Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:34, 16 October 2010

The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Wikipedia. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic.

Spoken Wikipedia

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Wikipedia articles

Shortcut

WT:NPOV

When starting a new topic, please add it to the bottom of this page, and please sign your comments with four tildes: ~~~~. This will automatically place a date stamp, which will allow us to maintain this page better.

Serious NPOV/SYNTH problem with List of films considered the worst and best

I've started a talk page discussion here. If anyone here is well-versed in the NPOV policy, please participate if you can, because I think these articles' problems need to be hammered out, possibly with deletion. Nightscream (talk) 02:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'equal validity' section

I've removed this section - [1] - since it seems to have been added to the policy with very little discussion. since it's a major shift in policy, it needs more investigation. my specific objections are as follows:

it is specifically geared towards pseudoscience, meaning this should really be in the wp:FRINGE guideline, not in policy.
It shifts the nature of NPOV, implying that editors can and should take a stand on issues above and beyond what is presented in reliable sources, which is a major departure from the principles of NPOV.
It encourages editorial synthesis, since it explicitly suggests that editors should go out of their way to present strongly disapproving opinions.

I'm not averse to the basic idea (particularly as part of the FRINGE guideline), but the phrasing here is poor, and as written tends to contradict some of wikipedia's core principles. at very best it needs a significant revision. --Ludwigs2 02:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The section you are removing is essentially a restatement and a clarification of WP:UNDUE. I don't see any problem with it. Blueboar (talk) 03:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It actually does not appear to do anything except 1), which can be remedied by some simply rewording. The section you remove advocates the OPPOSITE of 2 & 3, since it makes pretty clear that Wikipedia articles should reflect existing views in reliable sources, reflecting the predominant, mainstream, and majority viewpoints on a topic. I don't see where the removed section is in conflict with anything, at least in spirit. --Jayron32 05:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I don't see any objection to the removed section except that it's redundant to the rest of the policy (which doesn't seem to be considered a reason for removing anything, since the editors of this policy seem to love redundancy).--Kotniski (talk) 06:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) If this were a simple restatement of UNDUE then I'd probably have no problem with it, but that would also make it entirely redundant (and thus removable anyway). However, it's not. This 'no equal validity' line of argument is intended to expand UNDUE. put roughly: UNDUE allows us to minimize or exclude fringe theories from mainstream articles, and to qualify fringe articles so that they do not give the appearance of having more prominence than they really have in scientific circles; this 'no equal validity' clause seeks to give editor the right to overrepresent and overstate mainstream positions in order to build arguments that refute fringe theories. The first is reasonable, the second is synthesis. Wikipedia is not here to take a position on these matters by promoting theories or by refuting theories.

honestly, the optimal solution in my view would be to shift this section over to wp:FRINGE (since it clearly is intended to be a clarification of UNDUE for fringe topics), and reword it somewhat so that it is not so blatantly permissive of synthesis. something along the lines of "Wikipedia may not itself be used to validate fringe views. Fringe views may be excluded from articles on scholarly topics where they are not a significant part of the mainstream literature, and where they are included may not be depicted as proven, true, valid, or accepted by the scholarly world beyond what independent sources say. Further, Wikipedia may not itself be used to invalidate fringe views. Wikipedia should describe any fringe view clearly, including critical perspectives and the view's relationship to established scholarship, but should avoid giving the appearance of attempting to debunk or disparage the topic." That should cover both ends of the spectrum sufficiently. --Ludwigs2 06:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused, how exactly does the text you deleted encourage your last two points? It seems to me that it explicitly prevents an editor from doing what you says it does. As an aside, a version of "giving equal validity" has been a part of the FAQ portion of NPOV since 2003; and it has been a part of NPOV for 17 months now. To me, that makes it seem like eliminating it would be the "major shift in policy"...Yobol (talk) 14:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the way the argument is used (exclusively, as far as I can see). A typical example is that editors working on a fringe topic article (after removing overt advocacy and misrepresentation, as they should), will go on to remove more-or-less neutral material (claiming that it's advocacy) and to pad in SPOV sources (usually from skeptical books and journals) until the article or section becomes an extended criticism of the topic rather than a neutral description of it. Editors who object that this is not a neutral or fair depiction of the topic are countered with the 'Wikipedia does not give equal validity' line, occasionally even extended to a claim that wikipedia does not need to treat fringe topics fairly - playing off the word ambiguity between giving a fringe topic 'fair representation' on mainstream articles (which is nonsense that violates NPOV) and treating a fringe topic with 'intellectual fairness' (which is precisely what NPOV tries to promote).

it's usually evident that these kinds of editors are either unwilling or incapable of grokking the concept of 'intellectual fairness', at least with respect to these topics. if we're going to have policy on this issue, it should reinforce intellectual fairness as a theme, not give wikilawyers a tool to trash fringe articles in the name of science.

And yes, I know all about the NPOV FAQ thing. Let's not get into the that, because it's shoddy wikipolitics. The FAQ only existed in the first place as an effort to sneak some pseudoscience claims into policy through the back door, when there was no consensus for putting them in policy directly. one can't ethically use that speciousness to leverage new policy additions. --Ludwigs2 16:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If someone is misinterpreting policy, that is a problem with the editor misinterpreting it, not with the policy itself. Nothing in the text you deleted, as far as I can tell, encourages the behavior of placing too much weight against a fringe topic. Please point to what part of the text you deleted encourages synthesis or encourages taking "a stand above and beyond what is presented in reliable sources," because, frankly, I don't see it.

No idea about "wikipolitics", I only think it's odd to suggest that something that's been in the policy or FAQ of the policy for 7 years is somehow a "major shift in policy". Shrug. Yobol (talk) 17:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The FAQ was not, and was never intended to be, policy in its own right. FAQ are for answers frequently asked questions, not for introducing novel ideas. There was a bit of a kerfluffle over this a few months back when someone tried to promote the FAQ to policy status.

With respect to your question, however, let's take the disputed section line by line.

The Wikipedia neutrality policy does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views [...] If that were the case, the result would be to legitimize and even promote such claims.
- What does this phrase mean? Wikipedia does not 'give validity to' or 'legitimize' anything; we're a tertiary source that describes, not a primary or secondary source that validates. Either this is a poorly phrased revision of UNDUE, where 'give equal validity' really means 'include beyond due prominence', or it specifically intended to imply that wikipedia can and should identify 'valid' theories and promote them over 'invalid' theories. it is usually interpreted in the second manner, and whether that is intentional or merely poor phrasing strikes me as irrelevant. If it's consistently being interpreted badly it should be removed.
Policy states that we must not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers
- This is true, no argument.
but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such; from fairly explaining the strong arguments against the pseudoscientific theory; from describing the strong moral repugnance that many people feel toward some morally repugnant views; and so forth.
- the 'but' here is used to create a loophole in the statement that we "should not take stands as editors". This phrase explicitly suggests that editors should seek out arguments designed to refute, disparage, or demonstrate 'moral repugnance' towards fringe topics, and that such expressions are protected by policy. In other words, if someone can find a reliable source that says (for instance) "UFOs are a mindlessly unscientific idea that is only believed by stupid people", they can argue for its inclusion in the UFO article on the grounds that it's a fair (if strong) expression of the scientific opinion against UFOs and of the moral repugnance some people feel towards that idea. And then they can include six or ten or twenty similar quotes (if they so desire) on the assertion that they are "describing the majority view as such".

There is a line between (1) including scholarly perspectives to prevent editors from legitimizing fringe theories unduly and (2) encouraging editors to actively debunk fringe theories; this phrasing blatantly erases that line. that's the problem with it. do you see what I mean? --Ludwigs2 18:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to belabor the point about the FAQ/policy. I still find it strange that you would argue there is a change in policy when something has been interpreted one way for 7 years (and has been policy for 17 months without any real opposition until now) - obviously you disagree, but that's really besides the point.

To your first point, to give undue prominence to fringe theories would be giving them a perception of legitimacy these theories don't have in the reliable sources. I see no problem with acknowledging this fact, and that fringe advocates use Wikipedia to try to gain legitimacy by promoting their pet theories here.

I do not agree with your interpretation of the "but" as a loophole. That sentence is basically a re-statement of UNDUE. It doesn't encourage people to do anything except report what's in the reliable sources, with due weight placed. You seem to be arguing against the behavior of other editors which are violating policy, not illustrating a problem in the policy. Unless I see more substantial consensus that it violates policy, I would support a return of that section to policy. Yobol (talk)

lol - well, I don't suppose you have to agree, but I suggest you give a better explanation than 'That sentence is basically a re-statement of UNDUE'. I mean, an elephant is basically a restatement of a mouse if you ignore all that stuff about size and trunks and ears; everything looks pretty much like everything else if you're willing to squint hard enough. I've given some thoroughly explained reasons why I think this section expands UNDUE in unpleasant ways. They might be good reasons or bad reasons (currently I think they're good, but I'm in discussion mode here so that could change), but those reasons are not going to go away simply because you choose to poo-poo them without discussion. --Ludwigs2 19:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to "poo-poo" your reasons, just that I don't agree with them. I don't understand how you're interpreting the words you deleted as to what you say they mean. I am most certainly not in a 'discussion mode'; I tried to see where you're coming from, but don't get it, and don't plan on spending a lot of effort trying to when no one else who has commented seems to either. Yobol (talk) 20:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. However, if you really don't see a difference between what this says and what UNDUE says, then I hope you'll do me the grace of allowing me to remove something that you believe is redundant and I happen to dislike. no sense making me suffer something I find disagreeable if it adds nothing that's not said elsewhere. --Ludwigs2 21:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't it going to be moved to WP:FRINGE? --Enric Naval (talk) 22:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you find it so disagreeable, I have no strenuous objections to its return to just being in the FAQ, though the shortcuts (WP:GEVAL, etc) should probably be redirected back to the FAQ as it was originally. Yobol (talk) 22:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Based on Ludwigs' edit summary, which referred to a change in April, I went back and looked at what the page said at the beginning of the month: [2]. There was a shorter, simpler version of the section then. Would that version reduce the aspects that Ludwigs dislikes, to a sufficient degree that restoring it would be a reasonable compromise? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@ Enric: I was under that impression as well, but somehow it ended up here in policy. probably an honest mistake; stuff like that happens sometimes.

@ Yobol: I don't mean to be pedantic here, but you can't honestly expect that we will retain a section over objections without some explicit reason to retain it. Either this section is - as you said above - indistinguishable from and redundant with UNDUE (in which case there's no reason to retain it at all, anywhere), or this section has a meaning and purpose distinct from UNDUE which makes it useful (in which case you should spell out what the meaning and purpose are so that we can compare it against my objections). This isn't interior decorating (or some such) where we might include material just for 'atmosphere'; this is policy, and policy sections should have a definitive use.

@ Tryptofish: That shorter section is really just a condensed version of what I don't like, so it's not really an improvement. My objection to this section is that the wording is designed to encourage/allow editorial synthesis for the purpose of debunking. Policy does state that we should not take a stand on issues as encyclopedia editors, and we should not allow loopholes (as is the intention of this section) that allow some editors to take stands on some issues. look at the alternate suggestion I gave above (my 06:15, 7 October post): notice how I carefully phrase it to avoid the implication that wikipedia editors can make any judgements on the validity of topics, because making assertions about the validity of a topic is always taking a stand on that topic. --Ludwigs2 07:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ludwigs2, how would you address the following situation without the section in question? A fringe topic gets some attention in the press (say someone claims that staring into the sun is a substitute for food, and a couple of followers die from malnutrition, having been blind the last few years of their lives). But practically nobody really takes it seriously, and so there is no discussion of the fringe claims in mainstream sources. Once the topic has been established as notable, it's almost impossible to avoid having an article on it. The only sources for details about the topic are the publications of proponents, who are making reckless and obviously false claims about science. These claims are obviously noteworthy, so there is no way we can avoid reporting that they have been made. There are no reliable sources saying explicitly that these claims are fringe, pseudoscience or even just false. There are scientific sources that clearly contradict the claims, but we cannot mention them 1. per WP:UNDUE, because the scientific facts have 0 weight in the RS coverage of the fringe belief, and 2. per WP:SYN because Wikipedia would be the first to juxtapose the fringe belief and the actual facts it contradicts. (I don't agree with these arguments, but this is how it is argued in practice, often by editors who don't follow the fringe belief. And it's hard to argue against that for a common-sense application of our rules.) As a result there is a clear danger that Wikipedia knowingly exacerbates a real-life problem by publishing a completely unbalanced account of a fringe theory in an environment in which readers are used to relatively neutral encyclopedic articles. Hans Adler 09:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see that section as further clarifying policy, which of course is crucial. Sometimes to make policy clear you need to rephrase things in another way (with examples) to make sure everyone is on the same page as far as how to apply policy. Insomuch as you think the section breaks existing policy, I think you are very much incorrect; I do not strenuously object to it going back to the FAQ where it can further illustrate as to how current policy works (though I prefer it back to where it was before you removed it), but I would very much oppose removal of the section completely as it is important to make clear how to properly apply WP:UNDUE.Yobol (talk) 14:37, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hans: I'd have preferred a statement of the reasons for keeping the section rather than an example of how the section might be useful. examples are fluid, and subject to all sorts of rhetorical problems; statements are far less ambiguous. but I'll work with what you gave me. And incidentally, clarifications of policy for specific topics belong in guidelines, not in policy, so again, maybe we should move the section over to wp:FRINGE and discuss it there...

At any rate, the first thing I would do in this case (frankly) is stop to consider whether I was having an odd dream.

This seems like an unlikely scenario. A cult that advocates something as damaging as starting at the sun until you starve, yet only a couple of people have suffered severe physical harm over two years, and no police have gotten involved, and no newspapers or news media have investigated? I'll accept that you've chosen a 'hard case' for emphasis, but I will note the potential straw man argument implicit in choosing hyperbolic cases.

That aside, let's break it down to cases:

The topic is only discussed in self-published, pro-group sources. Topic in non-notable, and doesn't belong on wikipedia.
The topic is a recent focus of public attention, so journalistic sources exist but are not well-developed. Topic does not belong on wikipedia, per wp:NOTNEWS
The topic is commented on extensively, but only in journalistic sources. In cases like this, journalistic sources will usually do their own synthesis from scientific sources to counter the group's pseudoscientific claims (journalists are allowed engage in synthesis; wikipedia editors are not). The best we can say about science directly here is that the scientific community has not specifically addressed any of these claims.
- Incidentally, skeptical sources are excellent for this purpose - my issue with skepticism on wikipedia is that a lot of editors treat skeptical sources as though they were 'the voice of science' when in fact skeptics are journalists synthesizing scientific understanding on heir own, outside of the scientific community.
The topic is subject to some type of governmental action. FDA restrictions, investigations, court cases... These are useful primary sources for establishing particular risks or dangers inherent in the practice.

All of these cases can be handled effectively under policy without this particular section. The problem here (IMO) is that some editors are stuck in the belief that topics like this need to be 'scientifically' countered and disproven on wikipedia. They don't. Wikipedia editors are not journalists or scientists or police, and we have no mandate to protect people from their own misconceptions or from misconceptions fostered on them by others (per wp:NOTCENSORED). We are only writing an encyclopedia, and only aiming to give the best information on topics we can as it is presented in reliable sources. Even if these groups are causing harm to individuals in the meantime, it is beyond the scope of the project; we have to wait until reliable sources weigh in on the issue. wp:UNDUE prevents questionable science from getting front-page treatment on mainstream topic articles; UNDUE and various sections of wp:NOT (NOTADVOCATE, NOTOPINION, NOTGUIDE, NOTHOWTO, NOTCRYSTAL, NOTSPECULATION), not to mention FRINGE itself, keep questionable science from being overblown as fact on pages dedicated to it. what more do we need than that? --Ludwigs2 18:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The topic was unfortunately not hypothetical. I am sure that about 5-10 years ago sungazing went through your stage 2. The problem with stage 2 is that there are small mentions throughout many high-rate media because it's interesting. This is enough to make deletion of such an article completely unrealistic in practice, although I would agree with your solution in theory. (For some perspective on our deletion process, look at Alexandre Louis, Duke of Valois, its talk page and its AfD.) Hans Adler 22:22, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the problem you're pointing to is. there's a fairly large bridge to cross between having an article on an 'interesting' topic, and allowing that article to present itself as scientific fact. I haven't looked into this particular topic, but I find it hard to imagine that any reliable secondary source which bothered to give sungazing would not comment on the obvious health risks. that leads me to believe that what this has is causal mention in a few not-too-reliable sources. perhaps we need to expand FRINGE to lower the AfD criteria for such topics. that being said, if the topic is notable... what's the problem? all we need to do is inform people of the existence of such groups, with a few cautionary words (as the article currently provides). I don't see how that goes outside what I wrote above. --Ludwigs2 23:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'equal validity' convenience break

I'm receptive to Ludwigs' desire to be careful not to introduce unintended consequences, and I also broadly agree with Yobol that it's a net positive to include some wording to elaborate on the concept. Here are ~~two~~ ~~three~~ four possible versions that have been discussed. Thoughts? --Tryptofish (talk) 17:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of alternative versions of the section
Old version, pre-April 2010	Version from FAQ by Dave, April 2010
The neutrality policy does not state or imply that we must give equal validity to minority views. Doing so would legitimize and even promote such claims. Policy states that we must not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such or from fairly explaining the minority views, when they are noteworthy.	The Wikipedia neutrality policy does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views such as pseudoscience, the claim that the Earth is flat, or the claim that the Apollo moon landings never occurred. If that were the case, the result would be to legitimize and even promote such claims. Policy states that we must not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers; but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such; from fairly explaining the strong arguments against the pseudoscientific theory; from describing the strong moral repugnance that many people feel toward some morally repugnant views; and so forth.
Wording proposed by Ludwigs2, above	Wording proposed by RexxS, below
Wikipedia may not itself be used to validate fringe views. Fringe views may be excluded from articles on scholarly topics where they are not a significant part of the mainstream literature, and where they are included may not be depicted as proven, true, valid, or accepted by the scholarly world beyond what independent sources say. Further, Wikipedia may not itself be used to invalidate fringe views. Wikipedia should describe any fringe view clearly, including critical perspectives and the view's relationship to established scholarship, but should avoid giving the appearance of attempting to debunk or disparage the topic.	The Wikipedia neutrality policy does not state, or imply, that we must give "equal validity" to minority views, examples of which are pseudoscience, the claim that the Earth is flat, and the claim that the Apollo moon landings never occurred. Policy states that we must not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers. However we should: describe the majority views as such; fairly explain arguments against any notable minority views; dispassionately report the moral repugnance that many people feel toward some morally repugnant views; and so forth.

This was a longstanding part of policy, incorporated here in the merge from the FAQ as part of the agreed merge of the two sections of the policy, after significant discussion, so I've restored it. Ludwigs2 may feel that we should give more leeway to pseudoscience, but this is a clear statement of an essential aspect of NPOV. The proposal by Ludwigs2 above restates and modifies aspects of policy already covered under weight: tiny minority views don't need to be included, and in articles about a minority view we show its relationship to the majority view. Avoiding giving the appearance of showing clear majority views debunking or disparaging the topic is a new piece of bending over backwards to be nice to fringe views, and would be open to wikilawyering. . . dave souza, talk 18:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This was not part of policy until your edit, Dave - it was part of the FAQ. and the agreement was to merge most of the FAQ into FRINGE, not into NPOV. I'm reverting you again based on the reasons I gave above. when you're ready to present reasons why this section is necessary, please do so and we'll discuss re-inclusion. --Ludwigs2 19:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@trypto - I'd forgotten about that third option, which is certainly better than the current version. thanks for including it. --Ludwigs2 21:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why are we whispering? (just kidding) I assume the third option to which you refer is the pre-April one, right? If so, could that be a compromise upon which we could agree? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If we are looking for consensus for a wording, then it would be best to agree a few points first:

The uses to which Wikipedia may be put are beyond the remit of editors;
The fact that a statement appears in an article is not an endorsement (by whom?), nor a validation, nor a legitimisation of that statement;
NPOV, including UNDUE, applies to all articles, not just a certain class of articles;
Examples are illustrative, not restrictive. When giving examples in policy statements, we must not use wording that might allow the policy to be considered as restricted solely to a class exemplified by those examples.

Now, if we could agree the above, I believe we could offer constructive criticism of each of the three proposals, and start to establish a consensus acceptable to all. A Dinosaur has spoken. --RexxS (talk) 00:19, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I can agree with that (but why do I feel like I just signed something I should have read more carefully? ... oh, well). Do please go ahead and provide your analysis. Definitely, we need to constructively evaluate the relative merits of these three. And by the way, I'm leaning towards preferring the old, pre-April version, or something like it. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't a trap (or even a fishing net), honest. If you accept point 1, then you'll want to remove wording that talks about how Wikipedia is used (Ludwigs). If you accept that stating facts does not endorse them, you'll want to remove wording that asserts we legitimise or promote (pre-April, Dave), or invalidate (Ludwigs). If you accept that NPOV applies to all articles, you'll want to remove the qualifier "on scholarly topics" (Ludwigs). If you agree examples are illustrative, then you'll want to reword "minority views such as pseudoscience, ..." (Dave), so that it is clear that the point applies to all minority views, not just ones such as <insert a class of views here>, perhaps by breaking the sentence and implicitly making it clear that they are illustrative examples. With the ambiguous/irrelevant text removed or amended, I think the three versions would contain a greater proportion of common ground. I've suggested an alternate version of Dave's text in the section below. --RexxS (talk) 21:40, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. Sorry I missed that. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by 'beyond the remit of'; that's an odd use of the word 'remit'. Do you mean that wikipedia editors can and should not anticipate or try to control the uses readers will put wikipedia articles to? Your second point has some issues: there are many editors who will try to use wikipedia to validate or legitimize (or invalidate or de-legitimize) particular points of view, and as a rule that shouldn't be allowed. point 3 is ok; point 4 needs some discussion (I can see uses for examples, but I can also see how they get in the way of more generalized thinking). --Ludwigs2 19:01, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken some time to think this over, and this is my take on it:

Pre-April version: My first choice, fairly simple, and I'm not persuaded that there are really any problems with it. On balance, I think it's better to include it than to leave it out.
Dave's version: Not wild about it. All it does is add a bunch of specific examples. Perhaps some of the examples may help some editors understand the point, but I think that, far more often, the specifics just end up being points that specific editors will disagree with, while others may see them as avenues for special pleading.
Ludwigs2's version: Wordier than the pre-April version, but not particularly objectionable to me. The beginning of the last sentence, "Wikipedia should describe any fringe view clearly," could have unintended consequences when fringe POV-pushers use it to say that we cannot leave their favorite fringe view out. Some fringe views may be sufficiently lacking in notability that we shouldn't describe them at all.
RexxS' version: As with Dave's version, I don't see the value in listing examples. I also don't see the value in discussing repugnant stuff, nor in the undefined "and so forth".

That leaves me preferring the pre-April version. RexxS has said that we should remove wording from that version that asserts that we legitimize or promote. For that reason, I would be receptive to deleting the second sentence from the pre-April version ("Doing so would legitimize and even promote such claims."), and replacing it with wording based on Ludwigs' version: "Wikipedia may not itself be used to validate or invalidate fringe views." That may appear to disagree with RexxS' point, but please note that this language says we do not do that. I've seen Ludwigs' criticisms of Dave's version, but I don't think they apply as much to this version. Could what I've said here be a starting point for moving forward? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The pre-April version isn't too bad. Maybe use the phrase give equal representation to... instead of give equal validity to...; that combined with the second sentence you suggest should really get it away from the idea that wikipedia can be used to validate any perspective. We could also take the last phrase (starting with the 'but') and rewrite it as an affirmative rathe than a negative: "We should fairly explaining noteworthy minority views, while always describing the majority views as such." It would save people haing to parse out the double negatives. --Ludwigs2 21:23, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that of the four versions presented the original one is clearly best. Two dwell too long on voicing moral value judgmenet about morally repugnant topics. Ludwigs' spend too much verbiage implying that minority views should 'not be disparaged'. In short version two and four goes too far towards suggesting that minority views should be described from the majority view points vantage point, whereas Ludwigs goes too far in implying that minority views shouldnt be rejected - even when reliable sources clearly and unequivocally reject them as fringe. In short the original version is better because it allows us to make ad hoc judgements about how best to weigh the representation of minority views in the light of sources without suggesting primacy either to the majority viewpoint or suggesting that minority viewpoints cannot be 'debunked' as being fringe views rejected by the mainstream.·Maunus·ƛ· 21:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that I think I agree with your preferred version, I do need to point out that you've misrepresented my position a bit. It boils down to this: everyone knows that there are editors who engage in SYN to promote some fringe topics, and everyone knows that there are other editors who engage in SYN to debunk fringe topics. There is a near-perfect consensus that the first is a bad thing (I agree with that, as does every other sensible editor); there is a debate over whether the second is bad. Statements in reliable sources (pro or con) are obviously acceptable almost everywhere (within the restrictions of wp:NPOV and wp:RS), given proper attribution and contextualization; editorial synthesis from such sources is never acceptable. it doesn't matter whether that synthesis is for advocacy or debunking, it's bad on the face of it. That is my position; do you still disagree? --Ludwigs2 22:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to represent your position - I'm trying to communicate how I interpret your proposed text. We have a separate policy called SYNTH which prohobits original synthesis of sources to provide new viewpoints- we don't need to take the possibility of synth into account in this policy - it is already forbidden in another. I don't see a need for the policy to specify that synthesis is not allowed here and therefore the original version in all its shortness and with its consequent rooom for case by case application, is preferable.·Maunus·ƛ· 00:23, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

well, it's too bad you interpret it that way, but there's no need to drag the discussion out. so long as the section is not actively encouraging synth (as the current version does) then you're right, the other policy will be sufficient. let's get back to working out a feasible revision. --Ludwigs2 01:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I'm not particularly wedded to the example I suggested; I only based it on Dave's because that is essentially the text in the article at present. I feel slighted by Ludwig's reference to my use of the word 'remit' as odd. If it's any help, I intended it in precisely the sense documented here, number 7. In other words, all Wikipedia content is reusable for any lawful purpose, and we're here to add content, not to second-guess what our readers may choose to do with it. As long as we follow the principle of neutrally reporting (without undue weight) what reliable sources say, we don't need to give any conjectural reason for proscribing practices that fall outside that principle. In short, it's a mistake to document that X is prohibited because Y might misuse it; it is sufficient to say that X is incompatible with our principles or community consensus.

Given some of the suggestions to improve the pre-April text above, I'd have no problem with accepting a tightened-up version of that, if consensus leans that way. --RexxS (talk) 22:54, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, this is good, and we are getting closer to finding something that has consensus. Taking into account the comments above, here is my stab at revising the pre-April version:

"The neutrality policy does not state or imply that we must give equal representation to minority views. Wikipedia may not itself be used to validate or invalidate fringe views. Policy states that we must not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such, or from fairly explaining the minority views, when they are noteworthy."

I added a comma after "as such" in the last sentence, but I did not incorporate what Ludwigs2 said about the double negative in that sentence, because, sorry, I'm confused about what you meant, so we can probably improve this version further. Thoughts? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also pleased that more common ground is emerging. However, I still see three unresolved issues:

I still don't believe the second sentence is appropriate, for the reasons I gave above, particularly as I discern a difference between "fringe" and "minority" views. I actually think the focus of this paragraph should be one or the other, but not a mixture of both – perhaps we first need to establish a consensus on which of the two is the intended target?
In addition, compared with the current text, there are no examples provided. While there may be problems if examples are presented in an ambiguous way, it is possible to provide examples clearly and many editors may find them useful.
Finally, compared with the current text (or Dave's), there is no mention that we should be describing the mainstream arguments opposing the minority views. I believe that it will be difficult to establish consensus for a version that omits this key issue.

As always, I'd prefer to document policy in the positive, rather than the negative, but that's a lesser issue. --RexxS (talk) 00:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

well, Rexx, it seems to me there are two issues here that need to be worked out:

I'm not sure how you're distinguishing between fringe and minority views (particularly since fringe views are often referred to as 'tiny minority' views). The Wikipedia problem that needs to be dealt with is views that have little to no scholarly support in the real world but active advocates on Wikipedia - when Wikipedia editors engage in promotional activity (even innocently) topic articles can get bent out of proportion. The second sentence needs to point out that that the project shouldn't be used to promote or advance a particular topic, but should merely describe it as accurately as possible. how would you suggest we make the distinction between fringe and minority viewpoints in a robust way?
With respect to mainstream sources - again - there is a fairly large distinction between making sure that readers are aware of the accepted scholarly opinions on a topic, and trying to make sure that readers believe that the mainstream theory is 'right' and the fringe theory is 'wrong'. For instance, if you read the (fairly well-written) flat earth article, there is almost no attempt to explicitly debunk the notion of a flat earth. The article is written in a descriptive historiographic style that makes it quite clear that this is an outmoded and unaccepted theory, but lays out the details of the theory quite nicely and neutrally. Would that all fringe articles were written that way... Again, I am mostly concerned with editorial synthesis here, and I don't want to explicitly encourage editors to write material with the thought of 'opposing' fringe topics in mind. Mainstream theory doesn't 'oppose' fringe, anyway, no more than a freight train 'opposes' a pushcart. if a fringe theory gets in the way of a mainstream theory there won't be much left of it; if it doesn't, it won't get very far.

with respect to examples... well, the two 'examples' used in Dave's version are less examples and more long-term skeptic stalking-horses (the implicit assumption being that all fringe theories are as mindlessly stupid as flat-earth theory and the Apollo moon landing hoax theory). If you really think we need examples (which I'm not convinced of) we can do better. --Ludwigs2 02:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see if I can help you distinguish between "fringe" and "minority" views, without using examples that have "baggage". WP:Fringe theories gives this definition: "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field"; while WP:UNDUE uses a contrast between significant views that are held by the majority and those held by a minority. For example, the idea of a perpetual motion machine is an example of a "fringe" theory, as it violates well-established physical laws and there is no serious support for the concept in the mainstream; it is possible to construct a reasoned argument refuting the idea. However, if we were to examine the state of particle physics in the 1980s, we would find that the standard model was the mainstream, or majority view; while string theory was a significant minority view – both of these theories could claim to model the physical world, but the former was more established. Interestingly, we now acknowledge the deficiencies of the standard model, but there are currently five or more competing string theories, and it would be difficult to say nowadays which enjoyed a majority view. Hardly anybody seriously expects a perpetual motion machine to ever exist; but theories of particle physics are as yet undecided, and the balance of opinion may shift as time goes by. WP:Fringe theories applies to perpetual motion, but not to theories of particle physics. Hopefully that's clearer now.

I would not support any attempt to convince readers that "the mainstream theory is 'right' and the fringe theory is 'wrong'". That's a job for their own critical faculties. However, it would be remiss to discuss perpetual motion without stating that it violates the laws of thermodynamics. Similarly, it would be wrong to discuss the standard model without bringing to the reader's attention such problems as neutrino mass, or string theory without mentioning the lack of quantitative experimental predictions. When documenting policy concerning fringe or minority views (you pick), we should not ignore our practice of reporting significant contrary arguments that are represented within reliable sources. --RexxS (talk) 03:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

well, it doesn't seem like we're too far apart in viewpoint. However, I have to point out the weakness in your example which is that not so long ago (100 or 200 years, certainly) perpetual motion wasn't disproven. I'm not sure whether it took the laws of thermodynamics to disprove it formally or whether there was a looser logical argument against it prior to that, but at one point in time perpetual motion was a minor but certainly not fringe idea in the scientific world. I'm not saying there's no difference to be seen here (because there is), only that it's more a matter of degree and nt really matter of kind. --Ludwigs2 08:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. The point is that the mainstream view may shift over time. In some cases, it has achieved a stability for decades or centuries – what we might call a "settled question" – and there is very little remaining doubt that contrary views should be treated as "fringe theories". At the other extreme, mainstream opinion is still demonstrably in flux, and although there may be a majority view, significant minority views remain plausible. I feel that it is important to distinguish between these cases, wherever possible – although I concede that there is a spectrum of situations and there will be grey areas. What I don't want to see is credible minority views being treated as "fringe", nor fringe theories being treated as if they have any credence in the mainstream. --RexxS (talk) 15:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that's definitely a valid concern. so the question is - starting from the pre-April 2010 version, which seems to be the emerging consensus - how do we work this in without opening the door to overt skeptical advocacy? Making it clear that fringe is fringe is fine, but it needs to be done without the appearance that we've let loose the lions as a form of public entertainment. --Ludwigs2 18:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Equal validity--arbitrary break 2

I guess I just disagree with the need for examples, but I take the points about minority versus fringe, as well as about majority rebuttal of the minority. Based on that, I suggest:

"The neutrality policy does not state or imply that we must give equal representation to minority or fringe views. Wikipedia may not itself be used to validate or invalidate minority or fringe views. Policy states that we must not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such, including their critiques of minority positions, or from fairly explaining the minority views, when they are noteworthy."

Getting closer? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is of "equal validity", misrepresenting a tiny minority view such as pseudoscience as though it is just as valid as the mainstream expert view on the topic, when that is clearly against the majority view. The phrase "equal representation" suggests equal quantity, when volume of writing isn't the issues, it's the way the minority view is represented. The issue of "Wikipedia may not itself be used to validate or invalidate minority or fringe views" is a novel proposed addition to this long established policy, covering the same ground as "Policy states that we must not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers" but introducing more ground for arguments about whether we're doing that in either direction. I'd rather see it kept simple. My memory is of the "strong moral repugnance" line going way back, the version in the box by RexxS looks reasonable. . . dave souza, talk 17:15, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dave, I'm receptive to looking at the issue of "representation" versus "validity", but I'm not sure that I believe your interpretation of it. As others have pointed out in this talk, Wikipedia does not actually confer validity. How something is represented includes how much quantity it gets, but it also includes how it is characterized. As for simplicity, I think we are all trying for that, but what you propose seems to me to actually be less simple. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Making it too simple will not improve this section. RexxS proposal works for me. QuackGuru (talk) 19:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

vamping off of what trypt said, I think most of the problem we have with this issue on Wikipedia is that (in truth) scholarly opinion ought to have a weight that is disproportionate to its size. E.g., there are half a gajillion popular press books on UFOs and not too many works on it published in reliable academic sources, but we should still present the reliable academic sources as though they represent the mainstream view (despite their smaller number) because they have procedures for validating and verifying information that popular press books lack. There are only two things I am trying to avoid in this effort: (1) attempts on wikipedia to assert 'validity' or 'truth value' even for highly accepted mainstream ideas, and (2) differential language in the guideline that weakens NPOV for particular disliked topics. Representation might not be the best word, but it at least avoids the idea that wikipedia is somehow enforcing 'the truth' the way that the word 'validity' does.

I hate to throw another option into the mix, but maybe it's time to consider changing the language entirely. something like:

Wikipedia strives to cover all topics fairly, but there is no 'fair play' notion that topics need to be included or validated simply because they exist. Wikipedia does not itself validate or invalidate any views, and fair coverage does not mean that minority or fringe views can "make their case" on the project, but only that such topics will be described neutrally and without bias, and placed in their proper relationship to the established views of mainstream scholarship.

This would resolve all my objections, help generalize the section so that it's not so specifically aimed at pseudoscience, and I think it gets at the worries that Dave and Rexx have been expressing. --Ludwigs2 19:13, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your proposal does not give any direction for editors. Your previous proposal will allow fringe views equal validity. Especially the part "Wikipedia should describe any fringe view clearly". will allow any article on alternative medicine to be rewritten. QuackGuru (talk) 19:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it gives direction for editors: all that they need. cover topics fairly, don't try to advocate for fringe views, be neutral and unbiased, and respect mainstream scholarship; what more direction are you looking for? are you suggesting that we should not write article clearly and fairly? --Ludwigs2 20:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not suggesting but asserting that we should not write articles equally with tiny minorty views. The direction your proposal gives is to balance the mainstean view every time with equal time for fringe views. Is that your goal. If that is your gaol that is not giving an appropriate direction for editors. That will create chaos and promote fringe views as if they were mainstream. QuackGuru (talk) 04:02, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But that gives yet another tool to the POV-pushers who then claim that their pet topic isn't being treated "fairly". You haven't explained how we determine "fairly", and that is always going to be a subjective judgement. In addition, I think you're opening the doors by asking editors to "respect mainstream scholarship" - another phrase that is wide open to subjective (mis)interpretation. This section is about how we document our practices on Wikipedia, and I'll offer you four cases that I believe we should be distinguishing:

"Common knowledge" or "facts": We assert these without attribution, and reference as necessary. Examples: "Mars is a planet."; "Worldwide 42 million abortions are estimated to take place annually ... {ref}" – from Abortion
"Majority view" or "mainstream opinion": Significant minority views also exist and we attribute each view, describing each, while giving due weight to each according to their prevalence in mainstream sources. Example: "The Higgs particle is a hypothetical massive scalar elementary particle theorized by Peter Higgs et al in 1964 and is a key building block in the Standard Model ... {refs}" – from Standard Model#The Higgs boson
"Minority view": see above. Example: "In the years since the Higgs boson was proposed, several alternatives to the Higgs mechanism have been proposed. All of the alternative mechanisms use strongly interacting dynamics to produce a vacuum expectation value that breaks electroweak symmetry.{refs} ..." – from Higgs boson#Alternatives for electroweak symmetry breaking
"Fringe view": We describe these in the context of the mainstream view, and present criticisms dispassionately. Example: "There is undisputed scientific consensus that perpetual motion would violate either the first law of thermodynamics, the second law of thermodynamics, or both. Despite the fact that successful perpetual motion devices are physically impossible in terms of our current understanding of the laws of physics, the pursuit of perpetual motion remains popular.{ref if challenged}" – from Perpetual motion

Now it might be suggested that some cases are borderline between these four, but that in no way diminishes the importance of documenting these practices for the majority of situations where the case is clear. Moreover, local consensus on grey areas will eventually determine which category they belong in. We should be documenting the tools we use to help decide, for example when the findings of a reliable secondary source are not disputed, then it should be treated as case #1 (which makes it a "fact" in the Wikipedia sense). The preceding is the reason for this section, as there is no similar exposition elsewhere. I believe that the categories and processes I've described above constitute common practice on Wikipedia and there is no good case for failing to document them. Turning to the wording, I'd be content with any text that clearly laid out what we mean in each of those cases, and described how we treat them when writing an article – well-chosen examples are often useful to the reader, and I'd encourage their use here. That's my position, and changes that improve the current text towards that position have my full support (for what that's worth). I hope that others will accept my good faith opposition to changes that I believe moves us away from that. --RexxS (talk) 22:13, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another tool for POV pushers??? what in heaven's name are you talking about? It almost sounds like you're saying "We need to be unduly harsh with fringe topics, because if we're not unduly harsh fringe advocates will run amok spreading lies. I don't mean to be hyperbolic, but it really sounds like you're saying we need to beat fringe topics into submission, and if so that's just plain odd. Fringe topics need to get the same treatment on wikipedia as every other topic (i.e. a fair description in accordance with their particular weight for a particular subject). We can trust that their 'fringeness' will be evident from a clear, neutral description.

Also, your typology is skewed. You can't blend common knowledge ("mars is a planet") under the same rubric with research data ("42 million abortions are estimated.."). the reason 'mars is a planet' doesn't need attribution is because it is common background information - one would have to argue extensively even to begin making the case that this was a contested issue. '42 million abortions...' may not need inline citation, but certainly needs a citation of some sort - it's doubtful that this is a highly contested piece of data that needs to be attributed explicitly to a particular group, but it certainly is figure that may be challenged or changed over time, so it needs to be connected to a source in the literature. beyond that, mainstream, minority and fringe views are all ideally treated the same way, just weighted differently; the less mainstream a view is, the lower the attention it received in reliable sources and the greater the criticism, the lower its weight - it's self-balancing, if you let it.

what we really should be talking about here is presentation styles, not "tools" (again, whatever that means):

direct presentation: "X is Y" - used when X is Y is common knowledge or general information that no reliable source seriously contests.
cited presentation: "X is Y^[cite] - used when X is Y is a generally established scholarly opinion that may be subject to change but is not actively contested.
attributed presentation: According to Q, X is Y^[cite] - used when X is Y is an opinion that is actively contested, minor, suspicious, or otherwise needs to be placed in perspective with other viewpoints.

These can obviously be mixed. a typical fringe article would say something like "According to Q, X is Y <type 3, for a suspect statement from a fringe perspective>. However, scientific opinion holds that X is Z <type 1, or in some cases type 2, for statements that are common knowledge or established research>". Further, an entire section might serve as an attribution (e.g. "So-and so's ideas about X") , reducing the need for inline attribution.

What we want to be avoiding is scientific peacock language. For instance, why would we ever need to claim that there is undisputed scientific consensus... about anything? science is not some voting system where scientists sit down and agree on which theories they are going to use this month; scientists use theories that work. The phrase included above could be restated as ""The concept of perpetual motion inevitably violates one or more of the laws of thermodynamics. It is impossible according to accepted principles of physics, but still attracts interest from non-scientists." This is just as strong as the phrase you gave, without implying any unsourcable consensus in the scientific community. We don't need to create an exaggerated sense of cohesion in the scientific community, or anthropomorphize the scientific community as a body with its own feelings and opinions. we simply need to present established scientific perspectives as such that dispute fringe ideas, and leave it up to the reader to follow the logic of it. --Ludwigs2 02:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You need to spend some time working in controversial areas before putting words into my mouth, and I'll thank you not to do that again. Fringe topics are not a problem for this section; we have WP:FRINGE elsewhere to cover that. The problem occurs when a mainstream topic comes under regular attack from editors who simply don't like the mainstream view and want to dilute the undisputed findings of reliable sources by subtly casting doubt on them. Although it's not my point, fringe topics don't need to get the "same treatment" as other topics, because they may be either: (1) not significant (when they don't get a mention); or (2) so far short of having any general acceptance that mainstream criticism is itself significant and has to be included. It is not neutral to omit that.

On the contrary, my categorisation is not skewed. You are quite wrong to suggest that "common knowledge" ("Mars is a planet...") is treated any way differently from undisputed findings of reliable secondary sources ("42 million abortions are estimated.."). In either case, citation is required if challenged, but this section is not about citation (look at WP:CITE and WP:When to cite for that). The point is that both are asserted, not attributed. I've already posed the question whether you want to see the latter fact mutated into "According to a 2009 article by Shah and Ahman, using 2005 data from the World Health Organisation (who are well-known for a pro-choice bias), 42 million abortions are estimated to take place annually worldwide" – which remains unanswered. What would you see written into policy to discourage this sort of thing, if not WP:ASSERT?

Your categorisation is flawed. The difference between 1 and 2 is merely a matter of citation – and that is adequately explained elsewhere. The purpose of this section is to differentiate between no attribution and the cases where attribution is appropriate. You propose nothing to distinguish between these, and merely confuse the issues by suggesting it has something to do with citation.

This section is about more than science, although it is easier for me to take examples from a field with which I am familiar. I took the wording from the articles I cited, because policy is descriptive of what we do, not prescriptive of what we shouldn't. If you have a beef with the wording of an article, take it up there, or provide counter-examples to show that my examples are atypical. This is not the section to campaign against "scientific peacock language"; it is the section to document when we assert facts without attribution, and how we attribute different views otherwise. --RexxS (talk) 14:02, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I need to spend some more time working in controversial areas??!?!? Dude, you have no idea. 90% of my pit bull attitude I learned because early on a bunch of skeptical advocates decided they were going to make my life miserable (I made the mistake of trying to improve a couple of trashed fringe articles, and next thing I know I've got a rep, and an unpleasant set of stalkers). Fringe advocates are easy to deal with; you try coping with a science zealot on the warpath, and then you'll know what pain is. believe me, I've got the block log to show just how nasty and underhanded those SOBs can be. I understand the problem you're talking about, and I also understand how extreme the reaction to that problem is, and how easily the war between science zealots and fringe advocates can trash an article. The fact that you don't seem to recognize that science zealots exist tells me how far over into that perspective your point of view is; that's not a problem in and of itself, but it is troubling that you don't acknowledge it.

The main point about attribution here is that inline attribution is primarily used to visibly localize a statement to a particular source or author, when we want to make it clear that the statement should be 'owned' by that source and should not be treated as though any other source necessarily agreed with it (e.g. - stupid example - 'Roses are red' means that most everyone knows roses are red; 'Tim says that roses are red' means that Tim claims that, but maybe no one else agrees). This is all you really need to distinguish between mainstream, minor, and fringe ideas: mainstream ideas really don't need attribution; minor ideas do, but can usually be attributed as parts of broader discussions about mainstream ideas; fringe ideas will inevitably end up being attributed to individual sources without any mainstream referents. There might be some more specific tweaks on that that should be spelled out in FRINGE, but that covers the basic idea sufficiently for a policy. No special wording is needed to fend off article topics from 'attacks' of any sort; That can be handled on a page by page basis. If you think there's a page that needs to be defended that way, you point it out to me and I'll show you how to do it just by being reasonable (but first you have to get the skeptical advocates off the page, because trying to corral both sets of zealots gives me a headache - whenever I make progress containing one group the other group screws it up, because neither side is able to give up the fight).

Point of fact, policy is always prescriptive. even when people say it's descriptive, what they mean is that it describes what is normally done, which should be considered 'best practice' for all editors to emulate. The very nature of a policy is to establish institutional norms and regularities, and that is inherently and unavoidably prescriptive.

And by the way: I answered your question above, and as a I remember you even acknowledged it. Nobody wants solid sources over-attributed to weaken them. let's not puff up straw men, here... --Ludwigs2 23:02, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please try not to refer to other editors in such a derogative manner. Recognising your "pit bull attitude" should lead to amending it, not parading it. I'm sorry you've had such bad experiences, and that editing here causes you pain. Nevertheless, that does not give you the right to put words into other editors' mouths, nor to make guesses about their points-of-view. I'm sure science zealots exist, and the advice I'll give you when dealing with them is the same as for any sort of zealot: stick to the best possible sources, and report them accurately; assert facts, and attribute opinions.

You continue to miss the point about attribution (as if it could be anything but inline). Attribution is the means we use to convert a statement of opinion into a fact we can assert. When a reliable source makes a statement that is disputed by other reliable sources, we we attribute each. When a reliable source makes a statement that is not disputed by other reliable sources, we don't attribute it. That's what you need to distinguish between, and have so far failed to do. You're quite right about how to distinguish the other three cases, but seem unwilling to see the difference between asserting facts and attributing opinions. That, of course, is the whole point of this section, no matter how much you try to turn it into a redundant copy of WP:When to cite and WP:FRINGE. I have no intention of arguing the same points over-and-over on a page-by-page basis – the whole point of documenting policy is so that the community consensus and practices are clearly set down where they may be referred to.

Policy is never prescriptive, but only descriptive, precisely because it only describes what is normally done. There will always be occasional exceptions, and policy is not a tool for establishing anything. Your assertion would be better written as "The very nature of a policy is to describe institutional norms and regularities".

I must have missed your answer to my question. My question seems to be sitting at the end of Why do we define "fact" and "opinion" in this policy? without response. Perhaps you would be kind enough to point me to the diff where you replied? --RexxS (talk) 00:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will stop short of identifying the editors in question (unless there's a resurgence of the behavior that I need to deal with). But the problem is what it is, and I am not inclined to minimize it. If you recognize that some editors behave that way, then (a) you should not be overly-concerned with their feelings, since they are demonstrably not big on the whole 'feelings' thing, and (b) you should be a bit more careful with how you yourself refer to other editors. I am most certainly not going to politely overlook the disreputable antics of skeptical advocates if you indulge in regular and pointed commentary on the disreputable antics of fringe advocates. We could both agree not to refer to such disreputable antics from anyone at all, if you like, but I'm not certain what would be left of your argument if we did. You have been rationalizing all of the stronger measures you advocate for on the fear of attacks from irrational editors; without that rationalization, most of your argument turns to dust. Are you grokking the implicit bias yet?

errr... grokking the implicit bias??? damn, I need a beer...

Back on track, in bold this time, Wikipedia does not state facts. Wikipedia presents statements that have been presented in reliable sources. As you say, when statements in reliable sources disagree with each other we attribute the statements to individuals or groups so that it is clear who said what. When there is no significant disagreement in reliable sources we don't need to attribute because we do not need to specify the sources of different statements. There is no use and no sense getting tangled up in ontological issues of fact vs. opinion here; all we need to do is make certain that different statements are properly presented as generally unquestioned statements, statements of a particular position, statements of a particular group or individual, or etc.

Plus, you misread my comment about policy. Policy is always prescriptive, even where it's descriptive. It has to be: that is the only purpose and use of policy in any context, to prescribe acceptable behavior. what you said above (twice now) makes no logical sense, and cannot be supported in any rational discussion of the issue (I do recognized that it's a bit of a motif on wikipedia, but that's just poor language use). If you need me to go into this in more detail I can, but we should probably move that discussion someplace else.

WIth respect to your question, allow me to answer it now (I think I answered it before, but maybe not, and this is just as easy). let's look at the whole mess you posted above:

"According to a 2009 article by Shah and Ahman, using 2005 data from the World Health Organisation (who are well-known for a pro-choice bias), 42 million abortions are estimated to take place annually worldwide."

Now the core idea being presented is that '42 million abortions are estimated to take place annually worldwide.' obviously this needs a citation, so we don't need to discuss that. with respect to the particular parts of the attribution, I can say the following:

the parenthetical 'bias' bit should be discarded unless it's sourced reliably and independently. so far as I know WHO has a reputation for reliable, unbiased data collection (it passes every wp:RS standard) so introducing a critical review is likely unsupportable. even if it were supportable through valid sources, we'd still have wp:coatrack problems (I assume this is not from an article about the WHO). 99% sure this coment goes away under policy.
the '2005 data' bit ought to be included in the citation, but there's no particular need to to include it in the body of the article. If it were a 1948 study, the date might be important to show a lack of currency, but in scholarly circles 10 or 15 years is not generally considered out of date, so there's no real point in dating the data.
the article attribution (2009 article by Shah and Ahman) may or may not be required, as follows.
- If Shah and Ahman have a distinct viewpoint they are advocating with this data then the attribution would be required (primary research intending to make a particular case should always be attributed)
- If the article is simply a statistical summary or review of the WHO data, then there's no particular need to add attribution for the authors, since it would be assumed that any competent researcher would have reached the same result independently.

Good enough? sorry I don't now enough of the details of the case to do more than raise the appropriate questions. --Ludwigs2 02:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's certainly good enough for me (but unfortunately I'm not the one you need to be convincing). The statement is of course referenced inline to this review, published in a high quality journal, using unimpeachable data, and the authors actually work for the WHO. That's about as good a source as we get per WP:MEDRS – secondary, a reliable source, and not subject to serious dispute. In other words, it ticks all the boxes, and as far as Wikipedia conventions are concerned, it is as much a "fact" as "Mars is a planet" is. Now the main difference between our views is that you want me to make those arguments on each article every time some anon decides to start sticking in attribution; while I want to be able to point to a policy and say "that's how we do it". So if we both agree that in cases like this, no attribution is normally done, why shouldn't that norm be clearly documented? Even if it does mean we refer to it as "asserting facts", it's as good a definition of "fact" as we're likely to get.

It seems that I didn't misread your comment about policy; it seems you possibly didn't read multiple ArbCom findings about it. Policy is never prescriptive. It cannot be, since it is merely "a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow". Prescription is intolerant of exception, and that runs contrary to the basic tenets of Wikipedia; it leads to what we call "process wonkery", where the letter of the policy has to be followed without reference to its spirit.

As for "grokking the implicit bias" ... it seems like a perfectly cromulent phrase to me. --RexxS (talk) 19:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rexx: policy is not a substitute for consensus discussions. if anything, it should be the result of consensus discussions. I hate to point out the facts of life to you, but I feel obliged:

You will never make a rule so clear that someone with an agenda cannot warp it to their desires.
You will never rid wikipedia of people with agendas.
There will always be someone who needs to have things explained to them repeatedly, and there is no getting around that.
Trying to craft rules to stop people with agendas will accomplish nothing except f@gging up Wikipedia for the rest of us.

It's not like getting this kind of thing enshrined in policy is going to convince a tendentious editor. All it will do is shift the conversation from a painful discussion of sources to a painful discussion of policy, and sooner or later you're going to have to explain the sourcing problem anyway. we might as well just avoid the bureaucratic 'policy says' moment entirely and keep these discussions focused on the topic.

With respect to policy: as I said, we should discuss this elsewhere. if it's a major concern to you, I will go to the ArbCom page a request a clarification. What you're not seeing here is that I'm not rendering 'an opinion' or 'a fact' <smirk>; this is definitional. 'Descriptive policy' is an oxymoron - the concept is in use on wikipedia because (as I've mentioned elsewhere) Wikipedia attracts editors with anarcho-liberal mindsets, and so some terminology was needed that would allow the creation of overarching rules without appearing to violate that all too common "Rules? we don' need no stinking rules!" attitude. All of your arguments above are prescriptive arguments - you want to create a 'rule' in policy that 'prescribes' certain kinds of editing on articles so that you can avoid discussions that annoy you. In this sense, I'm trying to make policy less prescriptive than you are. do you see my point, or should be move this over to the ArbCom clarification request page? --Ludwigs2 14:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ludwigs, policy is a documentation of consensus discussions, not a place for you to enshrine your own opinions of how things should be. As you mention the 'facts of life', there's a few you need to learn:

WP:PG opens with "Wikipedia policies and guidelines are developed by the community to describe best practice, clarify principles, resolve conflicts, and otherwise further our goal of creating a free, reliable encyclopedia." The only prescriptive authority they hold is that of the community consensus (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking#Manual of Style)
We don't make rules; we describe norms established by consensus across Wikipedia. It is that consensus that marginalises those with an agenda.
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking#Authority of policies and guidelines tells you that "Policies and guidelines exist to facilitate the smooth running of the project. However, they should be applied with common sense. Over-rigid or over-zealous implementation can be more disruptive than the behaviour that they are intended to discourage." The very reason for writing down policies is so that they can be referred to. It does nothing to aid the smooth running of the project by having to explain the same policies at length on every talk page.
There will be editors who disagree with policies such as ASSERT because they find it restricts their freedom to push their POV against facts that the mainstream accepts. You need to be condemning that sort of disruption, not enabling it.

Feel free to take your suggestions to ArbCom. I already know what the answer will be, but I won't deny you your right to find these out for yourself. --RexxS (talk) 16:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@ Rexx: I am simply amazed that you can reiterate exactly what I said in a tone that makes it sound like you're disagreeing with me. You do realize that that your first bullet point confirms that the intention of a policy is to be prescriptive, your second and third bullet points justify such prescriptive action? and that your last bullet point pretty much an echo of what I said to you a few paragraphs above? If you're just being argumentative (trying to negate what I say simple because I say it, without giving it fair consideration at all), that sucks, because thus far I've been assuming that you are trying to reach some kind of consensus, not just being obstructionist. As I said, if you want to take this to ArbCom for clarification, I will; one more post from you like this, and I certainly will, because there's no sense in me talking to you when you're not listening. --Ludwigs2 18:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again you misunderstand what others are telling you. It is abundantly clear that I disagree with your confusion of policies and "rules"; that policies document consensus, not dictate it as you would have us believe; and that policies are helpful in ensuring the smooth running of the project. You can't just remove key principles like ASSERT from policy simply because you don't understand the difference between attribution and citation. I suggest you re-read some of the explanations of where you're going wrong, and actually respond to what is said, rather than accusing other editors of being argumentative (count the number of edits you've made to this page, and think about motes in eyes). Finally quit the empty threats of taking this to ArbCom. Have a read of WP:DR if you don't get it yet. Attempted bullying by threatening other editors in an effort to silence their opposition is not tolerated on Wikipedia. --RexxS (talk) 22:25, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Equal validity--arbitrary break 3

See also WP:CONLIMITED. WP:GEVAL has been around as policy since the inception of WP and titled Giving "equal validity" since 2003. Contrary to recent claims by at least two users that I noticed, it was not inserted by policy pushers as a result of content disputes at any particular article or group of articles. The reason it's a long standing provision with little change in its language from its inception until today is that it reasonably reflects both community practice and community preference. Three or four editors involved in extended discussion aren't likely to change community consensus on this unless there's a very compelling argument to be heard, of a type which I personally don't see presented here. And incidentally, it's not the obligation of members of the community to constantly involve themselves in every extended discussion such as that here about long-standing, stable policy. And the discussion includes, I might add, some very erroneous initial assumptions and outright mistakes about the history of WP:GEVAL (I recently summarized important markers in the history of WP:GEVAL on my talk page here.)
..... Here's the original language going back to December 2001:

"the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to completely repugnant views. It does state that we must not take a stand on them qua encyclopedia writers; but that does not stop us from representing the majority views as such; from fairly explaining the strong arguments against the repugnant views; from describing the strong moral repugnance that many decent people feel toward them; and so forth.

Here's the language as of June 2006:

"the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views. It does state that we must not take a stand on them as encyclopedia writers; but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such; from fairly explaining the strong arguments against the pseudoscientific theory; from describing the strong moral repugnance that many people feel toward some morally repugnant views; and so forth."

And here's the language as of April 2010:

"The Wikipedia neutrality policy does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views such as pseudoscience, the claim that the Earth is flat, or the claim that the Apollo moon landings never occurred. If that were the case, the result would be to legitimize and even promote such claims. Policy states that we must not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers; but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such; from fairly explaining the strong arguments against the pseudoscientific theory; from describing the strong moral repugnance that many people feel toward some morally repugnant views; and so forth."

I submit that any major deviation from the original spirit or basic thrust of this policy provision will need validation from the wider community, or it's not at all likely to last very long. ... Kenosis (talk) 16:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And here is the version as of the beginning of April, which I think is just before the current discussion began:

The neutrality policy does not state or imply that we must give equal validity to minority views. Doing so would legitimize and even promote such claims. Policy states that we must not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such or from fairly explaining the minority views, when they are noteworthy.

Having watched the talk here over the past few days and having felt increasingly that it is becoming a stalemate amongst a very small group of discussants, I think that Kenosis' point is well-taken. It seems to me that the June 2006 version is significantly better than the December 2001 version. I mildly prefer the beginning of April version that I copied here over the June 2006 version, but I don't feel strongly. I prefer either of those versions over the later-April version, and I think we should go back to one of those. I also feel strongly that the frequent back-and-forth editing of the policy in recent days has been very inappropriate. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@ Kenosis: the point of CONLIMITED is that a small group of editors cannot reach a consensus among themselves and impose it on the greater community. But this is not an issue of numbers ('consensus' ≠ 'majority rule'); the point of CONLIMITED is to allow a broad range of perspectives into the discussion so that the consensus result is as inclusive as possible. Now, as I told you on your talk page, I misread Dave Souza's insertion of this passage into the policy last April, and you'll notice that I haven't brought up the history of it since that I realized that. But even you need to recognize that this passage has never enjoyed anything like real consensus: it was initially put into the policy, then (assumedly because someone objected) it got moved to the FAQ, and then people objected to it again when someone tried to mark the FAQ as policy, and now it's being objected to again... At best, this passage has 8-12 ardent supporters and 5 or 6 ardent opposers, but clearly there are only small numbers of people involved in this discussion so far, and clearly the supporters are not winning on the basis of better reasons for inclusion (because the reasons given for keeping this passage - when people bother to give reasons at all - are not particularly sound). CONLIMITED is in no way clearly on your side, so don't start quoting it at me. Either participate in the discussion squarely, or don't.

I don't expect to convince you or any other ardent supporter of the current wording; I expect to make a reasoned argument that will convince unbiased participants that a revision is in order. I don't expect to have my preferred version of the section put in place; I expect that there will be a discussion geared towards consensus and compromise, and that a better revision will be the outcome. That's how consensus works. The only real question is whether anyone is interested in discussing the issues fairly, or whether the supporters are just going to band-wagon all the way to the finish line. Either way, stop trying to trump the discussion by saying there's no dispute about the passage, when it's painfully evident that there is and always has been dispute about it. --Ludwigs2 18:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'equal validity' warning

No consensus for change has yet been reached. Ludwigs2, your edit warring to try to enforce your change on the policy is disruptive. Gain consensus for the change first; do not attempt to make substantial changes to long standing policy without such consensus. Puppy has spoken. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 22:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KC, you need to learn to read discussion and participate on the talk page before you start throwing your sysop weight around. I removed this section because it was added without proper consensus from the old NPOV FAQ; I thought it was appropriate to do so, I've given good reasons for my actions, and for why I think the section is useless, I am willing and able to discuss the issues, and I am not inclined to put up with tendentious editors - even if they are sysops - who think they can use the weight of numbers to force inappropriate material into policy without discussion. You all are the ones acting against consensus (based on your obvious refusal to engage in consensus discussion), and as a sysop you should - frankly - be ashamed of yourself. now are you going to give reasons for your revert, or not? And please note, if you say no, I'm going to start looking into the procedure for de-sysopping. --Ludwigs2 23:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GEVAL has been part of the NPOV policy since its inception in late 2001 (December of that year). Since 2003 it's been specifically labeled "Giving 'equal validity'". When the FAQ page was first created in 2006 it was with the understanding that that page would have policy status, and WP:GEVAL was among the policy clarifications spun off onto FAQ. When FAQ was downgraded from policy in 2009, GEVAL was brought back to this page, where, with only brief interruptions, it has remained since. See my user talk page for some relevant diffs and oldid's. ... Kenosis (talk) 15:40, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying this as a comment to all, not to anyone in particular. Personally, when I look at the three options that I placed above, I'm not particularly worked up about the differences between them. I think the facts of the situation are that Ludwigs2 has given a thought-out explanation of their reasons for not liking the version that is now on the page, but numerous editors have expressed disagreement with those reasons in this talk, and no one has really agreed with those reasons. I think it would be a good idea for everyone to take a deep breath, and think about which, if any, version would be better, and set aside worrying about what's on the page at the moment. Guppy has spoken. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:00, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse the restoration of the section removed by Ludwigs2. Having read the above, I see no convincing reason why the section is inappropriate (and being previously in a FAQ is not relevant to whether it should be here). Johnuniq (talk) 00:43, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to say that I believe the current wording is sub-optimal. It is ambiguous in the first sentence (could it be construed as applying only to minority views such as the ones quoted? what of other minority views unlike those?). It makes an unwarranted assumption that Wikipedia legitimises or promotes views. The last sentence is phrased in the negative, rather than in the positive. It addresses pseudoscience as a specific, rather than minority views in general; clarification of specific exceptions to general principles is the job of guidelines, but this is not an exception for pseudoscience, and the policy should refer to the general. I'd suggest the following amended wording:

The Wikipedia neutrality policy does not state, or imply, that we must give "equal validity" to minority views, examples of which are pseudoscience, the claim that the Earth is flat, and the claim that the Apollo moon landings never occurred. Policy states that we must not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers. However we should: describe the majority views as such; fairly explain arguments against any notable minority views; dispassionately report the moral repugnance that many people feel toward some morally repugnant views; and so forth.

Feel free to pick it apart as you wish. --RexxS (talk) 01:24, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have commented above on what I think is this version. Only quibble, "such as" makes it clear that the issue is small minority views, where views are more equally accepted by experts in the field then of course our articles should show that situation. . dave souza, talk 17:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apollo 13

As of this time, no one has meaningfully addressed the arguments I have made for the removal of the GEV section (see the top of this thread for those arguments). Responses to date can be summarized as follows:

That it essentially restates UNDUE, but cannot be removed as as redundant for reasons that have not yet been clarified.
That it is a long standing part of the policy, which is explicitly false and (regardless) not a substitute for valid reasons.
That it needs to be retained because of an assortment of mild ad hominem statements thrown in my general direction.

None of these responses satisfy, the general attitude among the editors who have provided them has pissed me off a good bit, and when I get pissed off I get very, very stubborn. So, please note that I will continue pushing this issue until (a) someone gives a convincing set of reasons why this section is useful and necessary, or (b) this section gets removed, relocated, or rewritten. It would be in everyone's best interests if some one of you would make the mental effort to participate in reasoned discussion properly, since that is going to have to happen before I shut up about this. --Ludwigs2 18:31, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From Mission Control, it seems to me that being pissed off is never a good position from which to achieve consensus, nor to persuade others to reevaluate their positions. But, that said, I'm going to try to give an honest critique of the four possibilities that are shown in the table above. I'll write it in that section. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:39, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, anger is what happens when I have to face editors who are way too quick on the reverts and way too slow on discussion. They are all highly experienced editors (one of them is a sysop for christ's sake), and they all know better than to supplement poor reasoning with aggressive editing (or at least they should). The fact that they do it anyway is an insult to me and to the project as a whole. So to hell with them. They can explain and discuss their position like good wikipedians, or they can give it up; I'm not giving them a third option. --Ludwigs2 21:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other editors are under no obligation to engage in endless debate. You may need to content yourself with being the only person who is correct. Issuing a warning is not helpful. Johnuniq (talk) 05:56, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other editors are obliged to discuss edits they make, even if those edits are merely reverts. Consensus insists on that. And I hardly think we're in danger of having an endless debate when (seemingly) I would have more luck getting blood from a stone than getting a reasoned argument from most of the editors defending this section.

Trust me, I understand the predicament: there is no good reason to retain this section, all the editors who support the section (including yourself) know there is no good reason, and none of them actually wants to discuss the issue because of an assortment of quibbles (fear they might look foolish, that they might be forced to admit there is no good reason, that they might lose some power or face in the community - cognitive dissonance is a strong motivator). I've been there myself, so I do sympathize. However, as it stands I have presented the best argument with respect to this section (if only by default, since no one else is bothering to discuss at all) and I am not inclined to let a decent set of reasons get trumped by mute aggression.

really, I'm having to watch my tongue a bit here. I happen to know that the original (ancient Greek) meaning of the word 'idiot' (from idios) was 'private person', meaning someone with no public voice in the community - they were not allowed to contribute to public decisions because they could not speak in public fora. I happen to think that's a good rule, in principle: If one chooses not to discuss, one loses one's right to contribute in any way, no exceptions. though it's probably best not to apply the Greek word because of the unpleasant modern interpretations.

So, you can keep trying to push my resolve in this section (more power to you on that), or you can drop it and contribute something to the discussion two sections above about the actual section content. I'll be interested to see which you choose. --Ludwigs2 07:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ludwigs, you seem to be mind-reading or assuming bad faith, please be assured that in my considered opinion there is good reason to keep this section to maintain neutrality when presenting minority views. I've set out my thoughts in more detail above. . . dave souza, talk 17:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry Dave, are you suggesting that editors are not obliged to discuss edits they make? That hardly seems consistent with policy.

And yeah, you're right, I am mind-reading a bit. problem is, I'm good at it, so sometimes I can't resist.

Unfortunately, it is occasionally necessary to consider and make assumptions about the motivations for both action and inaction: wikipedia already enshrines these kinds of assumptions (see Silence and consensus and related essays for examples). If you disagree with my assumptions, you are more than welcome to correct me - right or wrong, we will at least be having a dialog about it rather than sitting on our collective bums wondering about it. --Ludwigs2 19:30, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifying giving equal validity

The Wikipedia neutrality policy does not state, or imply, that we must give "equal validity" to minority views, examples of which are pseudoscience, the claim that the Earth is flat, and the claim that the Apollo moon landings never occurred. Policy states that we must not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers. However we should: describe the majority views as such without giving small minority positions more legitimacy or even promotion than accepted by experts in the field; fairly explain arguments against any notable minority views; dispassionately report the moral repugnance that many people feel toward some morally repugnant views; and so forth.

I think this newer proposal clarifies the matter based on previous comments. QuackGuru (talk) 22:22, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have tweaked a bit... There are two points that need to be made here... a) while we do need to account for significant minority views, we can describe them as such to give them due weight... and b) we can omit non-significant minority views completely. Blueboar (talk) 17:05, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV Mondragon Corporation

[[3]]

A lot of the prose in this article comes across as glowingly approving, with a lot of canned platitudes and essentially no acknowledgement of the potential negatives of the approach.I think this article is propaganda. just a copy and paste from the group web page,With out NPOV all or most of the links go back to a self published Websites and is against Wiki NPOV --Kimmy (talk) 13:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First off, this should be posted on the article's talk page or (if you run into a wall there) at WP:NPOVN, not here. Second, when if do post it at WP:NPOVN, please read the instructions at the top; you need to provide specifics on why it is not neutral (i.e. specifically how does it violate WP:NPOV), rather than just saying "It's propaganda". Also keep in mind WP:BOLD. If you've got a problem with an article, just go ahead and fix it. You don't have to complain and get permission first. - Jrtayloriv (talk) 14:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I should have put this in a Question form - - - Self Published Websites Can they be used to build an Article ??

Like I stated above, most Citations come from their own Website and or Blogs - It is my understanding Blogs are not NPOV or RS ???I thought this page was to ask Questions about NPOV... Thank YOU ! ?--Kimmy (talk) 15:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:SPS and WP:PRIMARY. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 15:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of fact

The present formulation of WP:ASSERT gives two obvious examples of well-known facts, "Mars is a planet" and "Plato was a philosopher". However, it fails to give any example of the policy concerning less well-known facts. The issue frequently arises of how to present the findings of one or more reliable secondary sources that are not disputed by other reliable secondary sources. I found it disappointing that an editor removed the recently-introduced sentence "For instance, that a survey produced a certain published result would be a fact if there is no dispute." In terms of policy, I have no doubt that ASSERT's intention is for us to treat such results as "facts". We already have guidance requiring us to attribute sources when describing a dispute, and not to use primary sources to refute the conclusions of secondary sources. Unless someone can produce a compelling argument to the contrary, I intend to re-introduce a statement to the text along the lines of:

For example, the published findings of a reliable literature review are "facts", unless they are disputed by other secondary sources

This would be much more useful than having both Mars and Plato examples. One of these would be sufficient, since they both make the same point. --RexxS (talk) 12:53, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The confusing version of ASF was misleading. The intent of ASF is when there no serious dispute we can assert the text. The updated version clarifies the issues. QuackGuru (talk) 16:40, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I have problems with the text you have added:

For instance, that a survey produced a certain published result would be a fact if there is no dispute. That the published findings of a reliable literature review is a fact, unless it is disputed by another source.

The first sentence defines the fact as 'a survey produced a result', unless disputed. Did you mean to say the 'result of the survey' is a fact, unless disputed? In that case, I'd caution against the example, since a 'survey' can mean different things. 'A survey found that 9 out of 10 cats preferred Kat-O-Meat' - does that make it a fact once published? 'A Gallop poll survey concluded that David Milliband would be elected leader of the Labour Party' - turned out not to be the case; and so on. If you mean 'meta-analysis' or 'systematic review', you need to say so; they don't carry the ambiguity of 'survey'.

The second sentence doesn't parse grammatically. Did you mean "The published findings of a reliable literature review are "facts", unless they are disputed by other secondary sources"? --RexxS (talk) 17:10, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"For instance, that a study produced a certain published result would be a fact if there is no dispute. The published finding of a reliable literature review is a fact, unless it is disputed by another secondary source."

Here is the rewrite. I thought it is better to have two examples. I prefer to keep the word "fact" singular instead of plural with "facts". QuackGuru (talk)

I have a problem with the "if there is no dispute"... that a study produced a certain published result is a fact. We can verify this fact by reading the study and seeing that, yes, that is the result the study. A different study may produce different results... and that is also a fact. Yes there is dispute (ie difference of opinion) over which result is accurate (and that dispute will impact opinions on what the results mean) ... but that dispute does not change the fact that each study reached the results they did.

What we want to say here is simple: 1) Distinguish fact from opinion... and 2) Present opinion as being opinion... by attributing it. Blueboar (talk) 19:24, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That the result is accurate is an opinion.? I don't understand what this edit was trying to explain. The result of a study is a fact (unless there is a serious dispute by another reliable source). QuackGuru (talk) 19:36, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result is a fact even if there is dispute. What is disputed is not the result... but the conclusions that can be drawn from the result. I have tried to clarify. Blueboar (talk) 19:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result and the conclusion mean pretty much the same thing. The wording That the result of the survey leads to certain conclusions would not be a fact. is vague and undermines what is the intent of ASF. The result of a study is considered an opinion when there is a serious dispute. QuackGuru (talk) 19:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The certain circumstances when it would not be a fact is explained in the next paragraph: "An "opinion" on the other hand, is a statement which expresses a value judgement,[1] or a statement construed as factual that is "a matter subject to dispute"." QuackGuru (talk) 19:55, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, result is not the same as conclusion... To give an example... if I do a study and ask 100 dentists which brand of chewing gum they prefer for their patients who chew gum... and 80 say "Trident"... the result: "4 our of 5 Dentists say they prefer Trident" is a fact. What is not a fact is the conclusion to be reached from this fact... the conclusion that "Trident is better', or 'You should chew Trident'. Those conclusions are opinions.

The fact of the result of my study does not change if some other study of 100 different dentists reaches a different result (say 75 say they prefer Dentine)... the first study still has the result of 4 out of 5 prefer Trident. However, because there is a second study with a different result, we need to note the facts about the second study as well. We have conflicting facts, and neutrality requires us to mention this. Blueboar (talk) 20:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fact of the result of a study does change if a different study had a competing result. We need to convert the opinion about the second study as well with attribution in the text when there is a serious dispute. When there is a serious dipsute the result of the study changes with an inline qualifier. QuackGuru (talk) 20:10, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No... the result of the first study is still 4 out of 5. I suppose if 80 out of 100 dentists said Trident, and I wrote the result as "75% prefer Trident"... someone could dispute my results... but as long as my math is correct the results I state are a fact. That said...

I think we would actually be better off re-working the whole ASF section. The simple point the ASF section is trying to make is this: It is OK (ie neutral) to state the fact that someone holds an opinion ... it is not OK to state the person's opinion as if it were fact. Somehow we get away from that simple statement in all our examples. At minimum we should remove the entire "study" or "survey" example ... because discussing studies and surveys appropriately in an article is never "simple" (they are easily abused, even unintentionally, to support OR and POV). Blueboar (talk) 20:20, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You miss the real point here. The whole point of ASF is that we define "fact" as an undisputed published finding of a reliable source. Your survey example probably fails both the undisputed, published and reliable parts. There's no "fact" there to discuss. On the other hand, if a meta-analysis of numerous surveys of dentist's preferences were to be accepted and published in a quality scholarly journal, then we would treat the findings of that meta-analysis (perhaps "around 80% of dentists prefer X") as a "fact" and state it without attribution. That is our stance until and unless another reliable source produced different findings, when we would relegate the finding to an opinion, then describe the dispute and attribute each finding. --RexxS (talk) 20:54, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is OK to state the person's opinion from a reliable study as if it were fact when there is no serious dispute because the person's opinion is not an opinion when there is no serious dispute. QuackGuru (talk) 22:25, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@QuackGuru: I've reluctantly removed the example about the survey, as it muddles the focus of that paragraph, which should be "what are facts". The question of disputed findings, of opinion vs fact, and attribution is discussed in the following paragraphs of that section. --RexxS (talk) 21:06, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the paragraph is much clearer now. Blueboar (talk) 21:36, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I still think we need another example of what is a fact other than the most obvious facts like "That there is a planet called Mars is a fact." Editors could argue the example of a fact is Mars is a planet. QuackGuru (talk) 22:25, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We would do much better if we abandoned the attempt to do the philosophically impossible and define the difference between "fact" and "opinion", and simply say that certain types of statements need inline attribution (and give examples of those). The whole section remains the very antithesis of "A simple formulation" - are we retaining that section title as some kind of joke? Or just because one editor insists on it?--Kotniski (talk) 06:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to repair the problems, by simplifying the section significantly. Do people think it conveys the message better now?--Kotniski (talk) 08:51, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think Kotniski's revision is good. I suggest one additional change... instead of:

Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves,

(which begs the question... what are "facts about opinions"). I would change it to:

Assert facts, including facts about opinions (such as who holds the opinion and what that opinion is) but do not assert the opinions themselves.

(my suggested text in bold) Blueboar (talk) 12:51, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it would be an improvement, although even better would be to drop that introductory sentence altogether - it doesn't add anything, although past discussions have shown that certain people insist on retaining it as a slogan to use in arguments.--Kotniski (talk) 13:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot see how you think removing the simple statement A "fact" is a statement about which there is no serious dispute between reliable sources improves the policy. That is the policy, stated in its simplest and most direct terms. The version you've created, without consensus, simply gives a tool to POV-pushers to claim that their pet fringe theory disputes the mainstream view and insist that every sentence starts with "A 2009 review found that ...", rather than simply asserting the "fact", as we define it. Your bold edit has been reverted to the previous version of that section, while this is being discussed here. --RexxS (talk) 15:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The version you objected to said "Factual statements that can be verified in reliable sources can be stated "as fact" in Wikipedia articles." Isn't this enough? --Kotniski (talk) 16:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not enough. Plenty of things can be verified by reliable sources, but are disputed by other reliable sources. Those are not facts in the wikipedia sense, and we need to make that clear. Adding subclauses below is not "a simple formulation". --RexxS (talk) 20:00, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we define "fact" and "opinion" in this policy?

I would like to focus on the broader picture for a moment ... I want to ask why we go into all this detail about facts vs. opinion in this policy. What do these definitions have to do with maintaining a Neutral Point of View? Our discussions so far have ignored these fundamental questions. By exploring them, we may be able to reach consensus on whether there is a better way to make the same point. Blueboar (talk) 15:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well exactly. I don't understand Rexx's point above (and even more fail to understand his wholesale blind revert - could you not have just reverted the specific point you disagreed with?) We have absolutely no business in this policy defining what a "fact" and what an "opinion" are - philosophers can argue about that for centuries to come (hint: there will never be a definitive answer) - all we need to do here is say what the distinction between different types of statement for the purposes of this policy. Any sentence that says "a fact is..." or "an opinion is..." is... well, ridiculous. Why oh why is this page controlled by people who seem to have some fundamental opposition to making things clear and simple?--Kotniski (talk) 15:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think what we want to say with the ASF section is this: "Stating an opinion as if it were a fact is not neutral." Blueboar (talk) 17:23, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's pretty much it. Though to deal with the fringe-view-pushers we need to make some effort to define what kind of statements we do state as if they were facts.--Kotniski (talk) 17:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason not to define the difference between "fact" and "opinion". We need to keep ASF not redefine it. We define a fact and an opinion to determine how to present the text neutrally. QuackGuru (talk) 18:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree with this. but I think I understand why the issue becomes complex. We have a number of countermanding themes getting played out in this passage:

Some editors are worried about opinions (usually sketchy opinions) getting stated as fact ('the holocaust did not exist' should not be stated as a fact, and should be attributed to a source).
Some editors are worried about (generally specious) claims that all statements are mere opinion and thus must be qualified and attributed ('Mars is a planet' should not really require attribution).
Some editors are worried about giving 'more-sound' information precedence over 'less-sound' information (usually I see this used to argue that fringe theories should be described from a scientific perspective, rather than merely described).

it's a mess of competing interests. I do think we should get away from the whole misleading 'fact/opinion' thing. If we want to do that and keep to the pithy ASF model, then maybe something along these lines: "Attribution is required where sources disagree, not where editors disagree." At least, I can't think of a case where this problem occurs that isn't rooted in some editor pedantically trying to push a POV beyond what sources allow. --Ludwigs2 18:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Kotniski: I really disliked doing a wholescale revert, and thought twice about it. But when you boldly make major changes to policy, ignoring the advice at WP:PG#Substantive changes, particularly while there is already discussion on the talk page on that very topic, you should expect to be reverted while discussion continues. I don't want to personalise this, and I have always valued your contributions. Your changes are in the edit history and can be resurrected if consensus goes that way.

@Blueboar: It is very useful to have yardstick clearly stating the circumstances when a statement may be made without attribution. Unless you want articles to start every sentence with "According to X ..." or "A Y year review by Z found that ...", you should not be kicking away the only place on the 'pedia where it is clearly documented that we assert facts, and define what we mean by "facts" – undisputed findings of reliable sources.

~~@Ludwigs:~~ This editor's concern is editors pushing a fringe opinion. They want to cast aspersions on the findings of reliable secondary sources that are not seriously disputed in other reliable secondary sources. Without this section, they can keep qualifying "facts" and calling for them to have multiple attributions as if they were no more than opinions, although they are the only ones disputing them. If you want to open up hundreds of contentious articles to this sort of debasement, simply because an SPA doesn't like the mainstream view, well, go ahead with undermining this section – there's no quicker way to achieve your goal. --RexxS (talk) 20:00, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies to Ludwigs, the bulk of my last comments were not directed at you (and I've struck the @). I agree in large part with what you say above. For example, the lead of the Abortion article contains this statement, "Worldwide 42 million abortions are estimated to take place annually." I don't want to see that changed to "According to a 2009 article by Shah and Ahman, using 2005 data from the World Health Organisation (who are well-known for a pro-choice bias), 42 million abortions are estimated to take place annually worldwide." Check the archives if anybody doesn't think that sort of nonsense doesn't go on. --RexxS (talk) 21:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Section name

I restored the section name Different points of view. It was abnormal behaviour to remove it. QuackGuru (talk) 16:49, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you perhaps say why you think it's a good section title? For me, all these subsection titles in the first section of the policy are just making the (already very unclearly written) text even harder to follow.--Kotniski (talk) 06:19, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've reorganized those sections a bit, so perhaps that title makes more sense now.--Kotniski (talk) 09:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain why you removed the section name in the first place when it was obvious there needed to be a section name. A section name does not make text harder to read. I don't agree with moving around the sections. QuackGuru (talk) 18:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did, however, move "Don't misrepresent the relative prominence of opposing views." to Different points of view and included a link to A simple formulation. QuackGuru (talk) 19:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with this page

It seems that every time any improvements are made to this page by anyone other than QuackGuru, QuackGuru comes along and reverts them with no comprehensible explanation. Is eveyone happy with this? Should we not therefore remove the policy tag from this page, move it to his userspace to continue to do what he likes with it, and the rest of us set about writing a clear and accurate policy that properly explains to the world what we mean by "neutral point of view" on Wikipedia?--Kotniski (talk) 07:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

QuackGuru behaves like that throughout Wikipedia. A user RFC is probably the best solution to stop this waste of time once and for all. Hans Adler 08:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If someone starts such an RfC, I will most certainly support it. I've had this difficulty with QG here, at the FRINGE guideline page, and at the QuackWatch page (which he guards with the ferocity and communicativeness of a pitbull). It's time he got his head turned around straight on project. --Ludwigs2 15:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems QuackGuru and others helped improve ASF. That would not be a problem. ASF is clearer and more accurately written. It's time for editors to move on when no specific issue was brought up. Of course some editors may disagree and think deleting part of policy improves this page. Edits like this were not an improvement. QuackGuru (talk) 17:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

QG - I don't actually question the fact that you often make good contributions, but I do believe that you frequently fail to communicate properly. Making significant edits/reverts without explanation or discussion is frustrating for other editors. if there is an RFC/U concerning you, that (I think) is what it will focus on. --Ludwigs2 18:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I only recently began following this page, but I too am troubled by QG's frequent edits while the rest of us are trying to discuss the issues in talk. A core policy should not be changing minute-to-minute. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:26, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The edits that are major changes to policy are like this edit that were rejected by the community. QuackGuru (talk) 18:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No specific explanation for dispute tag

A dispute tag was added to the top of the page but the editor did not explain what was the specific problem. The tag is written as "The principle outlined in this policy is fundamental to Wikipedia. However the wording of the policy is subject to dispute. Please contribute to the discussions on the talk page." But the editor do not explain specifically what was the problem on the talk page. Instead the editor makes bad faith accusations of ownership. This isn't the way to complain about consensus. For example, the improvements to ASF were for the better. See Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view#Definition of fact. Sentences like "For instance, the published finding of a reliable literature review is a fact, when it is not disputed by another secondary source." greatly improved ASF. A fact is not just Mars is called a planet. When there is no serious dispute we can assert the text. QuackGuru (talk) 17:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

QG - I have explained in great detail (in sections above) why this tag has been placed on this section. the fact that the tag has gone through a few cycles of reversion and modification does not change that fact. However, I'll reiterate the problems with the section here, for your benefit:

The section is specifically geared towards pseudoscience, meaning this should really be in the wp:FRINGE guideline, not in policy.
- Policy (IMO) is supposed to give broad, general statements applicable anywhere on project, that are then expanded on and clarified for particular areas in subject guidelines. Since this section is so obviously an expansion of wp:UNDUE as it relates to fringe and pseudoscience topics, it should be in wp:FRINGE, which is our guideline for dealing with fringe and pseudoscience topics.
The section as written shifts the nature of NPOV, implying that editors can and should take a stand on issues above and beyond what is presented in reliable sources.
- basically, the section as written provides a loophole in NPOV by suggesting that topics which Wikipedia editors decide are factually invalid should not be treated with the same neutral detachment that all other topics on wikipedia receive. This encourages editorial synthesis, and in certain cases promotes the creation unbalanced, opinionated articles

As I keep saying, I'm not averse to the basic ideas presented, but the phrasing is poor, and as written tends to contradict some of wikipedia's core principles. As you'll note in the above sections, discussion is starting to iron out a more neutral wording. once that's been resolved, we can have a separate discussion about whether the section is better placed here in NPOV or over in FRINGE. --Ludwigs2 18:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have not given a specific explanation for a general dispute tag at the top of the page. No reason has been given to have to two tags. I think you may have misunderstood me. This thread is not about the section tag for Giving "equal validity". It is about the tag at the top of the page. QuackGuru (talk) 18:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I did not place that one, but I think it might be appropriate for the nonce because there are at least two sections of this policy under discussion (the GEV section, and the long-term discussions about ASF). I imagine what will happen is that both discussions will continue on the talk page for another week (±) and then we'll start a pair of policy RfCs to get broader community input on whatever final drafts get worked out. at that point, the tag will probably come off. OK by you if it stays there for a week? --Ludwigs2 19:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are unable to give a specific explanation how edits like this improved ASF. I don't think there is a need for a second tag. QuackGuru (talk) 19:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm perfectly able, you just didn't ask. please don't Perry Mason me. to be frank, I don't find either version in that diff to be entirely acceptable (as I've said, I don't think we should be asserting 'facts' here at all). I find the replacement to be a bit better than the original because (1) it's more concise, and (2) it seems more descriptive and less argumentative (in the sense that it doesn't rely so much on argumentation to support what it's trying to say). but I'd rather see the whole section reworked. --Ludwigs2 19:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are unable to explain what the problem was with any version and no explanation was given to rework the whole section. There is no problem with the current version and no explanation was given for the strange edit were made on the talk page.

This sentence was very odd. "Factual statements that can be verified in reliable sources can be stated "as fact" in Wikipedia articles."

Sentences like this were vague and don't explain anything. Verifed text does not make it factual. QuackGuru (talk) 19:51, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I did state a problem with this section, here and elsewhere, so I'm not sure why you're saying this. I said I don't think we should be asserting facts here at all and the replacement is more concise and less argumentative. which of those statements is confusing you, and why? --Ludwigs2 20:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"For instance, the published finding of a reliable literature review is a fact, when it is not disputed by another secondary source." Do you have a problem with this sentence that puts the breaks on attribution in the text. Do you think this sentence is argumentative. You still have not explained which sentence is the specific problem or do you prefer no instruction creep.

You claim I don't think we should be asserting facts here at all. No, when there is no serious dispute we cannot add attribution every time an editor disagrees with a systematic review. You don't seem to want to make the text more concise when you are against asserting non-controversial text. It seems you want to rewrite policy to allow attribution in the text any time an editor wants to do that. You want to make ASF less argumentative which means you want to make it more vague. Was I right. Do you think I am mind-reader too. QuackGuru (talk) 03:28, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you're a mind-reader, but you haven't read mine in this particular case. To take your particular example - "For instance, the published finding of a reliable literature review is a fact, when it is not disputed by another secondary source" - this is odd and problematic phrasing. 'the published finding of a reliable literature review' is not a fact in any sense of the word, and certainly should never be presented without citation. If there's no other source contesting it, then there would be no need for inline attribution, but that still wouldn't imply that it is factual or true, only that it is (apparently) a broadly uncontested result. The danger in using the 'fact' terminology is that it can cause confusion. for example, there is reliable research (largely uncontested) which states that some 40% of Americans believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction prior to the US invasion. Asserting that research as a 'fact' can confuse the issue: many people will not realize that we have asserted that the '40% believe' bit is the fact, and will assume that we have asserted a fact about Iraq and WMDs (which is most likely false, and certainly not related to the research being cited). Using the word 'fact' in policy is just going to lead the editors down the path towards arguing about 'truth' (since in most people's minds facts and truth are intimately related), and per NPOV we want to avoid 'truth-value' debates and stick to the balancing of sourced opinions. see what I mean? --Ludwigs2 03:57, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"40% of Americans believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction prior to the US invasion." could be a value judgement depending on how you write it which is covered in the opinion paragraph. 40% of Americans believe bit seems like a survey example. That is irrelevant to a review of the literature. Fact does not equal truth. Fact is equal to assert the text without implying there is a serious dispute. 'the published finding of a reliable literature review' is a fact in every sense of the word when there is no serious dispute, and we should certainly not confound V policy with ASF. ASF is about how to present the verifed text. You know what I mean. QuackGuru (talk) 04:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think part of the problem is that QG and others are trying to write the policy to help their cause in particular disagreements, rather than give a clear explanation of what Wikipedia does. For example, the thing about "a particular survey found..." that they insist on including in the ASF section is precisely something they've been arguing about at the Chiropractic article. I'm not saying that people involved in disputes shouldn't take part in the dialogue about the policy, since it's important to know what consequences our words are having in practice (unfortunately pages marked as "policies" have taken on a kind of law-like status in some quarters, which they don't deserve at all), but we shouldn't allow editors to dictate specific wording that just happens to help them in their particular disputes. --Kotniski (talk) 09:41, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And on the general matter of how this page should be written, I think there are two possible approaches: identify the key principles behind what we mean by NPOV, and set them out briefly and clearly; or just leave the page as a disorganized jumble of largely repetitive text that reflects thoughts people may have had one day and written down in random places. As will be apparent from my phrasing, I favour the first option.--Kotniski (talk) 09:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite right that I found myself here from that article. When I was trying to explain to a new editor at Talk:Chiropractic that we assert facts such as the findings of undisputed reliable sources, not attribute them, I found that it had been removed from WP:ASSERT. So the question is this: Do we want to thrash out the reasons why we assert, not attribute, on every talk page every time someone wants to disagree with an undisputed reliable source; or do we document our policy here? I've identified for you a key principle, "assert facts, don't attribute them". I'd rather the attempts to organise this page didn't throw out such key principles as part of the clean-up. --RexxS (talk) 14:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree that (suitably worded, so as to tighten what we mean by "fact" in the context) ought to be one of the principles. But wouldn't it be much more effective to use against the fringe-pushers if it were written short and clearly, rather than as the jumbled mass of text that the ASF section is now?--Kotniski (talk) 14:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editors have experience at chiropractic dealing with this specific type of content dispute over attribution. You have not explained what is the specifc problem with the current wording. The text is concise and very clear. You have repeatedly changes the section name against consensus. I think the section name should be restored. Since you were unable to explain what is the big problem with ASF I think the tag at the top of the page should be removed. Shortening the text would delete important parts of ASF that would leave ASF without a clear explanation for what is a fact versus what is an opinion. We should not delete improved sentences like "For instance, the published finding of a reliable literature review is a fact, when it is not disputed by another secondary source." QuackGuru (talk) 17:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I moved for the purposes of this policy to the appropriate FAQ section. It muddles the text to have it in this policy. QuackGuru (talk) 17:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

QG - you have a serious case of "I didn't hear that" going on. I'd appreciate it if you would make more of an effort to respond to what other editors are telling you.

Let's be honest, the chiropractic article is a cesspool of advocacy, from both the pro-chiropractic and the skeptical advocate perspectives. I've studiously avoided the page, myself, because it would be just too much of a darned headache to participate on (and I generally am not bothered by controversial topics). If you really want this to be about chiropractic, however, I will gird my loins and wander over there, where we can do this discussion properly. No, I would not find that fun, but...

We do not want to NPOV to become hostage to people trying to gain some fiddling advantage over their opponents in a contentious dispute. for one, it won't help with the disputes on chiropractic, because opponents are just going to IAR any tendentiously written policy, as I assume they already consistently do. For another it reduces the policy to a meaningless, confusing cipher, which is of no use to anyone. I'm with Kotinski here, that policy should be a simple, general, universal statement, that doesn't enter into a whole lot of fiddling detail or specific examples designed to win particular battles. --Ludwigs2 18:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ASF is more concise now and no specifc problem with the current wording has been pointed out. Specific details is what makes ASF more concise now. Let's be honest, you are making no sense. Facts does not mean we are advocating truth. Wikipedia has a disclaimer. Making ASF too simple would make this policy meaningless. QuackGuru (talk) 18:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

QUACKGURU: I AND OTHERS HAVE REPEATEDLY POINTED OUT SPECIFIC PROBLEMS WITH THE CURRENT WORDING, AND I DO NOT LIKE IT THAT YOU CONSISTENTLY SAY WE HAVE NOT. THIS IS NOT PROPER TALK PAGE PROCEDURE, AND AND IS EVEN MORE ANNOYING THAN TYPING RESPONSES ENTIRELY IN CAPITAL LETTERS.

PLEASE DESIST.

Thanks, --Ludwigs2 18:47, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please understand that "For instance, the published finding of a reliable literature review is a fact, when it is not disputed by another secondary source." is part of the solution to the previous version. Vague comments claiming there is a problem without showing there is a real problem is not a problem at all.

You claim "I said I don't think we should be asserting facts here at all and the replacement is more concise and less argumentative. which of those statements is confusing you, and why?" The whole point to ASF is to explain when to assert facts and when to add attribution in the text. Your argument it that you don't like to assert the text. That does not make sense. QuackGuru (talk) 19:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For any interest editors, I have opened a wikiquette case regarding QuackGuru at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#QuackGuru. Please comment there if you so desire.

QG: vague phrasing (if in fact that were the case) would be far better than the version you are stumping for which is incorrect and misleading. greater detail does not help when the material being detailed is wrong. I have given a far better rubric for dealing with when to assert above, but you still have no responded to that. could you please? --Ludwigs2 21:59, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The propsal to use vague phrasing would make ASF meaningless. That is not the goal of having a policy. QuackGuru (talk) 22:08, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're just stonewalling; you're not even trying to discuss the issue. So fine, your ever-unchanging opinion is noted and understood, and we can all go on to discuss the issue without you. have a nice day! --Ludwigs2 02:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not stonewalling. You have not explained very well what you want to replace in ASF. I don't know how it could be an improvement to shorten ASF which would make it less understadable.

You claim "I said I don't think we should be asserting facts here at all..." That goes against long time ASF policy. You have not given a valid reason why you oppose asserting fact especially when there is no serious dispute. I don't see a problem with asserting non-controverisal statements. QuackGuru (talk) 16:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

QuackGuru:

I have given several reasons why I want this section changed, and explained each in copious detail above. You simply refuse to acknowledge them or discuss them. that's your problem, not mine: continuing to refuse to acknowledge or discuss them is stonewalling, pure and simple.
I don't care if it's long-standing policy; it's 'bad policy, for reasons I have discussed above which you have ignored.

I have nothing further to say to you until you address the points I've made above. it's frustrating to have to repeat myself endlessly. So, read, ask specific questions if you're confused, make clear points if you're not. until you do that, there is no point in listening to anything further you have to say. --Ludwigs2 14:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The video

I removed the video again. I wonder if we should just nominate them for deletion so that people aren't tempted to stick them in here. Gigs (talk) 16:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You removed the video without any good reason. You never had consensus to delete it in the first place. What is the specific problem with the wording of the video. The video also helps blind people get interested in policy. QuackGuru (talk) 17:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was no consensus to add it, and it was removed previously. Gigs (talk) 17:17, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have confirmed there is currently no consensus to delete when you have not given a specific reason about what is specifically the problem with the video.

Again, what is the specific problem with the wording of the video. Are you going to remain silent and not answer my question again. Your silence equals consensus. QuackGuru (talk) 17:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Was the idea of a video discussed? I don't think it's a good idea. A policy consists in the current wording on the page, not someone's idea of its "main points" in a video. PL290 (talk) 17:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "main points" of the video works for me when you click on the video. I see you can't explain what is the problem with the wording of the video. It seems you just don't like having a video regardless of what it says. QuackGuru (talk) 18:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Open question that has been ignored. Again, what is the specific problem with the wording of the video. QuackGuru (talk) 18:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not with the 'specific wording' of the video, as far as I'm concerned (though the video does have a bit of a 'sesame street' feel to it which annoys me). the main problem I see is that the video itself would be very difficult for editors to edit or modify - it locks in a particular version of NPOV simply by being unchangeable by most editors. that seems like a fairly hefty violation of the policy process; why does whoever developed this video get to have the last word in defining NPOV? --Ludwigs2 18:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This echos the similar consensus at WP:V over a similar video. It was viewed as giving what amounted to an essay about the policy an undue amount of "official-ness". Because of this, including the video in the policy was viewed as inappropriate. Putting the videos somewhere in the help materials, or as external links at the bottom, might be an appropriate thing to do. Gigs (talk) 18:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested a compromise using a stronger disclaimer or your suggestion to move the video towards the bottome of the page could also work. The problem is that editors claim the video is a problem when no editor has explained what is actually problem over the 'specific wording' with the writing of the video. If there is no real problem then nothing needs to be fixed. QuackGuru (talk) 19:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think moving it to the bottom would help. Nor would providing any kind of link to it. Both would give credence to what is, frankly, a ridiculous attempt to encapsulate one person's summary of one version of a policy. Sorry, no, just a bad idea. This is a wiki, and the current wording of any policy is found on the policy page. PL290 (talk) 19:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have refused to explain what is the specific problem with the wording of the video. QuackGuru (talk) 19:17, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By repeatedly referring to "the specific problem with wording", you have refused to pay any attention to what editors are saying here. And, if I may borrow your terminology for a moment longer, you have refused to answer my question about whether the possible use of such a video was discussed in the first place. I take your silence to mean "no". PL290 (talk) 19:22, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was a previous discussion about using the video here. I noticed have not answered my question again about what is actually the specific problem with the wording of the video. Should I take that as consensus to include the video. QuackGuru (talk) 19:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please link to that discussion if it exists. and please respond to the point I and others have made above about the problems with using video from an editorial perspective. --Ludwigs2 22:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, let me say that I think the video is excellent as a basic introduction to the concept of NPOV for new editors... but... I don't think it should be included on the actual policy page. There is a lot that the video does not say, and it is important that editors read and understand the entire policy, and not just rely on the summary version that was contained in the video. I am sure there is a place for the video (and others like it) ... but the policy page itself isn't it. Blueboar (talk) 22:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The video gives a naive idea of NPOV and actually encourages the common misunderstanding that NPOV is about "balancing" of the type that has become an unfortunate habit of some journalists, who hunt after fringe theorists with a title in order to get a "balancing quote" for a statement that the Earth rotates around the Sun. We don't do anything like that, but it doesn't become clear in the video. Hans Adler 14:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I support removing the video, regardless of its accuracy. While a gentle overview may be desirable, having such media in a vital policy is a minefield: Do I have to watch the video to understand the policy? If I watch the video, can I ignore the policy text? What if the video appears to conflict with the text? What if wikilawyers argue using points made in the video? Further, it is too hard to maintain a video. Johnuniq (talk) 23:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that people feel a need to make FAQs and videos to "explain" this basic policy is testimony to how confusingly written this page is. If we tidied the whole thing up, said what we really mean - with each point made once, but clearly - then we could dispense with separate FAQs and videos, as people would find out what we mean simply by reading the policy. (At the moment I guess I would include the video somewhere at the bottom among the "see alsos" - it has the status of a kind of essay.)--Kotniski (talk) 10:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A simple formulation section name

The section name has been changed again without consensus to Asserting facts. The section name is confusing becuase it is not just about asserting fact. It is a simple formulation on how to present the verifed text with or without attribution in the text. QuackGuru (talk) 19:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

it would really be nice, QG, if you would engage in discussion rather than restricting yourself to declamations. --Ludwigs2 22:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like "A simple formulation" (because it isn't simple)... but I agree that "Assert facts" is not right either. What about: "State facts - attribute opinions" Blueboar (talk) 22:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with the name change becuase we don't always state facts without attribution in the text. For an opinion, we can sometimes avoid attribution in the text with an inline qualifier like the way this sentence is written: "It is generally categorized as complementary and alternative medicine (CAM),[2] a characterization that many chiropractors reject.[3]". There is serious disagreement over whether chiropractic is CAM but the way it is written is without According to or Simon-says attribution. I prefer to stay with "A simple formulation". QuackGuru (talk) 16:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But it isn't a "simple" "formulation" - it's just another part of the policy, as confusingly written and limited in scope as all the others. And if you're now saying that we don't always state facts without attribution, then the whole premise of the section (the bold bit at the start) needs to be changed. --Kotniski (talk) 08:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The point that QG makes is that the categorisation of chiropractic as CAM is not a "fact", but an "opinion". It is a non-sequitor to suggest that he is saying we don't always state facts without attribution. --RexxS (talk) 13:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He said "we don't always state facts without attribution in the text". Which seems to be in direct contradiction with the thesis of the section. (I agree, we do sometimes state "facts" with "attribution in the text", which is another reason to reword the section.)--Kotniski (talk) 13:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He said "For an opinion, we can sometimes avoid attribution in the text with an inline qualifier ..." and that's a different issue. Perhaps you'd like to explain how we determine when we might attribute "facts" (as defined in the section)? Does it have anything to do with editors not liking what the "facts" state? --RexxS (talk) 15:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, pardon me for pointing out the obvious, but "A Simple Formulation" is (at this point in time) a completely wrong and misleading section title. this is not 'a simple formulation' of NPOV anymore (assuming it ever was), but has become a restrictive point about when we do and do not need to use attribution as opposed to mere citation, which is just one minor consideration in NPOV. The section ought to be called something like "Attribution and assumptions of generality".

Also, do we want policy written from the context of a bitter battle to legitimize/delegitimize chiropractic? That strikes me as a bit perverse from any rational perspective, and not where policy should be coming from. --Ludwigs2 15:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are confused about attribution and citation; they are by no means "opposed". In principle, all statements should be verifiable – that's what citation is for. Attribution is used to allow us to report a source's findings when it is disputed by other sources.

This section is about when to attribute and when not to attribute a statement – is it disputed by reliable sources?
Both statements that are attributed and those that are not may require citation – can the reader verify it?

The latter issue is covered in WP:When to cite, and you confuse the discussion on this section by arguing that ASSERT has anything to do with citation.

What we actually want is for policy to describe the best practices that have long enjoyed consensus. We certainly don't want key principles (such as when to attribute) to be removed from well-established policy, just to suit the purposes of POV-pushers whose agenda involves casting doubt on undisputed, widely acknowledged findings. That stands no matter what page it is on. The bottom line is that making proper use of reliable sources always solves those problems. I don't take kindly to attempts to move away from source-based contributions, simply to please those who wish to substitute their personal opinions wherever they don't like what they read. Perhaps you'd care to endorse my stance on that? --RexxS (talk) 16:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anyone disagreeing with you over these principles - all we (well I) want to do is to make the policy section in question read clearly and logically. Wouldn't that be to everyone's benefit?--Kotniski (talk) 16:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think Rexx has gotten into the habit of opposing whatever I say without reflection. clearly I'm not disagreeing with him, and clearly I'm not confused about the attribution/citation issue, and clearly I'm not proposing anything he suggested in the above passage, but he's reading into what I say in a very dim light. it's really stretching the limits of AGF.

Rexx, I suggest you take a day off from this dispute - as I did yesterday - and collect your thoughts on the matter, because you are beginning to edge into incivility. --Ludwigs2 18:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually going to suggest that you both stay around. You're easily the most thorough and generally calm proponents of both sides when you disagree and I'm not even convinced you disagree that much. Ludwigs, Rexx is, I believe, heavily influenced by what he sees as blatant POV pushing on the chiropractic article. There is obvious concern from him, and others, to avoid opening the doors to undue mention of fringe claims or to calling reliable claims into question using attribution. That is a great goal if there is consensus that no dispute actually exists among reliable sources. Where that dispute is a gray area, I don't think policy is currently sufficient to clarify. Rexx and QG have pushed for what I see as a gray area to be treated like the simple case of plain fact. I think that's categorizing the problem away by applying to it the rubric which produces a desired result. And, even if it did so accurately, I still think there is something missing which prevents explaining the state of research more fully. ASF should be used to keep things simple, but not too simple. And reader understanding should take precedence over verbatim adherence to policy. If that sounds like POV pushing, well, I don't think that's quite right. But there's no need for anyone to take a walk. Just drop the interpersonal commentary and let's get back to issues. Ocaasi (talk) 21:25, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I shall be happy to get back to the issues, Ocaasi, and I thank you for your timely reminder. Your summary of the situation at Chiropractic is accurate. I have to say I know nothing about the subject, other than what I read in the article and the sources. I'd like to think I have no affiliation with any point of view, and I'd prefer to keep it that way. My experiences there are similar to the situation I found myself in at Abortion a while ago, so it's not just one article. The point of mentioning those articles here is that they represent examples where an editor can disagree in good faith with the findings of a reliable source, but is unable to find equally reliable sources to dispute them. I still think that ASSERT should be a simple formula such as: "State without attribution the findings of reliable sources, when they are not seriously disputed by other reliable sources". I think that is common enough practice to deserve documentation in this policy as a starting point. However, I am persuaded by your argument that exceptions could be justified, and I'd be happy to look for an objective test to help others decide when such exceptions could be made. As you know, I put great store in the best quality sources, but I would have to concede that mainstream views are likely to have an advantage over minority views when seeking publication in the best scholarly journals. Whether that yields sufficient bias to cause us to re-examine our strong preferences, is a matter that deserves further debate. --RexxS (talk) 22:57, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me say first that all I meant by 'taking a day off' is exactly what the phrase says. People tend to get too stuck in the immediate moment of a debate. sometimes it's a good idea to remind yourself that the problem is not going to be resolved in the next hour (or the next day, or even the next week), and then take the day to go do other things (on project or off project) before you come back at it. again, thinking long-term is better than thinking short-term.

I also think Ocaasi's analysis is correct. I dislike POV-pushers as much as anyone; the only reall difference is that I see POV-pushers on both sides of the fence. Plus, I don't like the way that this policy - which should be a pure and unadulterated content policy - keeps getting modified to turn it into a behavioral policy. NPOV should not be a tool for controlling over-zealous editors (we have actual behavioral policies for that). let's keep NPOV focussed on what it's supposed to be about - Neutral presentation of topics. --Ludwigs2 16:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The wording for the purposes of this policy

I think everyone knows this is a policy page and the paragraphs at the top of the page clearly identfies this page as a policy. I can't think of any reason why the extra verbage of for the purposes of this policy improves the ASF section. I did, however, recently move the wording to the NPOV FAQ pag. QuackGuru (talk) 16:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we need people arguing about whether our definition of fact or opinion is a universal one or not. This disclaimer is necessary to show that we are making a potentially synthetic distinction. Gigs (talk) 17:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's appropriate to disambiguate the definition of fact which Wikipedia uses from the definition of fact which is commonly understood and taught in most logic/science/journalism classes. This helps avoid confusion as well as the hegemonic notion that Wikipedia can define its own words, and it brings attention to the project's unique and self-contained regulatory system in a way that helps users to realize that we can and do craft policy to fit the specific needs of editing as opposed to writing policy generally about the whole world. I think it's important to remember that not everyone automatically or intuitive grasps the intention of ASF, and even among those who do there are complex opinions. It's a good idea to keep the policy language simple but also to help walk readers through any complications. An unexpected definition is just such a case where clear guidance is better than just saving words. Ocaasi (talk) 07:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - and it would be even better (as already suggested) to reformulate the section without defining the concepts "fact" and "opinion" at all (they aren't necessary for saying what the section is attempting to say).--Kotniski (talk) 08:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You really don't think that would leave too much ambiguity? I personally think ASF is being over-strictly interpreted to present a scientific POV, but I understand the concern about there being open season on mainstream science. How would your version handle some of the more fringe topics? Ocaasi (talk) 08:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by "my version", but we can talk about which statements need inline attribution without attempting the impossible and classifying certain statements as "facts" and others as "opinions" (something that brings the policy into disrepute, since everyone is quite convinced that their own opinions are facts and any opposing facts are opinions).--Kotniski (talk) 09:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Defining how a term is used in a document enables the reader to interpret the document correctly. This is particularly important if usage is ambiguous in—or even conflicts with—the wider context within which the reader approaches the document. There is a marked conflict in this case: we stress that this policy "should not be interpreted in isolation from" WP:V, which tells us, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth", making it unclear what we mean if we now refer to facts. Defining the term enables correct interpretation and application of the policy. Defining terms is something I would encourage more of in our policies generally. PL290 (talk) 12:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But that merely means that we should avoid using terms like 'fact' and 'opinion', which coneys to most people's the idea of 'truth-value' (i.e., facts are 'true', opinions may or may not be). There's no sense trying to redefine common-language terms with new, specialized meanings on wikipedia. let's just choose language where we don't need to worry about whether the term is being misconstrued in the first place. --Ludwigs2 14:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed; that would be the ideal, though typically it's useful to give some terms a particular meaning within a document. The overall point that I'm making in response to the original question "Why must we state 'for the purposes of this policy'" is: documents sometimes need to define their usage of terms, and when they do, they make it clear they're doing that as opposed to providing an absolute definition of the word. They do this using phrases such as "for the purposes of this policy", or a table of terms in a "Terms and definitions" section. PL290 (talk) 14:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Global Warming and controversial articles

I am new to this discussion. I came here due to the global warming issue, on which I have been in sympathy with one of the sides, the one that has not been able to get its points of view across here on Wikepedia due to some very zealous editing by at least one editor and one administrator. On October 14th, that administrator has been banned from that topic for six months for what I will call "abusive revisions." Presumably this applies to the MANY articles that apply to this topic. Obviously, global warming (which I will abbreviate as AGW, for "anthropogenic global warming") is a controversial topic. Wikipedia - due mainly to the actions of those two individuals - essentially has never had any of the opposition POV presented. AGW is not the only controversial issue.

It appears from this one topic that the policy of NPOV is a failure. At least for controversial topics.

I see from a quick perusal of the current postings on this discussion that everyone is going round and round about what is the definitions of this word and that classification - and it appears no one is agreeing on anything.

This kind of bickering about word definitions is getting no one anywhere, if AGW is any indicator. Controversial issues cannot be handled in the same manner as, for example, lepidoptera migration.

I would suggest that when there is a controversial topic that the Wikipedia page have a CONTROVERSIAL TOPIC NOTICE at the very top of the page, immediately below the article title, in big bold letters and a box around it. Below that there would be something like this to explain the situation:

THIS TOPIC HAS BEEN DEEMED TO BE CONTROVERSIAL.

The reader is advised that CONTROVERSIAL TOPICS are at risk of editing and revising by the conflicting sides.
What you read in this article has a greater-than-normal risk of being non-factual and - especially - biased.
This article is separated into PRO and CON sections, and is controlled so that editors can only post revisions and additions to their own POV section.
Anyone editing on this page was required to declare himself/herself as either PRO or CON, before being allowed to post to this topic.
The reader is warned that he or she reads this topic at his or her own risk.

I suggest also that there be a NEUTRAL section, in which facts are to be stipulated, meaning that any fact added must be agreed to by both sides of the issue. (That process of agreement would be determined by Wikipedia's board - and that may take some hashing out.)

This is a first draft of the idea.

History of this issue:

What I know at this stage is that the CON side of the AGW issue has thus far been completely edited out of the Wikipedia site - pretty much since the beginning of Wikipedia. As a result, people on the CON side of AGW have little respect for and almost no use for Wikipedia. This is a sizable number that is growing all the time, due to the revelations of Climategate. (As it stands, the "Climategate" article reads as a one-sided apologia for the PRO side.) Wikipedia can keep up the status quo, but their actions of today - voting to ban William Connolley for six months from the topic by a vote of 7-0 - indicate that some accommodation may be possible between the CON side and Wikipedia. Needless to say, after nine years of being locked out, the CON side is skeptical about Wikipedia's dedication to honest presentation of information on this topic. The vote was an encouraging sign, but if Wikipedia wants to move forward, it would do well to not only get rid of the offenders, but to change the way things are done.

That is the reason I am here, although I am not here in any "official capacity." I am doing this as an individual, at least at this time.

Informal discussions among the CON side are taking place as I write this. The banning of Connolley comes as a bit of a shock, and it will take time for any consensus to form. A large portion is presently arguing that we simply tell Wikipedia to blow it out of their nether orifice. There is little - very little - or no trust on that side. Connolley and Kim Dabelstein Petersen have soured the milk, as it were. The underlying reality is that if Wikipedia wants participation by the CON people in balancing the AGW topics (of which there are MANY), then some process needs to be put in place by which PRO-AGW people are not still free to remove CON points of view - and ESPECIALLY references to the hundreds of peer-reviewed articles that argue against AGW. At the present time anyone reading Wikipedia's AGW articles would have the impression that there is NO level of discussion at all even necessary - that every assertion by the PRO side is true and is the only information worth considering. THIS IS VERY FAR FROM THE CASE, and if Wikipedia is to present some level of balanced, the current status quo is completely inadequate, given the history and the current level of distrust by those on the CON side. The PRO characterizations of the CON side as some sort of anti-science ignorant rabble is simply nonsense politicization of the issue. 75% of the posts on the most popular CON blogs are specifically linking to scientific studies. The most popular one (www.wattsupwiththat.com) has won awards as the top science blog.

Since this is an intensely debated and certainly controversial topic, I suggest that whatever can be worked out on this topic would likely be a good framework for dealing with other controversial topics on Wikipedia. Where NPOV does not work, why not deal with controversial topics in a different way? SteveGinIL (talk) 08:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good idea to have warnings about controversial articles, so good that many controversial articles have it on the talk page already. Check out Talk:Chiropractic as an example or any other page that is subject to general sanctions from ArbCom. Policy about dealing with controversial topics usually evolves ex-post, after the shit has hit the fan and cases wind up in arbitration. Others can probably explain the details better. Ocaasi (talk) 08:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Medical/Science/Fringe examples in ASF

Regarding the bold parts:

For instance, the published finding of a reliable literature review is a fact, when it is not disputed by another secondary source. That there is a planet called Mars is a fact. That Plato was a philosopher is a fact. No reliable source seriously disputes any of these statements, so Wikipedia articles can simply assert them. Facts can be asserted in Wikipedia's voice (e.g. "Mars is a planet.") and without an inline qualifier (e.g. "According to...", "John Doe believes...", "The book Manual of Cardiovascular Medicine stated...", "A systematic review...").

I think these recent changes need to be discussed. Because:

They read awkwardly. It is odd to have the first example of a fact be an esoteric statement about a reliable literature review. To begin with, most people don't even know what a literature review is.
This example sticks out as a single-purpose edit to advance a certain debate in science/fringe articles, most recently Chiropractic (I'm not saying QG has a single purpose, but that this edit does). Policy should be articulate enough to not require these kinds of examples (outside of an FAQ) except simply for illustration.
There is an odd juxtaposition between literature reviews and plain facts. Is there really consensus that "This risk of spinal manipulation outweighs the benefit" be treated identically to "Mars is a planet". I personally don't think so, and I think the policy needs to better deal with any nuances or better explain why there aren't any. Ocaasi (talk) 08:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think this is a very clear example of something being forced into a policy to help in a particular dispute - it certainly doesn't belong there.--Kotniski (talk) 09:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to discuss these edits:

The order of examples has little importance, but literature review is a well-defined concept and can be linked for those who don't understand the term.
It's not QG's edit alone. The wording there was partially mine, and I stand by my assertion that we do treat undisputed findings of the best quality sources in the same way as common knowledge, i.e. simple assertion without attribution. We have the means to give guidance on determining the best quality sources: WP:RS and refined examples such as WP:MEDRS (which clearly distinguishes between how we use secondary and primary sources). The example I gave is precisely for illustration: it illustrates that our verifiability requirements means that what you call "plain facts" and what I call "undisputed findings" are presented in the same way, because they pass the same tests of scrutiny. That has always been the consensus as far as I can see.
What makes it an "odd juxtaposition"? What test can you apply to distinguish between the factual nature of "Worldwide 42 million abortions are estimated to take place annually" and "Plato was a philosopher"? Once cited, is there something inherent about them that I'm missing, which requires us to treat them differently? The only difference between those and "The risk of spinal manipulation outweighs the benefit" is that more interested parties don't like it. Wikipedia should not be a vehicle for pandering to editors' personal opinions. We're much better off following clear documentation of our norms, which depend on the authority of peer-reviewed sources and of the editorial oversight process in quality publications. There may be occasional exceptions when consensus is that it improves the article, but that is what needs to debated on article talk pages, not the general policy that ought to be clearly stated here.

If there are nuances that are common enough to include in policy, then let's find the commonality of those nuances and document them. I don't see any exposition of what these may be, and my experience is that the commonest objection to ASSERT is that an editor doesn't like the undisputed findings of a reliable source. I suggest that's a pretty poor basis to write policy. --RexxS (talk) 13:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The order of examples was only about readability, not substance. Typically, you would start with a more easily digestible scenario and work up to more complex ones.
You wrote, "we do treat undisputed findings of the best quality sources in the same way as common knowledge, i.e. simple assertion without attribution". The problem here is that certain things don't read well as plain facts, because they're not plain facts. For some, it is natural that they be presented in a context, either as the result of a study, as the standing opinion of the medical community, as the current consensus of research, as something, but not merely as a plain fact about the world. It's one thing to apply the same scrutiny to these types of claims, but it's another to word them identically.
'Mars is a planet' is an unequivocal statement. No one disputes it, because it is not only well established but the definition is concrete and there are no material grounds on which to challenge it. Risk-benefit analysis, to use the chiropractic example, is not 'a fact about the world' in the same way that the definition/categorization of a planet is. It's important for readers to realize that a risk benefit analysis is the result of someone's analysis (or at least some review's analysis). This is not to muddy the waters but to prevent claims from being treated as obvious and inherent where they are actually complex and human-constructed.
The example you gave of abortions is a great one, because of the word 'estimated'. That word says everything to indicate to the reader that there is a degree of process involved. To directly state that the number of abortions is 42 million would ignore the fact that there was human counting as well as human approximation. There is a degree of humility, of flexibility, of acknowledgment that though there are prevailing estimates, they are not ironclad and can change. Unlike Mars, which will always be a planet, at least through the next several review cycles.
That has been my gripe about ASF, not that I want to lessen claims, but that those claims are more nuanced than they are being presented. (For example, current risk-benefit analysis of chiropractic is a medical consensus which reflects current research that has of yet failed to provide a positive justification to override the small but noteworthy correlation between chiropractic and death, such that until benefits can be proven, any risk renders the practice inadvisable--and this despite the fact that a longstanding community of practitioners supported by international bodies such as the WHO have not found similar basis for caution and that ongoing research involving vba stroke has not yet been conclusively (causally) linked to chiropractic, and that the studies on which the only systematic review to ever render a definitive negative risk-benefit finding have been based on case reports which though a part of a systematic review still held in high regard, are nonetheless not up to the gold standard of systematic reviews of randomized-double blind trials and future cohort studies, which have yet to occur in sufficient quality or quantity.)
I think all of that is relevant. You want to simply state a fact. I think our job as editors is to think and to present the debate to the reader with all of its complications. You want to use policy as a basis for stating as strongly as possible something that is fairly nuanced. You're concerned that ASF can be misused; I'm aware that it can work badly in both directions, and that just because there is one danger doesn't mean that any move in the opposite direction is a good one.
It's not true or reasonable that just because some fringe claims are pushed by using in text attribution that all fringe claims will be. Or that any use of in text attribution is harmful and indicative of such pushing. I think there's a slippery slopeness and a rigidity in there which doesn't permit editors to make choices that can take account of the complexity of a situation. Why should our text read like reductive medical school treatment synopses when they can read like thoughtful encyclopedia articles? That's what I think of when I see attribution, not attack on science!.Ocaasi 69.142.154.10 (talk) 22:45, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You make a very valid point that someone like myself cannot distinguish between your genuine concerns, expressed in good faith, and the subtle POV pushing that undoubtedly occurs in some cases, because I'm insufficiently expert in the subject matter to make those kind of judgements. But if I'm required to be a subject expert, doesn't that contradict the very nature of editing a wiki?

I could reply that I have to treat the categorisation of planets the same as the findings of medical research. To me, both are constructs of human ingenuity, and neither has the imprint of an underlying truth. Not so long ago, we could have quoted "Pluto is a planet", but look at where we are now. No doubt some crank somewhere believes Mars is insufficiently spherical and has not cleared its orbit sufficiently to qualify as a planet. I do believe there are some facts that have underlying truth: "The prime factorisation of any integer is unique" is an example, and I don't think it needs attribution to Euclid or Gauss (although a citation would be useful for verification).

Nevertheless, I sympathise strongly with your position, although I can't share it, because I don't know how to take account of the complexity of the situation that you describe. I'm not equipped to make those sort of judgements, and I'd guess that most of the active editors aren't either. I'm tempted to say use the template "This article is need of attention from a subject expert", but I've never seen that yield a good result.

The problem you pose is real, but I don't have any good suggestions on how to solve it. What I do strongly believe, though, is that removing the guidance we have now will lead to more problems, not fewer. Do you have any thoughts on how we could include into policy the sort of exceptions to ASSERT that you describe? --RexxS (talk) 23:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I'm just going to add this insight without really getting into this conversation (because it mirrors conversations elsewhere, and I'd rather keep things focused). Medical issues are a particularly temperamental spot on wikipedia because (IMO) (1) medicine has a long history of overt quackery (from snake-oli salesmen to potentially dangerous cures to drug companies selling more-or-less useless products - it's easy to bamboozle people who are concerned about their health), and (2) medicine has a potential to be dangerous/damaging to individuals. however, the problem I run into whenever I work on medicine-related fringe articles is that some editors can't or won't distinguish between actual, overt quackery and the vast middle area of products and practices which are neither quackery nor mainstream. Chiropractic can be dangerous, but it is not inherently dangerous, and is successful enough at some things that it is licensed and has a devoted clientele. Most practices that fall under the CAM rubric are either innocuous or mildly beneficial: i.e., some clients are paying an amount of money to do something that reassures them and makes them feel good emotionally, with little to no risk. Frankly, for something like therapeutic massage you're less likely to suffer harm than you are from getting hit by a foul ball at a baseball game; the baseball game costs more, the massage makes you feel better, but somehow baseball is a great American pastime while therapeutic massage gets dumped into the A-list of evil anti-medicl practices. why is that? (psst... that was a rhetorical question...) --Ludwigs2 03:45, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rexx, I appreciate your response and am tossing around some ideas. I don't quite know which ones will stick yet, but at least there's a common domain to look at. Ludwigs, I've commented before that I think at the extreme, some editors are creating their own policy synthesis between MEDRS and ASF to force what amounts to a scientific point of view on articles. That's the weapon. The strategy is to claim as many articles as possible as under the purview of MEDRS. I don't think Rexx does this, but I'm not sure that in his hearty defense of fact and science that he's not supporting others who would like to. If we can craft a policy that equally frustrates or equally tempers both CAM-supporters and skeptics, and gives them a way to reasonably discuss claims, then we'll have done a good job. The reason baseball is still a great American pastime is because it has never been the subject of an evidence-based systematic review. Once it is, watch out and hold on to your peanuts. Ocaasi 69.142.154.10 (talk) 04:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most Alternative Medicines have never been subject to a systematic scientific review either. and please don't use neologisms like 'evidence-based'. that term was invented by skeptics as a way of talking to people who don't understand how evidence is really assessed in scientific medicine. don't know whether it was intentionally designed to mislead people or if it just worked out that way, but it's a baaaaad term. --Ludwigs2 15:37, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of "Assert facts" again

Kotniski with this edit, has once again removed the section's first key principle: "Assert facts" - i.e. without attribution. It can't be undone because of his later edits, so I've reluctantly reverted to the version prior to his major change. This is an inevitable consequence of making major changes that have no consensus, and emphasises the importance of seeking consensus for the wording of major changes first. I'll ask why he thinks the removal of the fundamental guidance that this section has always given could be considered an improvement. --RexxS (talk) 15:12, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I prefered Kotniski's re-write. It related the section directly to the concept of maintaining a neutral point of view (which is what this policy is about), which I don't think the "long standing" version did well enough. Blueboar (talk) 15:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that "Assert facts" is really the main point of that section - the main point is "don't assert opinions". As a corollary we understand that uncontroversial "facts" are usually asserted directly, but I don't think there's ever been a rule that they have to be (in some contexts, the information about where a fact comes from will be of genuine interest to the reader). And my version anyway continued to say that undisputed facts are normally stated directly. However, I don't mind my proposed list of points being extended by the inclusion of another, saying something like "don't use attribution to cast undue doubt on the certainty of an assertion" (I probably don't really mean those exact words), if this is really a widespread problem in some areas of WP.--Kotniski (talk) 15:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted back to Kotniski's version - not because I'm satisfied with it, but because it's better than what's there now. Plus, I'm getting fed up with editors who are over-concerned with the moment-by-moment wording and not much concerned with the long-term health of the policy. let's work through the discussion, shall we? --Ludwigs2 15:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Kotniski's view that the main point of the section is "Don't assert opinions" (or, at least, that is what the main point should be). Blueboar (talk) 16:28, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave you to it then; I won't break my own 1RR rule. It's a pity that editors choose to force through what are undoubtedly major changes of emphasis while discussion is taking place. I'm saddened to see that those tactics are chosen over trying to seek consensus. The removal of the principle of asserting facts without attribution as the starting point for guidance is a mistake, but you obviously have your reasons for wishing it see it gone. --RexxS (talk) 17:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC) WP:ASSERT[reply]

thought on the 'naming' section

It occurred to me while I was reading over Kotniski's revisions that we might want to include some language on odd conjunctions in article names. I'm thinking specifically of the articles I've recently had experiences with - Israel and the apartheid analogy, and another one called, I think, israel and violence (though that may have been deleted). I think there should be some restrictions on article titles like 'X and Y', "X considering Y", "X as Y", and etc. I'm not quite sure how to phrase it yet, but something along the lines that we shouldn't use article titles to imply a relationship, connection, or factual state of affairs without due cause.

I know this has been discussed elsewhere, but I can't for the life of me find where. anyone know of hand? --Ludwigs2 17:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 676: / Line 676: @@
 :::I've reverted back to Kotniski's version - not because I'm satisfied with it, but because it's better than what's there now.  Plus, I'm getting fed up with editors who are over-concerned with the moment-by-moment wording and not much concerned with the long-term health of the policy. let's work through the discussion, shall we?  --[[User_talk:Ludwigs2|<span style="color:darkblue;font-weight:bold">Ludwigs</span><span style="color:green;font-weight:bold">2</span>]] 15:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 ::I agree with Kotniski's view that the main point of the section is "Don't assert opinions" (or, at least, that is what the main point ''should'' be). [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 16:28, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
+::::I'll leave you to it then; I won't break my own 1RR rule. It's a pity that editors choose to force through what are undoubtedly major changes of emphasis while discussion is taking place. I'm saddened to see that those tactics are chosen over trying to seek consensus. The removal of the principle of asserting facts without attribution as the starting point for guidance is a mistake, but you obviously have your reasons for wishing it see it gone. --[[User:RexxS|RexxS]] ([[User talk:RexxS|talk]]) 17:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC) [[WP:ASSERT]]
 == thought on the 'naming' section ==