-religious bias, specifying it is simply a formality. It wouldn't be any more gameable than any other NPOV clause. (Take nationalistic bias, you know how often that one is thrown around over trivial issues?) Wanting to eliminate the possibility for abuse is a noble enough goal, but there is nothing about this particular clause that would make it any more gameable than any other clause. --tjstrf 16:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

1) It is not "antireligous" to limit science pages to science. I.e. stuff that is falsifiable. By definition, religion is not falsifiable. Main-stream religion has no problems with this, since otherwise (e.g.) there is no room for "faith". There is also St. Augustines injunction that religious doctrime must not conflict with science, lest beleivers be held to ridicule.

2) That said, it is true that a few editors are quick to hammer anything or anyone that might support (say) creationism. Ran into this when I attempted to inject a little NPOV into the biography of Raymond Damadian. I was immediatedly accused of "vandalism" and of being a "creationist" and had my postings on other pages vandalized. Laughable-- in fact, I am well known in evolutionary circles, having discovered one of the few examples of classic Darwinian evolution in humans [9]. Not everyone gets the final word in an issue raised by JBS Haldane. But a few misguided true-beleivers does not equate to a systemic antireligious bias. Pproctor 14:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scientific Issues

I have a problem with the following text:

Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.

None of this is to say that tiny-minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can give them on pages specifically devoted to them. Wikipedia is not paper. But even on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it should not be represented as the truth.

From Jimbo Wales, paraphrased from this post from September 2003 on the mailing list: If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts; If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents; If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not. In other words, views held only by a tiny minority of people should not be represented as though they are significant minority views, and perhaps should not be represented at all.

In particular, to elaborate on the last comment above, if you are able to prove something that nobody currently believes, Wikipedia is not the place to premiere such a proof. Once a proof has been presented and discussed elsewhere, however, it may be referenced.

I think this approach is just plain wrong in the case of scientific issues. The reality check of science is experiment. Cold fusion for example has had a bad press. However two Noble prize winners in physics, Julian Schwinger and Brian Josephson, have condemed the scientific establishment for its treatment of cold fusion research. Also a large body of cold fusion experiments has been performed by hundreds of scientists. Yet in the case of the Wikipedia cold fusion article we have people trying to suppress the presentation of experimental evidence saying that since it is an encyclopedia is does not have to be accurate or balanced. I think this kind of thing could happen in any new or controversial science.

This has caused a fight that has lasted for years. It would help if there were clear guidelines against suppressing experimental evidence. A guideline requiring separate sections for different points of view would also reduce a lot of the conflict.--Ron Marshall 17:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

How can you not name the prominent adherents, reliably cite their views, etc. on cold fusion as with any other subject? I don't think this requires a policy change.
Your second suggestion is basically POV forks lite, and not permissable. --tjstrf 17:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
My point is you can't do those things you say because some one will delete them. All the same standards would hold in all sections. The problem is line by line fights waste everybodies time.--Ron Marshall 17:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Undue Weight

I deleted some undue weight lines because I have seen the concept abused and I think it offers a license for abuse. --Ron Marshall 17:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Reverted; no consensus on this, and removing it would give the cranks free rein. Septentrionalis 18:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I admit I did not have consensus on this subject and I am not surprised it was reverted. I am in an on going fight in the cold fusion article with people are abusing the undue weight concept to practice scientific censorship and I am losing patience with abuse of the undue weight concept. I was hoping that deleting the worst text I might stimulate some interest in the issue.
The problem is the undue weight concept opens up a giant loop hole in the NPOV concept for the majority to practice suppression of minority viewpoints. This is especially ridiculous in science where experimental evidence is being treated as the views of an insignificant minority.--Ron Marshall 14:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] An example from an arbitration case

I am currently working on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kven. This case involves a user who advances a speculative linguistic and historical theory which has had some circulation in the popular press. I have proposed the following principle:

[edit] Appropriate weight for speculative theories

"2) It is said in Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight that "...the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory...". Indeed, when consulted, it did contain the following language:

In the past there were varying levels of belief in a flat Earth, but ancient Greek philosophers and, in the Middle Ages, thinkers such as Thomas Aquinas believed that it was spherical. A 19th-century organization called the Flat Earth Society advocated the even-then discredited idea that the Earth was actually disc-shaped, with the North Pole at its center and a 150 foot (50 m) high wall of ice at the outer edge. It and similar organizations continued to promote this idea, based on religious beliefs and conspiracy theories, through the 1970s. Today, the subject is more frequently treated tongue-in-cheek or with mockery.

By linking to flat Earth, the possibility of extensive treatment of a generally discredited theory is contemplated,

None of this is to say that tiny-minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can give them on pages specifically devoted to them. Wikipedia is not paper. But even on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it should not be represented as the truth.

The question of how to treat speculative linguistic or historical theories which have found some traction in popular imagination is not specifically addressed, but considering the purpose of NPOV to permit fair representation of all significant view points, and considering the flat earth example, it would seem that they should be briefly mentioned and put into perspective in articles which rely on mainstream scientific sources, and only fully explicated in separate articles which clearly identify them as speculative.

Please note that Wikipedia:Neutral point of view as written does not adequately address the question of how to treat instances where one point of view has overwhelming academic support while the other viewpoint is speculative, or held only in popular culture."

What do you think? Adequate treatment or "making it up as you go along"? Fred Bauder 18:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

---

Should not the court from the live controversy fashion some well-defined safe harbor suitable for the fact pattern? That is, wouldn't the trade-offs in that linguistic case suggest some concrete and more useful combination of WP:V and WP:RS, even if only from publications in the popular press? Such a safe harbor would comply with the current policy text that the consensus keeps taking away from "the crank" with an accusation of POV-fork. The policy text now reads: "We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views." (emphasis added). But that formulation provides no actual NPOV because it is too malleable by the whim of a localized consensus faction. Just ideas. What do you think? --Rednblu 20:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I think the place to define a safe harbor is here. What I have proposed is just a kludge to deal with a particular situation. The problem has general implications though. Fred Bauder 20:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
We need to settle the issue of mainstream scientific theories which are being challenged by minorities who charge that their ideas are being ignored due to non-scientific reasons. The Global warming theory has politics and economics all through it. An even harder case, the Theory of Evolution has metaphysics, methodology and religion mixed deeply with politics.
I'd like to see a Wikipedia which takes no sides on scientific, religious, political or economic controversies. We should simply report what each side says, as in the formula X says Y about Z.
If a view is marginal or a tiny minority, we can indicate the degree of support it has with polls or surveys. The oft-mentioned Flat earth theory has, IIRC, only about 200 advocates worldwide (none prominent). Global warming theory opponents include a prominent MIT professor, a Harvard astronomer, a past president of the National Academy of Sciences, and the man who got the satellites going that measure atmospheric temperature. Evolution is a tough nut, because it's even more of an emotional issue than genocide.
Let's clarify the policy, so that contributors can't cite "undue weight" as grounds for deleting information which runs counter to the mainstream on such controversies. The fact that someone disagrees with the majority is usually important, and the reasoning they give is interesting to our readers. --Uncle Ed 20:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Polls or surveys? Yes let's indicate that 50% of Americans are so uneducated as to believe that humans and dinosaurs coexisted or that 20% still think the bloody sun goes round the earth. Vox populi saepe, si non sempre, falsus est. •Jim62sch• 23:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Your faction keeps bringing up this point, apparently to change the subject. I'm not talking about determining whether the Theory of Evolution is right, but about reporting who thinks it's right (or wrong).
If the POV of some pro-evolution advocates is that opposition to the Theory of Evolution stems from being uneducated, then that POV should be included in any relevant article. But it should labelled clearly as a POV. We should not state it as a fact (as you did), because that would be Wikipedia:POV pushing, which (I think you'll agree) we should avoid. --Uncle Ed 16:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Obviously, "That opposition to the theory stems from being uneducated" is a POV and one which is easily disproved. So it should be admitted and countered, not censored. Some quite well-educated people beleive all sorts of crazy things, as the case of Raymond Damadian illustrates.Pproctor 04:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
The public does not define what is and isn't science, those practicing science do. Your arguing about relevance, not undue weight. Despite being explained to him quite a number of times, a distinction Ed has repeatedly either failed to understand or willfully ignored is that if the subject of a topic claims to be valid science, as does certain forms of creationism, then the relevant viewpoint as to whether it is actually science or not is clearly the scientific community's, not the general public's. WP:NPOV#Undue_weight clearly and unambiguously tells us that "...the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints ..., and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." In which case the relevant significant viewpoints would be those claiming to be performing "science," and those actually performing science in receiving the claim. The position of the public on the matter runs a very distant third at best. Meaning raising the issue of polls of public opinion to assert that public opinion is more significant on matters of science than that of the scientific community due to the large numbers of the public holding a particular view is a red herring and particularly bad logic. It's also a transparent gambit to represent a marginally relevant viewpoint as more significant and relevant than it actually is. Furthermore, NPOV also provides for the situation where the scientific community considers those to be making such claims to be practicing pseudoscience, again, as with several forms of creationism: In such instances WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience kicks in: "The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly." FeloniousMonk 05:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Scince is not defined by practicing scientists, at least ideally -- what is "science" or not ideally should be indepedent of what people think. Instead, it is determined by what follows this thing called the "scientific method". Things that do not conform to or are based on scientific methodology are not science -- they are "non-science". If non-scientific "theories" claim to be scientific, then they are "pseudo-science". Summed up:
  • Science: something that conforms to/uses the scientific method
  • Non-science: something that does not use or conform to the scientific method
  • Pseudo-science: non-science that claims to be science.
See? Also, I noticed that the page says "majority (scientific) view", even though a majority view may not necessarily be scientific -- remember the times when the Church condemned science? Maybe most of the time nowadays it is scientific, but this is not a certainty. 170.215.83.83 23:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually, "science" is just an ad hoc tool kit. What defines "science" is whether something is falsifiable or not, not popular or professional opinion. That is, is there an experiment or observation I can make that might disprove it. Stated simply, falsifiability depends on the existance of "observables". Quite simple really. Anything else is not science. This includes anything that depends upon some supernatural process. So all views that are falsifiable should be admitted. Pproctor 23:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. I am thinking. Somehow the facts and tradeoffs of the live controversy are not considered in the edit war over the policy text here. Perhaps, an occasional statement of the "puzzle" as you have given us above would be helpful for us in the future as well. What do others see here? --Rednblu 20:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Doesn't it seem that whether or not a page on a minority view should be kept or deleted is more of an issue of verifiability and notability, not neutrality? 170.215.83.83 23:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't think Fred's question on providing for accomodation of speculative notions relate as much to undue weight as it does to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Pseudoscience. Currently Wikipedia:Neutral point of view as written does indeed adequately address the question of how to treat instances where a point of view has overwhelming academic support while a speculative viewpoint, though popular in popular culture, is rejected, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Pseudoscience. It says: "If we're going to represent the sum total of human knowledge, then we must concede that we will be describing views repugnant to us without asserting that they are false. Things are not, however, as bad as that sounds. The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly."
Undue weight has been a traditional target here of those promoting pro-pseudoscience views, but that should not be viewed as evidence that the provision is flawed, rather that it is working. The argument that is to "too malleable" is specious: Why speculative/pseudoscientific views need a "safe harbor"? From a "localized consensus faction" accusing innocent editors creating POV-forks and labeling them "cranks"? No. The current undue weight provision has stood the test of time, is easily understood and taken with other provisions, provides sufficient opportunity for speculative viewpoints to be presented fairly, in their own articles. FeloniousMonk 20:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm with FM here; what he have here is working well, and this would open up a can of worms to any insignificant POV one could imagine. Jayjg (talk) 20:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
The undue weight provision is an important one, otherwise we'll end up with Holocaust deniers needing a mention in Holocaust, and the views of white supremacists in Black people. The difference is whether the alternative views are held by a significant published minority, or a tiny one. If the latter, they should not be mentioned, except in an article of their own, and even then with caution. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Holocaust denial is rightly mentioned in the article on the Holocaust, not because it is supported or condoned, but because it is a well-known, verifiable minority view of which there are numerous sources.
  • White supremacists are also mentioned in the article on Black people for the same reason.
  • Of course the Nazi deniers themselves, nor the White supremacists, are given the opportunity to give their personal view as it is excluded by No Original Research, and no comment without reliable sources. --Iantresman 21:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I think SV's comment shows a fundamental misunderstanding of undue weight. SlimVirgin and FM seem to think the purpose of U.W. is to keep out unpopular or obnoxious views. However, NPOV requires such views to be in articles. Not only do we have a lengthy article on Holocaust denial but over 500 words of the 16,000-word Holacaust article describe this POV.
We include it not because we believe it or disbelieve it, but rather because it is a significant minority view.
I wonder what SV thinks will happen if Holocaust deniers need a mention in Holocaust - because (1) they already do need a mention and (2) their viewpoint (or "POV") takes up 3.4% of the article. --Uncle Ed 16:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Might we consider the real quandaries of a live controversy here? We should not evaluate policy text in a vacuum, would you agree? Where in Wikipedia on any 1) summary page or 2) minority stand-alone page is a safe harbor for the following NPOV summary of the significant published views of geomorphologist Arthur N. Strahler?
  • "In discussing the nature of science [earlier in the book], I took the position that no theory or important scientific hypothesis should be described as 'a fact.' Quite apart from the reasons I gave for this preference is a reason applying to public relations between mainstream scientists and nonscientists. The arrogance displayed by the claim of fact --absolute truth, that is -- incites resistance in a substantial sector of the public and can easily generate hostility toward the scientific community." According to Strahler, if the scientific community deals with pseudoscience in a heavy-handed manner, the detailed attack and ridicule likely polarizes "a substantial sector of the general public against mainstream science," such as by inducing in the general public a "pseudoscience cultism" (Strahler 1999, p. 329).
I offer this just as one example of the need for a NPOV safe harbor. --Rednblu 21:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia has no interest in creating "safe harbors" for anyone, whether science or not. We report in an accurate an NPOV fashion. Whether there is some general problem about the general public having issues with mainstream science is a general education problem and policy problem with little concern for us. We are trying to write an encyclopedia, not alter the general perception. Furthermore, if anything, being unreasonably sympathetic to pseudoscience would create further polarization and anti-science problems. So this wouldn't even accomplish what your claims it would even if it were Wikipedia's job to do so. The current policy works very well. Weakening this policy would also if anything reduce the already small level of credibility Wikipedia has. JoshuaZ 21:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
There are at least two fundamental problems with the idea of weakening undue weight in the case of "speculative theories" (which, let's face it, is often a weasel term for junk science). The first of these is verifiability. Few, if any, "speculative theories" can be properly addressed in neutral terms because they are not accepted for publication in the scientific journals, and therefore are not debated in the independent secondary sources which we rely on. The only sources tend to be their proponents on one side and websites and blogs on the other. This is precisely the problem we had with Aetherometry, where enormously diligent work was done by several people in authortiatively rebutting the nonsense, to the point where Wikipedia was the leading resource rebutting it, but ultimately it was original research and if it was removed the balance gave undue weight to a theory which had been soundly ignored by the scientific community (see AfD). The other fundamental problem is that NPOV is non-negotiable, and allowing "speculative theories" is negotiating away NPOV in order to accommodate the promotion of crank theories which are currently unacceptable; we are trading away a core principle of Wikipedia in order to make it easier to use the project as a soapbox (which, by consensus, it is not). Those "speculative theories" which are addressed in reliable secondary sources, as described above, are already covered and can be described in a degree of detail which is appropriate to its significance and likely interest. Good-faith editorial diagreements over undue weight are usually resolved amicably, it's only when barrows are being pushed that we see people disputing the validity of the undue weight provision. Joshua's point is precisely correct: the supposed "safe harbour" is just another word for a soapbox. Guy 21:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
But whether or not a crank theory can be included cannot be judged solely on it's crank-ness (and you seem to imply it by the statement "and allowing "speculative theories" is negotiating away NPOV in order to accommodate the promotion of crank theories which are currently unacceptable" -- which suggests that you are saying crank theories deserve deletion due to crank-ness alone), but instead must be judged on whether or not it has enough notability, verifiability, etc. to be able to make a neutral article. THAT is why the article Aetherometry was deleted -- because it could not live up to those important WP policies, NOT simply because it was "crank". The deletion policies do not say "delete all articles about crank theories" -- they say "delete all unsourced, unverifiable, irretrievably biased articles" on crank theories, actually, on anything for that matter. 170.215.83.83 05:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

In response to Rednblu, why do people always claim that Wikipedia needs to do X because it would be "for the greater societal good", or in this case, beneficial to science? That's not our job. Wikipedia is not here to promote societal change of any type except an increase in the free flow of knowledge online. --tjstrf 21:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

In case any of you missed it, Nature[1] published the following yesterday:

"The current incarnation of Wikipedia is both phenomenally successful and, in the eyes of some critics, fundamentally flawed. The online encyclopaedia now includes more than a million entries in English alone. Although anyone can edit any article, its accuracy, at least on science topics, is surprisingly high. But Wikipedia has never given experts special standing when it comes to determining content. And that, critics say, deters the people who ought to be contributing from doing so."

"Just how big a drawback that is will now be tested, with the launch of an online encyclopaedia that will give privileged status to scientists and other experts. Citizendium, a pilot version of which is due to go live in the next week, will use all of Wikipedia's content but will host it at another website (http://citizendium.org) and edit it differently. Editors with appropriate academic qualifications will have the power to settle disputes about wording, for example, and stamp articles they perceive to be accurate as 'approved'."

It would appear that there is rather strong support for applying appropriate weight for speculative theories in some places. Williamborg (Bill) 05:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

References
  1. ^ Nature 443, 493(5 October 2006) | doi:10.1038/443493a; Published online 4 October 2006
About damn time. And might even encourage more experts to come-on-board Wikipedia. Nupedia didn't work because it was far too combersome to get all those experts together. Scraping Wikipedia and then using experts to verify and spiff up as needed will correct a lot of the problems and frustrations here. BTW, "Expertise" is not all those damn-fool degrees and diplomas. It is Experience. Pproctor 04:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The Wikipedia cold fusion article is an example where editors have used the undue weight policy to censor out experimental evidence. This seems strange because in science experimental evidence has the most weight. It seems to me unjustified censorship is not consistent either with NPOV or science. What is the justification for censoring out experimental evidence on a scientific subject that is already acknowledged as controversial. Applying the term pseudoscience to people who are practicing the scientific method is both an insult and a lie. The case of cold fusion is in some ways a unique problem and in some ways not so unique a problem. First cold fusion is a scientific issue and the rules of science should apply. We should be open to people who are practicing the scientific method. It should be recognized that experiment is the reality check of science, not real or imagined expertise or committees. For example Einstein was an expert on general relativity, having created the theory. However he falsely believed that black holes were more likely a hole in his theory than a hole in space. I have read that a black scientist proposed in the 1930’s that black holes were real and was soundly ridiculed for his efforts. Second the cold fusion issue was “decided” by the political method in the May of 1989 and not by the scientific method. I will give a short primer on cold fusion. More details can be found in the September 2006 version of the cold fusion article which has since been censored. Hot fusion is what powers stars. Particles have to be moving at a high velocity to overcome the electrostatic repulsion of like positive charge protons in hydrogen nuclei. When the nuclei come close together the strong nuclear force takes effect and brings them together. In the hot plasma electrons are separated from the nuclei so their negative charge is not as effective in overcoming the proton repulsion as if they were still attached to the nucleus. In 1968 a Nobel prize in physics was given for muon-catalyzed fusion and related work. Muon-catalyzed fusion was the original “cold fusion”. The electron was replaced with a more massive negative muon. Because of its higher mass the muon took up a position much closer to the nucleus. The charge shielding effect of the negative muon allowed nuclear fusion to take place at room temperature. It is typical in science that if you change some of the variables you change the result. The problem with Muon-catalyzed fusion was that the muons had a very short half life and the process was not practical for that reason.

The term, cold fusion, was also applied to an experiment presented by Martin Fleishman and Stanley Pons in March of 1989. They claimed the experiment produced to much excess heat to be a chemical reaction and therefore had to be a nuclear reaction. They were rushed into an announcement of this claim by the desire of the University Of Utah to protect patent rights. Also important details were left out of the announcement for the protection of patent rights. There was a rush to duplicate the results and most, but not all efforts seemed to fail. Some editors in power in the scientific establishment concluded that cold fusion could not possibly be true, that cold fusion was an embarrassment to science, that it should be immediately squelched, and that the end justified the means. The editor of Nature was one of the first to take this direction and was followed by the editors Science, Scientific American, and some of the physics journals. At this point these members of the scientific establishment abandoned the scientific method in favor of the political and entered on the course of insult and censorship. They made sure cold fusion received a very bad press which served to reinforce the insult and censorship approach. The problem with this approach is that a bad press does not change the laws of physics and experiment is the reality check of science. But some how experiments done since early 1989, like the finding of nuclear transmutations which proves nuclear reactions are going on, do not count. This is because it is believed by many the issue was already decided by a bad press. Experimental evidence like nuclear transmutations exists today. If it was know in early 1989 that such evidence existed history would have taken a different turn. It seems that once the establishment has made a mistake ordinary rules of evidence no longer apply. Two Noble prize winners in physics, Julian Schwinger and Brian Josephson, thought that nuclear reactions were going on in cold fusion experiments and condemned the scientific establishment for its treatment of cold fusion research. The cold fusion experiments are described in approximately 2000 scientific papers by more than 200 scientists. Despite efforts at censorship many of these are in peer reviewed scientific journals. The people doing these experiments have PhDs in physics and chemistry. The experimenters are not denying the facts of hot fusion or implying that energy is not conserved. They are simply saying that the variables are different, that cold fusion is more likely a wave effect than the billiard ball effect of hot fusion, and that experiment is the reality check of science. It is also important to note that this is not just an academic issue. A nuclear reaction with relatively benign side effects would reduce poverty, pollution, and global warming.

The September 2006 version of the Wikipedia cold fusion article had a NPOV because it described the point of view of both the skeptics and the experimenters. A new group of editors has reverted the cold fusion to a two year old version that only describes the point of view of the skeptics. Cold fusion is a controversial subject. This battle has been going on for two years

It seems to me that censorship is inconsistent with NPOV, openness, and publishing articles that are presented as an accurate and fair representation of knowledge. This is particularly true of science articles. Undue weight can become a code word for unjustified censorship. I think there is a truth in packaging issue here. If articles are censored they should be presented as such. A statement of what was censored and the reason for censorship should be placed in the article. The justification for censorship should exist in the talk page as long as the censorship exists. In other words let the public know what is really going on and let the public judge if the censorship is merited. Another approach is to not publish articles on controversial subjects if Wikipedia is not going to create a set of rules that prevent unjustified censorship. Either of the approaches would be more truthful than what we have now.--Ron Marshall 17:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't know where this statement belongs, but will try it here. I was hoping for a short "writing style" manual with suggested word usage. One of the words I would like to see less of is the word "controversial" or "has received much criticism." The statements lacking a reference are the easiest for us low-level editors to dispose of. I think that is already covered here.

While this document states that the subject should "speak for itself," usually, the writer is intending to level innuendo against the subject. e.g. "Hillary's Health Care Coverage Bill was controverial," rather than saying,"Hillary chaired the task force which constructed a universal health bill, which was subsequently rejected by Congress." This sort of case is covered here, but a bit harder to enforce. The devil is in the details.

The words "controversy" and "criticism" immediately place the subject on the defensive. This can be encyclopedic death to a well-known subject, like Hillary Clinton. If we say "Student7 is controversial," it tends to bestow on a little-known subject far too much fame!  :)

A third case is of the type "subject controversially violated civil rights of minorities<footnoted reference>" The reference documents one specific instance, or another vague innuendo. My point is that the subject either did violate their rights, or he didn't. What in the world does "controversy" have to do with it? For me, this is a word that is best left to tabloids. I hope we have nobody and no events in the Wikipedia that isn't "controversial!" If we do, we should consider the article for removal!

I petition you senior editors to try to persuade writers from using these overused words which immediately puts the subject on the defensive. Student7 20:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

While you are going to suggest a list of words to avoid, would you also include the word, "gender." This word is being used to mean "sex." Gender is a perfectly good word to use to describe "elle" or "la amie" as french feminine gender. It refers to language, not people. It has been misused by the media for a long time for goodness knows what reason. Not like they are Victorians!Student7 02:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

This section is far too long! Can somebody chop it?Student7 02:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Views of the Law Giver

In a recent post on Citizendium-l Larry Sanger includes a link to the formulation he had made as of December 21, 2001 [10]. 15:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment from Mtrangaris

The following was originally posted at Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Archive 025. I have moved it here as it was in the wrong place – Gurch 11:41, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if there is a neutral point of view or just one held by the editors. For example, is it neutral to say Harry Truman was a killer of people since he ordered the bombing of Hiroshima, etc.? Is it neutral to say a person who says he takes joy when nature kills hundreds of human beings is bitter and disturbed? Is that over interpretation of the person's comments. Is it a violation of neutrality to say a 67 year old man is old?
If so this seems to me to remove the context of the person's life and while they are alive the first ammendment of the US Constitution protects such speech for a reason. Perhaps Wikepedia ought to develop a constitution that promotes more than steralized and irrelavant comment.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mtrangaris (talk • contribs) 21:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC).
There is no need to use any of these labels "killer", "old", even if they were neutral; the articles just describe the person and his actions. —Centrx→talk • 18:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Articles, and editing, must be neutral

I have found some confusion about how to apply the NPOV. NPOV can be interpreted as a requirement to produce a neutral article, but in situations involving controversial subjects, a neutral stance is hard to come by. Imagine a situation where there is in fact a neutral stance, as well as this and that view. If it is the article that must be neutral, then NPOV could be used to state only the neutral stance, and eliminate the this and/or that stance. Clearly, it is not the content that must be neutral, but the presentation of the content. ALL (appropriate) views need to be included, not a synthesized version. To attempt to neutralize competing views, even if successful, is original research. It is the editors who need to be neutral. Tommy Mandel 00:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you got it. Fred Bauder 00:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

But my edit was reverted,Well here we go again...

On the project page, the policy reads:

This policy in a nutshell:
All Wikipedia articles and other user-facing content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias.

While further down it reads:

Explanation of the neutral point of view
The neutral point of view
The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one.

The two statements:

representing views fairly,

and

all significant published points of view

are not consistent in my opinion. While the latter is clear, the former can be interpreted differently. Especially if an editor wants to read it his way. "Views" can easily be read to mean correct views or popular views, and even our views. Merely adding "all" clears the confusion up. (Obviously there are the exceptions.)

representing all views fairly,

So, I followed procedure, explained what I was doing in the summary and talk page. Even got an agreement, yet I was reverted without summary or discussion. Do the rules apply only to certain editors and not others? Do I have to learn how to become clever in order to edit here?

Tommy Mandel 02:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

How about some diffs showing what you did? Fred Bauder 03:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
You did fine, and it was a good edit. Yes, the flying reverters tend to smack this sort of edit down without explanation. I call it disimprovement.qp10qp 02:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
The difficulty here is the lack of a civilized procedural definition of consensus. Hence, in the absence of civilized law, the "owners" of this turf revert to the natural consensus politics that we all inherited from the ancestors of the chimpanzees. It is all about honor, turf possession, and intimidation. And we are all tempted to retaliate in kind. Who dares challenge the "owners"? Discussion does not matter, discussion is closed, and whoever will not bow to the "owners" must leave. So what should we do next to develop a civilized procedural definition of consensus for this page? --Rednblu 02:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
All I can do is try again. So I added "All" in front of views in two places.

And while I was at it, and this may be debatable since it changes NPOV to ENPOV, I changed the sentence

"It is the point of view that is neutral"

to

"It is the editing point of view that is neutral"

The more I think about it, the more important this seems to be. Much effort (edit wars) is expended trying to create a neutral point of view, when really we are supposed to be reporting what is happening, and not neutralizing what is happening. So isn't it the editing that is supposed to be neutral rather than the content per se?

After all, the NPOV of positive and negative is zero or something like that...

It really doesn't hurt to be perfectly clear, right?Tommy Mandel 04:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

to be perfectly clear: editors all have their POV. It is the point of view of the article that must be neutral, by fairly presenting published POV's. Harald88 06:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I think our language is taking us for a ride here. I think we are trying to say the same thing, but the words come out different. Why is there a resistance to adding "all" to the nutshell when it is clearly stated in the explanation? All is not that long of a word, and it makes what is implied explicite? For example you write:
"by fairly presenting published POV's".

I could argue that presenting one published POV meets the criterion you require. But by merely adding all as in:

"by fairly presenting all published POVs"

Makes a big difference. Much bigger than the small space all takes up.

(As far as "significant" is concerned, I didn't leave that out in the nutshell, you did. If significant is significant then it should be in the nutshell as well) Tommy Mandel 10:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The key word here is probably proportionately. We have an ongoing problem with the attempted presentation of every tiny minority view, however insignificant. The significance of Flying Spaghetti Monsterism to an article on spaghetti or meatballs, for example, is almost certainly sufficiently close to zero that even to mention it gives it undue weight. Other subjects have so little coverage outside of their proponents (and here I usually cite Aetherometry as an example) that we can't cover them neutrally at all. Guy 10:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Isn't equating flying spaghetti with scientific analysis of the crop circles pseudoscience? It certainly is a tactic they use...

Tommy Mandel


The reason I consider Tommysun's first edits good (I might as well state this here, as a second flying reverter has now zapped his edit without explaining the revert here on the talk page) is that "representing views fairly", as in
All Wikipedia articles and other user-facing content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias.
is improved by the addition of "all" (preferably "all significant"), as it could be take