Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Archive 64

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Category:Criticism of organizations

Based on Category:Criticism of organizations, some very large organizations tend to attract significant criticism, to the point that a WP:SUBPOV fork (with a summary in the main article) becomes inevitable. Would it be possible for WP:NPOV to include additional guidance on this limiting case for acceptable "Criticism of X" articles, please? fgnievinski (talk) 04:49, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

@Fgnievinski, what additional detail would have practical value for you? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:33, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing: WP:SPINOFF and WP:CORG could get a nod in WP:NPOVVIEW, as in:
Certain organizations may be involved in significant controversy and criticism, to the point of interfering with the article readability and navigation; in those cases, a spinoff sub-article may be justified.
It'd seem necessary considering WP:NPOV warns so much against "Criticism of..." articles, that it may be surprising so many instances in Category:Criticism of organizations are even admissible. fgnievinski (talk) 06:05, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
SPINOFF is already linked. How often do you encounter disputes about this? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:25, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Not a lot, but my expectation is if someone ever proposed to spin off a "Criticism of.." subarticle, they'd be slammed with NPOV. fgnievinski (talk) 01:08, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Well, they might, and having glanced at Criticism of Christianity (guessing it would be one of the better developed subjects) to see how these work, I'm thinking that they might have a point. That one leads with a long section on Criticism of the Bible, which seems to have a lot more in common with Literary criticism than with Wikipedia:Criticism. The Timeline of Shakespeare criticism contains no similar subjects (e.g., the discrepancies between quarto and folio, or the difficulties of translation), and I'm not sure that "Sometimes people translate badly" is a valid criticism of a religion anyway.
But if this doesn't come up often, and if it usually shouldn't happen, then maybe saying that it would (rarely?) be acceptable would be a little pointless and a bit WP:CREEPY. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:39, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
I've always felt that these are WP:POVFORKs. A neutral spinoff would be "Reception of organizations". Some of the worst offenders might have been cleaned up, but there are a probably still a few problem articles. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:27, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
That was my impression too, until I got to know Category:Criticism of organizations. The question now is: should WP:NPOV reflect the practice in that category or should that category be blown up? fgnievinski (talk) 23:45, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
A lot of the category seems to be about something other than organizations. Discrimination in dance, for example, is in the category, and I don't think that "a global industry" is exactly "an organization". WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:40, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
I'm afraid that's an outlier, based on all the other pages in that category. Or take Category:Criticisms of companies: even excluding all the redirects, there are dozens of articles titled "Criticism of X", despite all the admonition in NPOV. fgnievinski (talk) 23:11, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Sure, but there are others. Consider Category:Criticism of law enforcement, which includes (only):
There isn't a single organization in that category, and there are only a few in the lone subcat. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:11, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
Proportionally there's plenty of genuine cases in Category:Criticisms of companies, especially towards very large companies, to warrant mentioning this special case in NPOV, I'd say. fgnievinski (talk) 03:41, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
I share the concern, although I feel it's slightly broader. I've seen, in addition to criticism articles, entire sections, which could equally be positive (company history) or negative (criticism), written solely from shallow coverage of facts (which would often be "a company announced" or "company critics announced") in the news sources. Such sections/articles often don't use a single source discussing the matter (criticism or history) holistically. As a result, the balance is determined based on how much verifiable criticism or praise can be found instead of relying on secondary sources.
There's already WP:ASPECT and WP:PRIMARY, that'd in theory solve this. In practice, some consider any mainstream news source to be WP:SECONDARY for any fact mentioned (not sure if there's a guideline or wording in policy that leads people to assume this?), which leads to large sections being written from these sources, which then become spin-offs instead of being trimmed once they're too big to be kept in the main article. PaulT2022 (talk) 12:49, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
You can point people at WP:PRIMARYNEWS, but the fundamental problem is that humans are involved, and they will, consciously or not, bend the rules or expand the categories until they get the outcome they want. You see this clearly in software-related behavior ("Oh, uploading an image requires me to promise that I'll give my firstborn to Rumpelstiltskin? Okay, sure, as long as this stupid software will upload my image, then I'll click that button"), but it appears everywhere. This particularly comes up with notability. The categories of primary and secondary are somewhat overlapping, and sources can be WP:PRIMARYINPART. A keep-voting editor, having been told that secondary sources are required if a subject is challenged at AFD, will declare that the sources are definitely secondary; a delete-voting editor, having been told the same thing, will declare that the sources are definitely primary.
Most of them are working backwards from the desired end result: Having editing thousands of articles, I know this one is/isn't the kind of thing that Wikipedia usually contains, and therefore I will say and do whatever is necessary to get the Correct™ Result.
Additionally, historically, the WP:PSTS section of WP:NOR (which fundamentally has nothing to do with NOR) said that secondary sources were secondhand. Wikipedia:Secondary does not mean secondhand, but some of the older editors will remember this lie-to-children statement, and they will unwittingly teach the error to the newer editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:02, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for these insights and the link to the PRIMARYNEWS - very useful! PaulT2022 (talk) 16:04, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Seems like more a quibble with the page names than the category, even if the page is called "Evaluation of X" or "Responses to X" its still going to be in that category. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:03, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
It feels like a small thing to me, but it's possible that a different name would encourage better results. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:24, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
I completely agree with you about the names, I also think it would encourage better results. Some of these like Criticism of the National Health Service (England) really do feel like POV forks. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:31, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Evaluation of? Views about? Perception of?
I understand that the NHS is struggling (now/this decade), but an article that traced what people thought of it over time would be a more valuable contribution than just "Last week, everything was bad". WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:52, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
I generally prefer "reception of" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:34, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
  • We have a long-term, deep problem of "vilification" throughout the work, in that editors, typically sharing the same view as popular mainstream media, will look to write about any negative aspect about that topic because, in their eyes, they can justify making the topic look bad because there is sourcing to support it. This is human nature, and all editors have the potential to do that. (Same with topics where there is a lot of praise given to a topic, but this is typically far less a problem). Criticism articles should be based on secondary sources identifying the criticism (such as in Criticism of Christianity or Criticism of capitalism). When we break these off for companies without this type of secondary sourcing, it amounts to original research. Often editors for these mix in actual lawsuits, and that could itself be a fair spinoff (eg Litigation involving Apple Inc.), but otherwise actual criticism that is repeated in multiple sources should be likely contained in the article about the company before spinning it off. --Masem (t) 21:07, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
    If you have a reliable source, it doesn't amount to original research. The definition of original research is "material...for which no reliable, published source exists". It is illogical to say that "there is sourcing to support it...it amounts to [material...for which no reliable, published source exists]".
    You can try a phrase like "violating Wikipedia's basic principles" when someone adds content with a reliable source, but don't call sourced information original research. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:45, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Achieving neutrality tweak

@Thinker78: I think the "only" should stay ([1]) - it encourages editors to err on the side of caution when removing the work of editors (on the basis of WP:NPOV), and to do so only with good reason. The sentence builds on the advice in the rest of the paragraph which encourages editors to rewrite or balance material instead of removing it. Without the "only" by contrast, the sentence reads more like an invitation to remove material, and the former phrase "only when you have a good reason", which is extremely cautionary, loses that sense. Everyone normally thinks they have a good reason, but caution is definitely required when using that to justify the removal of content. Re: your prior summary ([2]), BLP guidance is its own creature and the bar for removal is lower for reasons we all know. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:49, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

@Iskandar323 The former phrase is not merely "only when you have a good reason", which would actually be a good phrasing that would have nothing to do with my concern. The actual former phrase is, "Remove material only when you have a good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage."
It is much more specific in a way that negates other guidelines and policies about removing information. For example, if there is unsourced information that I don't know whether it misinforms or not, then according to the phrase I should not remove it, because I don't believe it misinforms or misleads. Problem is I cannot know if it misinforms or misleads, because it is unsourced.
That's why I think the word "only" in this case is not helpful and conflicts with other policies and guidelines. "Only" is not merely an invitation, it is an absolute that you should only do something and not something else. Therefore, it seems to instruct in only following this guidance, when actually other guidance may have more latitude in removing information. Which is why I removed it. Thinker78 (talk) 21:35, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
@Thinker78: I would agree that it might negate other guidelines if it referred to unsourced information, but the paragraph begins by explicitly stating: "Generally, do not remove sourced information... - making it clear in my mind that it is sourced content this is under discussion (as an underlying assumption). If you think that is not clear then that seems like an even bigger problem with the statements and I would suggest adding sourced or even reliably sourced in, so that it would read as: "Remove reliably sourced material only when... - that would presumably be more explicit. Surely the only reason to have a sentence at the end of the paragraph reiterating the caution of the first is that the intent is to strongly dissuade the use of the guideline as an improper excuse for deletion? Iskandar323 (talk) 09:01, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
@Iskandar323, text in Wikipedia guidance is not perfect. Sometimes only a part of a paragraph is changed and other things that made sense before are left hanging. In addition, in the relevant paragraph it is not clear whether the intent is only to talk about biased sources or if the "remove only" sentence can be applied to all information.
As you can see from my original edit, I interpreted the latter sentence to apply to all information. This is evidence that many other editors can also interpret the sentence as I did. Taking away the "only" makes it not be in conflict with other guidance elsewhere. Although for your concern, it would be better maybe to add "In this case," to the beginning of it.
We would have, "In this case, remove material only when you have a good reason to believe it misinforms [...]" This way it connects better to the beginning of the paragraph, is more specific, provides more clarity, doesn't conflict with other guidance that I know of, and reduces the chances of other interpretations. Thinker78 (talk) 00:16, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
"In this case" seems to be a good clarification. I think repeating what "this case" refers to (such as "Remove biased material only...". or "Remove reliably sourced material for achieving balance", or some other form like these) would make it even clearer. Unless the restriction to remove is supposed to apply more broadly than the first sentence implies by design.
On a related note, I wonder if moving Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process. to the end of the paragraph or even a footnote, swapping it with the last sentence, would make it sound better, as this sentence explains why the guidance says what it says, rather than dictates the policy directly. PaulT2022 (talk) 22:52, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
@PaulT2022 oh oh. You threw a wrench into the issue. Lol. Thinker78 (talk) 23:36, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 Implemented[3] @Iskandar323, @PaulT2022 Any questions or comments feel free to continue this discussion. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 00:12, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
I think this edit is very unclear, because "in this case" is separated from the case in question by two intervening sentences.
Honestly, I'd prefer the original state of the page. I think that version was clearer as to the intent, and it's this version that feels like it's referring to removing material as part of the normal editing process since that's what's immediately precedes "in this case". Loki (talk) 01:05, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Proposal:

Generally, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely because it seems biased. In this case, remove material only when you have a good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process. The sections below offer specific guidance on common problems.

(Note: Check page history of this talk page to compare changes with current wording. Original formatting omitted just for clarity, but it is intended to be retained.) Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 01:47, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
I'd prefer replacing "In this case" with "Instead". And maybe add a "sourced" between "remove" and "material" if clarity is a concern. Loki (talk) 20:58, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Concur with Loki. "Instead" would be better, or possibly being specific such as "remove such material for achieving neutrality only when you..." / "remove reliably sourced biased material for achieving neutrality only when you..." PaulT2022 (talk) 21:02, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

There are several problems with the proposed "tweak". First, policy should be descriptive not imperative so we must not be writing "instructions" for people. Secondly, the wording suggests there is only one circumstance in which material should be removed (misleading, etc.). But there are loads of reasons to remove content otherwise, not least: child protection, legal problems, copyrights, etc. (N.B. The existing text is also awful). Bon courage (talk) 06:43, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I think removing the paragraph as Bon courage did here was a good idea. It has so many problems. I agree with them that we should generally not be spelling out each step someone can and can't take in a content policy page. The page should focus on the content in the article, not editor behaviour in getting there. A complete rewrite preserving nothing of the previous content would entirely satisfy NPOV. WP:PRESERVE is part of Wikipedia:Editing policy and suffers perhaps from WP:UPPERCASE where people think "WP:PRESERVE" is all about taking baby steps and retaining material but in fact says "If you think an article needs to be rewritten or changed substantially, go ahead and do so".
The claim in the deleted text "Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective" is simply not true and also feeds into the myth that balance is the way to solve NPOV. Whether it is in medicine, where we don't balance our "biased" Western evidence based medicine approach with Gwyneth's latest health fad, or in politics where a hate-group's article doesn't get balanced with nice things about them. To be honest, I think the word "balance" is so problematic, we should remove it from this policy page. Our section on "Balance" just spends half its time saying, "no we don't really want balance, because that's 'false balance'". Balance is simply an inappropriate metaphor.
If we do think there is good advice for editors in how to deal with existing biased material and work the article towards being unbiased, then it probably belongs in Wikipedia:Editing policy, but to be honest, many times editors complain about the article being biased, what they mean is it doesn't reflect their bias. -- Colin°Talk 08:34, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
I agree that policy are not like algorithms that can be applied without considering the context. If a policy would contain a phrase such as do X when Y, it means that Y, X or both require a context to be understood. Also, each of the core content policy must be applied in the light of other core content policies and common sense. Therefore, even the idea of a section of the policy that would clarify what exactly should be done is kind of wrong. The policy should be kept simple and to a minimum and illustrated with uncontroversial examples. The rest is determined in practice given the actual contexte in the light of the other core content policies and common sense. Dominic Mayers (talk) 09:02, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
+1 ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:24, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
I have reverted Bon courage’s edit, because I don’t think this works. The para deleted is more general than the para amended, which is only about views. Perhaps some other amendment might be appropriate. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:54, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
We could leave it like it is (crap). But just to note, this unheaded opening paragraph is meant to be a summary of the following headed paragraphs, but instead it's a bizarre oddly-specific riff on adding and removing content based on editors having a "reason". Seriously, every editor thinks they have a good reason when the remove content - and sometimes the worse an editor they are, the stronger that belief! Bon courage (talk) 14:12, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
I support your revert, they either don't seem to have realized what they'd done or they're attempting to put a personal POV over consensus. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:06, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
Hmm, that response calls the intelligence, competence and good faith of multiple editors into question. Without addressing the issue at all. Classic. Bon courage (talk) 16:29, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
Its not a plural they its a singular they. It also clearly addresses the issue of whether or not the revert is supported. We're getting there, but your proposed solution ain't it boo. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:43, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't understand either Sweet6970's rational for reverting nor Horse Eye's Black, which seems to be be a personal attack rather than a comment on the actual policy text. The addition of "only" is contentious and should be removed again unless there is consensus for it. But the whole mindset of this paragraph is wrongheaded and misplaced. Can you explain, with examples perhaps, why "generally" NPOV is achieved by adding sourced material to achieve "balance". For example, we often see editors chuck negative things they found in the news into articles about subjects they dislike. WP:NOTNEWS is our policy way of discussing whether those things are unencyclopedic cruft or not. The text here seems to suggest we have to keep this hate-crap and just have to find love-crap to counter it.
Wikipedia:Editing policy already has a section discussing how and when to keep and improve text and how and when to remove it. Editors should take this paragraph over to that policy talk page and argue for something there. -- Colin°Talk 16:47, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
The version reverted to does not contain the word "only" it is "Generally, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely because it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process. Remove material when you have a good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage. The sections below offer specific guidance on common problems." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:52, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
I'm with Horse Eye's Back here. This paragraph has been around for a long time. It has consensus, and for good reason: content really should not be removed willy-nilly. We also shouldn't be removing whole paragraphs from a policy page without an extremely good reason. Loki (talk) 18:41, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
But, lemme try to answer your point in detail:
This paragraph, unlike how you and BC have apparently interpreted it, is not about removing any content for any reason. It is about removing sourced content to restore NPOV. It should indeed be rare that we have to do this, because what is NPOV is fundamentally based on what the sources say. The rare times I've seen it happen are because one reliable source is absolutely outnumbered by many others to such an extent that even mentioning their claim would be WP:UNDUE.
You seem to be talking about BLPs mainly, which are covered by WP:BLP, which has many reasons to remove sourced information that this paragraph doesn't apply to. Absent any of those reasons, if a reliable source says something about an article subject, we should include that information. That is NPOV by itself; if there is no counter information in reliable sources, we don't need to search for it, and in fact trying to do so is WP:FALSEBALANCE. Loki (talk) 19:02, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
I like @Bon courage's thinking of making wider changes to the less-than-perfect paragraph, but I don't think simply deleting it is the answer.
@Colin has a good point about balance. I witnessed the opposite happening with the same result: in the imaginary article about medicine, all mentions of Western medicine can be removed for achieving balance by editors who are dedicated enough, claiming that because 10 reliable sources reported "latest health fad", "unbalanced" mentions of a Western medical textbook should be removed. This doesn't happen with medical articles because of WP:MEDRS, and doesn't happen in articles with multiple editors, but I've witnessed it in niche articles with 2-6 active editors: something gets deleted "for achieving NPOV", followed by "no-consensus/ONUS" calls, resulting in the balance being determined by the editor(s) who drops the stick last.
I do believe that NPOV should not be phrased in a way that allows to use it in a manipulative way I described above. I don't think WP:PRESERVE alone deals with it as NPOV is generally seen as having higher priority. If there's a way to phrase NPOV to be less prescriptive about but still be clear that it cannot be abused by following its letter but not the spirit, I'd support it. PaulT2022 (talk) 21:07, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I'd also like to ditch the "do not remove sourced material solely because it seems biased" "Sourced" implies that being sourced gives it special status regarding retention. Everything in Wikipedia needs to be either sourced or source-able. Also we should not be categorically ruling out the possibility of removing material because it is biased. But I agree that a change in a core policy can't be done willy nilly. North8000 (talk) 19:18, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I read it from the other side, as green lighting the removal of unsourced material solely because it seems biased. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:33, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
Okay, since some editors believe there are "algorithmic orders" to be followed in "Achieving NPOV" let's at least give this hanging section that title. Personally, I think this is not ideal but let's see where consensus gets us ... Bon courage (talk) 20:08, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
Which editors would those be? I don't see anyone saying that, I can't find the quote. Is it in another section? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:12, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
The sooner we can crystallise what the problem is, the better everyone will be in a position to deal with it. Now: nobody thinks this paragraph in question (at the top of the "Achieving neutrality") is actually good, right? Let's clear this up first ... Bon courage (talk) 20:18, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
What editor is the quote from? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:19, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
what "quote"? Bon courage (talk) 20:21, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
"since some editors believe there are "algorithmic orders" to be followed..." Which editors and where is the quote from? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:23, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
The unnamed many implying " algorithms that can be applied " as referred-to upthread, of course. Bon courage (talk) 20:26, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
The editor that quote is from appears to actually say the exact opposite in context "I agree that policy are not like algorithms that can be applied without considering the context." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:28, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, which was the reason to support removal of the para. Bon courage (talk) 03:33, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
Yes, so, back to the original question. There are clearly editors that believe that other editors believe there are algorithmic orders. But which editors actually believe, directly, that policy is algorithmic orders to be followed? Because so far the only people to say anything about algorithms are talking about their opponents, not themselves. Loki (talk) 03:51, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
Nobody's talking about "opponents". Colin's thought was "the page should focus on the content in the article, not editor behaviour in getting there." Dominic Mayers "agreed that policy are not like algorithms". This is an identified problem with the paragraph in question which contains instructions like "try to rewrite ...", "do not remove ... because ...", and "remove material when ...". If you boil it down, here's the pseudocode for what that para is saying:
Switch (content “seems biased”)
case (have good reason to think misleading) : remove it
case (default) : retain AND try to rewrite using other sources
That this is the topmost thing in a section called "achieving neutrality" is bizarre in the extreme, in my view. Bon courage (talk) 06:28, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
I understand that's how you're reading it, and why you object to it. But I don't, and I don't think that most readers would either. It's no more algorithmic than anything else on the page, all of which is instructions for how to edit Wikipedia properly, right? You could write "the pseudocode for" any policy page, but in the context of the rest of the policies and guidelines that's clearly not how things work.
Like, there are guidelines that are waaaaaay more algorithmic than this one. The WP:MOS comes to mind immediately, seeing as it literally is a list of very precise instructions that you are ordinarily supposed to follow exactly. But "it's too algorithmic" is not a criticism that it gets, and part of that is why not is that it exists in the context where one of the pillars of Wikipedia is WP:IAR, and the guideline template at the top of the page explicitly says there it should be treated with common sense and there may occasionally be exceptions. Loki (talk) 13:11, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
This is not a MOS or a guidelines, but (supposedly) a core and non-negotiable policy. Several experienced editors notice this paragraph's script-like nature, but you "don't think that most readers would". Got it. Bon courage (talk) 13:56, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
As far as I can tell only Colin has mentioned scripts, who are the other editors? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:54, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
scripts, algorithms - see above. Bon courage (talk) 14:57, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
So you said that they mentioned scripts but they actually mentioned algorithms? Why the misleading characterization of the arguments presented by other editors? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:13, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
scripts and algorithms are synonymous (also how-tos, instructions, etc.) in my book. Bon courage (talk) 15:16, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
Fascinating, might I suggest then that you pick one and stick to it? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:22, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
My comment regarding a policy not being an algorithm only meant that we must expect that the policy will need to be understood in view of the context. The context is fixed in the case of an algorithm: a mathematical structure, a computer language, etc., but it's not like that in the case of a policy. Trying to compensate for this fact by adding more text to the policy, often only makes it biased toward the contexts that we have in mind at the time of writing. Dominic Mayers (talk) 14:58, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
I think the paragraph in question is good. It's no worse than any other paragraph in this policy. I don't think it needs to be changed. Loki (talk) 20:31, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
I took you to be sarcastic but if thats a real question, yes I consider the paragraph in question to be good. Good =/= perfect, there's always room for consensus bases improvement but there's nothing egregiously wrong with it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:35, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
You assumed bad faith. Right. Bon courage (talk) 20:36, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
Sarcasm, hyperbole, etc aren't bad faith they're legitimate rhetorical devices which are commonly used across wikipedia. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:37, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
You think it's legitimate to make sarcastic edits to core policy pages? This is an increasingly bizarre exchange. I can assure you: I am trying to clarify things straight & in good faith. It is clear, anyway, what text you you think is good from your repeated reversions. It's not good. Bon courage (talk) 20:43, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
This is a wikipedia talk page, you will find sarcasm, hyperbole, etc all the way to the top... ANI... Arbcon... Everywhere, its not a big deal and its not bad faith. You say it wasn't sarcastic, I believe you. Can we move on? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:53, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
HEB isn't saying that removing the paragraph is sarcastic, they're saying that your assertion that nobody thinks the paragraph was good sounded sarcastic (I'd say "hyperbolic"), because it was obviously false. Nobody's saying that you think the paragraph is good. Loki (talk) 20:57, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
"Sourced" implies that being sourced gives it special status regarding retention - doesn't it though? I assumed the "sourced" was to simply say that NPOV provisions for striving to keep while editing for balance don't apply to material that's being deleted for failing WP:BURDEN. PaulT2022 (talk) 20:45, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
It sure does give it special status relative to unsourced material, in that while unsourced material may be kept (but can also be removed based solely on any editor thinking it's sufficiently implausible), it's assumed that sourced material will be kept unless there's a good reason to remove it. Loki (talk) 20:54, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Okay, this needs to close now. What we have is obviously shit, but some editors love it (for whatever reasons), so it's not going to change as the result of a simple Talk page discussion, Suggest that if any editor wants to propose improvement they can progress towards an RfC, otherwise we can stay with the shit text and everybody can ignore it as they always did (personally, fine by me). As you were. Bon courage (talk) 20:59, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
    FWIW, you are perfectly within your rights to start an RFC here. And in fact, that's normally the preferred solution for dealing with disagreements on the talk page. Loki (talk) 03:19, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
    In my humble opinion, I don't think for now that an RFC would be useful. The thread just exploded within the last 24 hours and discussions generally run for a week.[a] An RFC could just make it much longer, complicated, and probably equally divisive.[b] My suggestion is to keep discussing because there are a few editors involved, it's not just 2 or 3. Let's try to seek compromise to reach consensus. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 03:33, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
    A bigger issue here is that "Achieving neutrality" is the wrong title/concept for a policy page. It puts the whole thing on a footing of "this is what to do" rather than "this is what neutrality is". From this, stems the problems above. Bon courage (talk) 06:16, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
    I agree completely with that paragraph. A content policy page should be indeed be describing "this is what neutrality is". How editors get there is for an editing behaviour policy/guideline, of which we have several. There are no end of ways to "get there", including blowing it up and starting again, and NPOV really shouldn't be getting into those details. The current ideas of how to get there are naive and arguments that they are longstanding just show that people have been ignoring / not-gaining from this paragraph for a long time. Most people manage to edit Wikipedia just fine without reading hardly any of the instructions.
    Wrt algorithmic, yes the text is obviously algorithmic and I've seen over many years on Wikipedia and Commons that there are some editors who it seems can't get out of bed and brush their teeth in the morning without a script to guide them. So we end up with instructions appearing here and there that were someone's bright idea at the time but don't really stand up to scrutiny as reflecting actual editing practice or solving general problems. We get arguments that if those instructions are removed then suddenly editors will feel instructed to do the opposite. But I'm not sure why anyone would look to NPOV for guidance on "how to edit", so if we need instructions, and we don't as much as some think, they belong somewhere else.
    But right now I see the talk page is argumentative, hostile, defensive and closed minded, so I don't think it is worth continuing this discussion in that spirit. -- Colin°Talk 08:25, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
    It's not as if we don't have WP:NPOVT. But the "how-to" mindset of that seems to have seeped into the policy here. Bon courage (talk) 08:31, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
  • I would support removing the paragraph in question, and I'd appreciate a ping if someone starts an RfC. Most good-faith but poor content is better improved by addition than removal, but it's not sensible to endorse keeping biased content in situations where no one is able to improve it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:44, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Should delete as a stain on and contradiction of the parent section. In most cases articles should assert the view of the best respected and most authoritative reliable sources and inform the reader of any notable contrary views and explain their context. What in the hell does balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion even mean anyway? It seems in practice to mostly result in a bunch of talk page argument trying to include junk content. fiveby(zero) 17:26, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
  • I would be strenuously opposed to any version that includes the wording only when... or words to that effect. That goes wildly beyond WP:PRESERVE (which is far more cautiously-worded, with language like "consider"; and it omits a ton of reasons to omit something that are listed under WP:CANTFIX (such as redundancy or triviality.) I feel that people are already too quick to invoke PRESERVE; while I'm not a fan of the maximalist interpretations of WP:ONUS, which is sort of the opposing guideline, this push to expand PRESERVE has the same problems in the other direction. The implication here is that someone can add something new to an article and, if it gets removed, demand that it be restored as long as it can't be shown that the addition misinforms or misleads readers. That's absurd - we need policies that encourage people to actually discuss context-specific reasons for additions, revisions, changes, and removals that can lead to compromise, not people wielding policies like WP:ONUS and WP:PRESERVE as blunt weapons to argue that they win by default. That means that their language should be cautious and advisory, and avoid any language that could come across as saying "you can only remove things from Wikipedia for these reasons, fullstop." --Aquillion (talk) 03:56, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
  • I'm with Aquillion on this one, for the most part. There are some elements in that opening paragraph worth retaining, but anything speaking in a more absolute tone should be removed or rephrased. Language like "consider" (as Aquillion points out) is far more appropriate than "do not", "try", and especially "remove only when". Other phrases like "a good reason" is completely subjective and will definitely mean something different to each editor. This is just spitballing and not necessarily a proposal, but this is how I'd rewrite the opening paragraph:
    Generally, statements that seem biased may exist in the encyclopedia when properly sourced. If a more neutral tone is desired, consider rewriting the passage or section instead of removal. Biased information can usually be balanced with additional material from other sources to achieve a more neutral perspective. The sections below offer additional guidance on how to address common issues.
--GoneIn60 (talk) 18:37, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

RfC question; let's get the ball rolling

So for the RfC shall the proposal be simply to remove the paragraph at issue, or does some compensatory text/phrase also need to be proposed for elsewhere to make up for anything that might be lost? Bon courage (talk) 15:54, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

  • So, no response here and the attempt to remove this has met with two WP:DRNC-unhelpful reversals. So I think a RfC should propose three options: (a) No change; (b) delete the para; (c) move the para to WP:NPOVT. Okay? Bon courage (talk) 15:42, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
    That would be the smart next move instead of continuing this long term edit war. If someone reverts you, you should not keep reverting, you need to come to the talk page and figure it out. PackMecEng (talk) 18:12, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
    As one of the people who reverted you, I'd support an RFC on this. I'm not sure where I'd come down on it, but I don't see enough consensus established here to remove the paragraph without further discussion. Pecopteris (talk) 19:45, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Since it came up in the pre-RFC discussion, I think we should include an option that softens the language or blunts all the imperatives. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:04, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Good idea! I'll draft something soon. Bon courage (talk) 15:41, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Fact and opinions in cases of net hatred

In cases such as pedophilia. Genocide or hateful and harmful actions should they not be reported even briefly in the begining of said persons page , i.e "jimmy Savile" the notorious sex offender , when googled the begining caption someone who isnt aware could mistake him for a well beloved tv icon , i understand the point of fact that he was knighted and such however as he did such crimes , he should be known first by them and tv icon second , take ted Kaczynski a.k.a"the unibomber" , he is known primarily as the domestic terrorist who killed at least 3 Americans in his terror , however someone like "jimmy savile" is stated not as those irreprehensible actions primarily but as "sir James who was well known for his eccentric behaviour and charity work" all be it yes paraphrasing however when googled the first impression is no mention until you click into his wiki or some other site , even to just label him as "DJ". Isn't that a little immoral ??? , (hope that isn't to hard to follow my logic there , and I'm fully aware of the wiki neutral tone policy however he's an awful man and it logically should be more forward stating that) 83.98.55.170 (talk) 10:20, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't follow your logic. I think that's the reason your comment has not received a response. Can you restate your argument in a different way? Philomathes2357 (talk) 20:58, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Politicians "oppose" vs "support"

I've noticed over the years, with another prominent example today, that many current politicians article suffer a lack of neutrality that historic politicians do not - as editor's opinions on touchstone matters relevant to today creep into their editing. It seems endemic enough to consider actually including a reference to the problem on the main style-guide. This is the issue of framing politician (frequently in their opening lede) as "they oppose X, Y and Z", and their political rivals say "they support X, Y and Z".

Essentially if you have two bills put before Latvian congress, one calls for chocolate to be the national ice cream flavour, the other calls for vanilla...Wikipedia has a tendency to label "Senator Vanags supports Chocolate" and "Senator Eglitas opposes Chocolate"...instead of more neutrally labeling it in the form of what is supported rather than its anti-thesis being opposed.

On historic article we don't tend to see this, we can say "Jefferson Davis supported the continuation of slavery" instead of saying "Jefferson Davis opposed ongoing efforts to end slavery". To phrase it in terms of what was supported seems more neutral. Similarly we properly say William Carpenter advocated for a Flat-Earth theory", instead of using the opposite less neutral phrasing "Carpenter opposed the spherical earth".

So you end up with the quandry on contemporary political articles, where the bias creeps in where people's positive support for X is instead labelled as opposition to Y. Virginia Courtsesan (talk) 16:16, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

In principle, I think you are making a good suggestion, but in practice, sometimes people really are more "opposed to chocolate" (which can be such a disappointing flavor for ice cream) than they are actually "supportive of vanilla". (Or maybe that's just in the US, and politicians elsewhere normally put forward positive platforms, instead of focusing on how wrong everyone else is?) WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:45, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
The chocolate/vanilla example, where there are two options but they are not necessarily opposite positions, I think it is right to not try to show that support for vanilla necessarily means opposition to chocolate.
However, we have cases where the options on the table are either in favor of X, or in opposition of X, and there's no other alternative to X. The best example of this is related to abortion and abortion rights. Most of the sources we have use "support abortion" or "oppose abortion", with the language of "pro-life"/"pro-abortion" having waned significantly. In this case, we really should follow what the reliable sources say, which may not appear to be neutral, but is neutral to how the matters are being discussed. Masem (t) 14:36, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
In some cases, especially including language used by politicians, we really shouldn't follow the language that the reliable sources say, precisely because what the sources would violate Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Impartial tone. We have to balance neutral tone ("abortion", not "killing babies") with accuracy (politicians are more likely to support "a legal right to abortion" than "abortions" per se). WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:51, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
I think there is a deeper problem where the political positions section turns into a WP:QUOTEFARM. While I can appreciate wanting to hold a politician to their words, there's a strange thing that happens when you start pulling out partial quotes from random campaign appearances. In my opinion, a political opinion is more than a statement made on the campaign trail. It's a pattern of action. I'd want to distinguish things said at a campaign stop versus something tangible. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:31, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Anti-subjectivity bias

This sourced statement was removed from Cinnamon Roll Day a while ago. The edit summary is "Subjective statement removed. People just really like cinnamon rolls."

I mention this here because I've been thinking this year about subjectivity in Wikipedia articles. We need to include subjective information, and we need to write in as objective a way as we can. We've traditionally expressed this as Wikipedia:A simple formulation: Assert facts, including facts about opinions.

This case has reminded me again that we (probably not just editors, but everyone on the internet) are bad at identifying what subjective really means. In this case, the editor removed a sourced, objective fact (an expert said something), claiming that it was subjective, while providing a personal belief ("People just really like cinnamon rolls") as the justification for making the change.

If you see similar examples (good or bad), please consider sharing them with me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:08, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. It's a disturbing trend, and not limited to Wikipedia. In the era of social media, we create our own feed funnels and thereby our own realities. How NPOV and other policy should address this is by not compromising on reliability of sources. Andre🚐 05:09, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Yes, editors, and people in general, are horrendously awful at distinguishing between fact and opinion delineating between objective and subjective claims. I've been thinking that an essay aiding editors in this endeavor would be useful. What say you, @WhatamIdoing? We've found ourselves on opposite sides of a couple of debates, but I think we've both, from our differing POVs, identified the same problem here. Philomathes2357 (talk) 00:13, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
I think it might help. If anything in User:WhatamIdoing/Subjectivity in Wikipedia articles would be useful to you, please feel free to take it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:09, 22 October 2023 (UTC)


Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view/Archive_64&oldid=1191276774"