Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:25, 25 March 2008

The project page associated with this discussion page is an official policy on Misplaced Pages. It has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. Before you update the page, make sure that changes you make to this policy really do reflect consensus.

• ]

Spoken Misplaced Pages

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages

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.

Remove Undue Weight

I protest this "policy" and don't think popularity is a factor of truth. Here's my suggestion for an alternative: Misplaced Pages:Balance Your Perspectives. To any admins, if the page is to be deleted for not being official, I understand, if it has been, see User:IdLoveOne/Balance Your Perspectives. IdLoveOne (talk) 03:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Neutrality

How about renaming this page to Misplaced Pages:Neutrality (which already links here) and extending it with badly needed aspects on issues of relative coverage other than just the issue of POV pushing, which this policy page traditionally gives far too much attention? I think most non-neutrality in articles is due not to a POV mindset, but to a rather innocuous ignorance on many different aspects of article writing and layout.

Also, I'd welcome something on the imo hugely problematic POV issue of criticism sections. I dorftrottel I talk I 05:18, November 25, 2007

Nevermind. I dorftrottel I talk I 05:27, November 25, 2007

Deadly nightshade

Hello. I would like to add a sentence to the Deadly nightshade (aka Belladonna) article which in effect states: Deadly nightshade is used in homeopathic remedies. I have found sources which verify this statement - Discovering Homeopathy: Medicine for the 21st Century By Dana Ullman, The Oxford Book of Health Foods By John Griffith Vaughan & Patricia Ann Judd, and Family Homeopath by Robin Hayfield - all of which have been found to pass WP:RS according to this conversations at WP:RSN. It was further suggested there that we quote and attribute the source which is being used such that the sentence would read in effect: According to The Oxford Book of Health Foods, Deadly nightshade "is included... in homeopathic preparations for acne, boils, and sunburns".

Now, the question of undue weight has been brought up as an objection to inclusion of such a sentence. The objection is based on the thought that homeopathy is a fringe science and thus it represents a minority viewpoint. (I'm not sure that it matters, but homeopathy - though perhaps maintaining a minority view in the world of science - is widely used throughout the world and Deadly nightshade is a very popular ingredient for remedies, and in the context I wish to include this sentence, there are no scientific claims being made about homeopathy nor are any theories being presented.) Anyhow, my thought is that by only giving a one-sentence mention in the article, we would not be giving this information any undue weight, but rather providing information about the topic which is actually quite interesting.

My question: Does the inclusion of one sentence such as - According to The Oxford Book of Health Foods, Deadly nightshade "is included... in homeopathic preparations for acne, boils, and sunburns". - in the article Deadly nightshade violate WP:UNDUE?

Thanks for your time. -- Levine2112 20:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I'll move over here to, but am happy to wait for more views before I join in again. Stephen B Streater (talk) 22:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd appreciate it. -- Levine2112 22:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to take the focus away from Levine2112's question, but would like to point out that this is part of a much larger issue currently being played out at several similar articles about plant species, including (but not limited to) Thuja occidentalis (see also the recent discussions on the project page, especially here, here, and here). Between the systematic deletion of any mention of a plant species being used in homeopathy (however well documented or neutrally worded) and the persistent disparaging of any references that is cited (these sources not supporting homeopathy but simply documenting the fact that the plant is so used), I have much the same concerns that he does. MrDarwin (talk) 22:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like responders here to be aware that we've extensively discussed this topic already at reliable sources noticeboard and all sides already agree that all or some of the works above cited are "experts in their field of study" and so that portion of the issue shouldn't be reargued here. We're here more specifically to address on-point, our sub-section on undue weight and how it might apply to this case. Thanks! Wjhonson (talk) 22:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, no-one has an agenda of removing "all" homeopathic mentions, there was simply a concern about weighting. At the begining Levine proposed that any mention of a substance in a published source on homeopathy was sufficient to put a mention in an article, which lead to concern about virtually every material article having to have a mention, so it was requested that notability had to be established. Jefffire (talk) 08:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

To be clear, there is a slight difference to notability and prominence. The former is usually applied to articles. The latter is applied to ideas and POV contained in articles. A yucky distinction, but one that has to be made in order to avoid people complaining about notability guidelines being inapplicable to these discussions. In point of fact, notability and prominence are very similar, but since there is no community consensus for applying notability directly to article content, we should be careful what words we choose. ScienceApologist (talk) 10:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

So notability (WP:N) is not pertinent to this discussion, WP:DUE or WP:UNDUE is. Perhaps we should completely avoid using that term notability in this discussion. Anthon01 (talk) 11:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

If we can all simply assume good faith then we can just make the replacements in our mind without having to make a big fuss over it. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

No homeopathic remedies actually contain any belladonna, so it seems a bit odd that you'd want to include -in an article about belladonna- a sentence about water. Dan Beale-Cocks 16:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

This discussion has moved over to WP:NPOV/N. Please know that there the proposed sentence is that deadly nightshade is use in the preparation of homeopathic remedies. This way, regardless of whether you believe any bit of deadly nightshade remains after the dilution process, the sentence is still true. Anyhow, I invite you and anyone else reading this come participate at NPOV/N. Thanks. -- Levine2112 18:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Undue weight tutorial

I will now offer an explanation for how undue weight should be applied in articles pertaining to these kinds of situations. For the purposes of this explanation, it is necessary to define a few terms:

1. The subject of an article is considered to be the thing that is represented in title of the article. In the case referenced above, the subject is deadly nightshade.
2. The category of an article is considered to be the broader topic to which the subject is considered a specific instance. In the case referenced above, the category is plants.
3. The connected idea is the contentous fact, statement, or point-of-view asserted to be of import to the subject. In the case referenced above, the connected idea is the homeopathic use of deadly nightshade.

Undue weight states as an opening sentence: "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." This is the sense in which the connected idea needs to be evaluated. Effectively, it is the prominence of the connected idea with reference to the subject that needs to be established in order to justify the inclusion or exclusion of an idea per the undue weight clause. I will note that this is different from the prominence of the connected idea with referece to the category. While a minority or fringe opinion may be prominent relative to a category (e.g. astrology is prominent relative to astronomy) the same minority or fringe opinion is not necessarily prominent to all subjects in that category (e.g. there is no reference to astrology on the radio astronomy article).

The only way to determine the prominence of a connected idea with respect to the subject is to find reliable sources that assert the prominence of the idea with respect to the subject. What makes a reliable source? A reliable source in this instance is any mainstream independent source that is about the subject in question. Note that sources which are about the connected idea or dependent on the connected idea are not reliable for establishing the prominence of the connected idea to the subject. For example, a homeopathic desk reference on plants is not a reliable source for establishing the prominence of the connected idea of the homeopathic use of deadly nightshade to the subject of deadly nightshade. However, a mainstream field guide to plants that mentions that deadly nightshade is famous for its application in homeopathy would be a mainstream independent source that could be used to establish the prominence of the connected idea to the subject. In the case of deadly nightshade, there have been two separate problems plaguing the sources offered for inclusion by those hoping to establish the prominence of the connected idea to the subject. In some instances, the sources referenced were not about the subject of the article but rather were about the connected idea. In this case, the connected idea is clearly a fringe subject (inasmuch as homeopathy is pseudoscience) so such sources are subject to extra scrutiny. So a book on homeopathy that mentions deadly nightshade only shows that deadly nightshade may deserve mention in some article devoted to homeopathy. According to fringe guidelines, sources that are strictly about fringe material cannot really be used to establish the prominence of fringe material with respect to a mainstream subject. I have summarized this idea succinctly as the principle of one-way linking. Alternatively, some of the sources offered by those asserting the prominence of the connected idea to the subject were purportedly about the subject of the article (or at least the category of the article) but were not independent of the connected idea. So, for example, a book on the homeopathic uses of plants does not establish the prominence of the homeopathic use of plants outside of the purview of those interested in homeopathy. In order to establish prominence fairly and neutrally, it is necessary to find a source that is independent of homeopathy which asserts the prominence of homeopathy to deadly nightshade. If no independent mainstream sources can be located which assert the prominence of the connected idea to the subject, then the connected idea does not deserve mention in the article.

There is precedent for the application of this principle where the connected idea was found to be prominent through the use of mainstream independent sources on the subject. A particularly relevant example for this discussion where proper sourcing was done to establish the prominence of a connected idea to the subject of an article was what happened in the domesticated sheep article. In this example, User:VanTucky was able to point to a mainstream, independent source that mentioned that certain sheep producers had employed homeopathy in the health maitenance of their flocks. This effectively established the prominence of the connected idea of homeopathic remedies for sheep ailments to the subject of domesticated sheep. There is now an appropriately weighted sentence in the article which discusses the implications of this connected idea to the subject.

ScienceApologist (talk) 08:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

This sums it up accurately. In the case of Deadly Nightshade, one might think that if homeopathy was important to deadly nightshade it would be easy to find independent articles on deadly nightshade which mention homeopathy. In fact, no one has been able to find one so far, casting continuing doubt on the significance of homeopathy to the topic of deadly nightshade. Stephen B Streater (talk) 09:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

And I contend that the Oxford Book of Health Food is such a source. My contention was confirmed at WP:RSN by every outside editor. This book satisfies your desire to have an independent reliable source - a bar which I believe you are setting WAY too high. Regardless, your high bar has been met with this book which fully supports this statement for inclusion: According to The Oxford Book of Health Foods, Deadly nightshade "is included... in homeopathic preparations for acne, boils, and sunburns". -- Levine2112 18:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

My understanding was that this book was not proven to be a reliable source on the importance of homeopathy to deadly nightshade, only the importance of deadly nightshade to homeopathy. Stephen B Streater (talk) 22:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Quite the opposite. This is a from a book about health foods (of which I guess Deadly Nightshade can be considered). And this is from an article in said book about Deadly Nightshade specifically, not about Homeopathy. Hence, if anything, this source shows the "importance" (more like "relevance") of homeopathy to deadly nightshade. -- Levine2112 23:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Am I the only one who sees the unintended irony and humor involved in attempting to assign undue weight to one's opinion by calling it a "tutorial"? Dlabtot (talk) 19:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

You are free to add your own views to the tutorial if you disagree with the portrayal so far. Stephen B Streater (talk) 22:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

This rant, mistakenly labeled a tutorial, is so wrong in so many ways, it's better left alone to sink under the weight of its own bombast. The real issue here is summed up quite well by Wjhonson (talk · contribs) below. Dlabtot (talk) 16:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought it was very clear and well argued. If you can't pinpoint any errors, then I can accept that. Stephen B Streater (talk) 16:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

LOL, sure, pretend that it is "without error". Like wisdom engraved on tablets and handed down by God. That's a good one. Dlabtot (talk) 16:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

There's a perfectly good undue weight tutorial at WP:UNDUE. That's what people should read if they want to be tutored in undue weight. Dlabtot (talk) 16:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

No one is saying you have to explain your criticisms. Equally, your link to WP:UNDUE is helpful. Particularly this comment by Jimbo: If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Misplaced Pages (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not. In the UK and US, homeopathy is used by 1 in 50 who have medical treatment - ie some fraction of this in the population at large. And deadly nightshade could be some miniscule fraction of this. Stephen B Streater (talk) 17:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The Homeopathy article should be discussed at Talk:Homeopathy, Belladonna, at Talk:Deadly_nightshade They are not subjects in which I have any interest. Dlabtot (talk) 18:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Someone brought the discussion on the relevance of homeopathy to deadly nightshade here. That is what we are discussing now. If you have no interest in them, I suggest you don't join in. Stephen B Streater (talk) 18:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

An analogy

The plant is used to make a homeopathic "remedy," but nothing from the plant ends up in it. Electronics are used to make paper, but nothing from the electronics ends up in the paper. It is reasonable to mention electronics in an article on paper making, but it isn't reasonable to mention paper making in an article on electronics. Likewise, it is reasonable to mention the plant in an article on homeopathic remedies, but it is undue weight to mention homeopathy in the article about the plant. MilesAgain (talk) 22:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Who is the speaker?

I have found so far, the discussion to be very productive at eliciting the issues surrounding where we do and don't include minority viewpoints. It would be instructive for editors to present an answer to the question: When we include minority viewpoints, do we only do so, from the viewpoint of the majority? That is, do we allow minority viewpoints to be expressed in their own language? Thanks.Wjhonson (talk) 20:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I've asked a few other contributors, whose opinion I respect and who seem to have a clear understanding of past policy debates to weigh in, to wit: Slimvirgin and Blueboar. I would note for all editors above, that this process is not to conclude what we've previously decided, but rather the possibility of coming to a new conclusion or opening the process to further consensus-gathering to reach a clearer interpretation or possible new policy language to clarify the situation. I.E. it's a process, not a judgement. Wjhonson (talk) 20:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Do have any examples of where this makes a difference? LinaMishima (talk) 21:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the minority view, if it is expressed, should be expressed by saying that it is a minority view and saying what the view is in the terms of the minority. We should have the humility to realise that the majority view is not always correct, or at least that the minority view might contain a grain of truth. Stephen B Streater (talk) 22:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

And with this statement, we know exactly where this view is coming from: According to The Oxford Book of Health Foods, Deadly nightshade "is included... in homeopathic preparations for acne, boils, and sunburns". I don't think it is a minority view that DN is used like this; rather I think it is a minority view that it is a scientifically effective treatment. But we are not saying that. Are we? -- Levine2112 22:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Well that's an interesting way to slice the cake. I think we all agree that DN is used in homeopathic preparations, and the source is pretty neutral on that. The question maybe is: does anyone outside homeopathy care?. We haven't found any evidence that they do. If we ever do, then something along the lines of the Oxford quote above looks quite good. Stephen B Streater (talk) 22:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone outside of homeopathy care?

• Academic botany books
• Rheumatology, one of the most highly regarded Medical journals
• University of Marland Medical Center

• Warts -- for warts of any location except plantar.
• Prostatitis - specifically if there is a forked stream of urine
• Belladonna -- for seizures that occur in individuals with a high fever
• Lupus - Thuja occidentalis -
• Lyme - *

• Whitman College - (Top ranked) Enviro studies dept.
• Cedars-Sinai Medical Center - When the prostate is enlarged -

Would you like more? --Anthon01 (talk) 23:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see deadly nightshade mentioned in the articles I looked at. Please could you point out were the warts article mentioned the use of deadly nightshade as a homeopathic cure of warts? Similarly the rheumatology link didn't mention deadly nightshade as a homeopathic cure of anything, as far as I could see. Stephen B Streater (talk) 08:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, most people don't care about most things in Misplaced Pages. If this is a use of Deadly Nightshade popular enough to be verifiable (which it appears to be), it deserves mention (probably under its own section: Homeopathic use). SBHarris 22:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Right on. Though I can see how having its own section might possibly be giving it too much weight. -- Levine2112 23:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure having your own section header per se confers the caché of importance (like the "rich sardine"- just one per can...") A seperate section header can also be simply a separation for topics that don't fit with others. You can view as being like the wall of a leper colony. It's more the length of discussion that needs to vaguely correlate with relative minority interests. And of course these things are hard to balance. Does once great historical interest balance minor present interest? And if so, how much? Depends on how much ancient history interests you. "Interest" always has a subjective component. Misplaced Pages rages with an ongoing war between the classicists ("Arisotle's essays are more important than Nintendo Wii games, even if more people DO care about Wii!"), vs. popularists. My own feeling is that the way to maximize the happiness of both classes, is to put it ALL in, somewhere. That's the luxury of a non-paper encyclopedia. SBHarris 23:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Your logic is sound, Sbharris. -- Levine2112 00:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Just sticking your finger in the air and saying that something is interesting is rather a subjective way of deciding what goes in here. Different people will have different views. We look for independent third parties who think information is worth adding. If homeopathy is so important to deadly nightshade, there should be many deadly nightshade articles outside homeopathy which give homeopathy some prominence. I haven't seen a single one yet. Stephen B Streater (talk) 08:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) Reverse the tables and ask the same question Stephen. You're couching the language. We should be discussing whether or not we present the minority viewpoint, from their own internal sources. That is: what is a viewpoint? Is it the view others have of you? Or the view you have of yourself? Does the majority always speak for the minority? That's really the issue we should be discussing.Wjhonson (talk) 08:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

My initial feeling is that the majority and/or significant minorities should decide what is important, and the minorities should speak with their own voices. I think the problem here may be caused not just because there is a schism between the mainstream and the alternative (ie pseudo scientific) theories of reality, meaning that there is little cross over, but that the alternative theories have vociferous support and an over optimistic view of their own significance. I would be interested to see some hard facts, for example how many people took homeopathic potions made from deadly nightshade last year. My suspicion is that very few did. It's one thing to list a cure as a possible cure. It's quite another for anyone to actually use it. Compared with the billions of doses of Zantac taken annually, the use is insignificant. Do we have any proof that even one homeopathic dose using deadly nightshade as described in this Oxford source was actually administered? You might think that if homeopathy was so important in this case, there would be many sources (apart from self-promotional homeopathic ones) which mention it. Conversely, the absence of homeopathic mentions in any general deadly nightshade source is very important. But I may have missed one, so I remain open minded. Stephen B Streater (talk) 10:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I have had related experiences before here. The areas which I work on or which relate to my hobbies seem very important to me, and some of them are important generally. But others are ignored by the outside world. Only adding things which are recognised by the world at large helps keep Misplaced Pages from becoming an indiscriminate collection of information. Stephen B Streater (talk) 10:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

My apologies for posting Thuja data before. Please note, Belladonna is deadly nightshade.

• U of SF - those most commonly used in the treatment of headache pain are belladonna
• Belladonna and Bryonia are classic homeopathic remedies often used for an inflamed appendix
• University of Maryland Medical Center

• Ear infection -
• Belladonna - for throbbing headaches that come on suddenly
• Infantile colic -
• sinus congestion and headache -
• and 28 more -

• University of Chicago Medical Center
• Oregon health and Science University
• University of NH
• Cedar-Sinai - Urinary Tract Infection -
• Uof T Medical - Belladonna (Deadly Nightshade) is used when the classic symptoms of inflammation are present: pain, heat, erythema and swelling.
• Cornell U. - throbbing headache
• MedlinePlus - helps in IBS -
• Nat Cancer Inst - Dictionary - exhibits antiinflammatory activity -
• Clinical Trials.gov - ongoing study -

This is just a small sampling of independent articles which discuss homeopathic belladonna a.k.a. deadly nightshade. Anthon01 (talk) 13:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Some of these, such as University of Maryland have some good points. The page discusses appendicitis. It includes However, no scientific literature supports the use of homeopathy for appendicitis indicating that it is not a homeopathic source, but it does still think it worthwhile including: Belladonna and Bryonia are classic homeopathic remedies often used for an inflamed appendix, which according to the strictest interpretation of my rule would indicate that homeopathic Belladonna could be included in the appendicitis article. It is still possible that homeopathic treatment of appendicitis is so marginal a use of belladonna that it doesn't warrant a mention in the belladonna article. So to summarise, these medical articles are not conclusive for including homeopathy in the belladonna article unless it is also shown that homeopathic medicine is an important use of belladonna - what has been shown is that belladonna is important in homeopathy. The easiest way to show this is to find a book which discusses belladonna, which talks about uses in homeopathy. Nevertheless, one argument which hasn't been used is that a certain amount of space is allocated to medicinal uses in the WP article and also in general medical references, and so it would be reasonable to mirror this proportion of medical use in the WP article (provided this was enough to make a coherent entry). Stephen B Streater (talk) 16:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

For godssake! I'm an opponent of homeopathy (as you see from my userpage), but I'm also a big believer in fighting hypocrisy. Misplaced Pages is full of articles about odd and superstitious things, including all articles related to religion. And articles referencing religous ideas in articles about OTHER things! What counts is not the "importance" of this stuff (that's subjective), but the frequency of mention of these ideas in verifiable sources. If you google "belladonna", the FIRST reference that comes up, is a homeopathic one! And there is a "belladonna + homeopathy" link referenced as a major one from there. That pretty much means the use warrents a line in the belladonna wiki, end of argument. I don't care if the use is wrongheaded and crazy and stupid and quackish. It's done, and done frequently enough to have all kinds of commercial links. Misplaced Pages is about what humans DO, not what they SHOULD do. As a rationalist, I don't think people should join the Scientologists or the Mormons, or pay any attention to Fatwas or Talmudic arguments, but (guess what?) my personal opinions in the matter doesn't count, insofar as encyclopedia-worthiness. Enough people disagree with me that their opinions should be represented HERE. SBHarris 21:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

When I looked up belladonna in Google, the top non sexual/WP hit I got was this, which is a long article about deadly nightshade which doesn't mention homeopathy at all, despite a long medical section. You may believe that homeopathic use of belladonna is common or important, but then you may like to explain why none of the (non-specifically-homeopathic) articles mention homeopathy. My explanation is that homeopathy is a self-promoting industry which publishes a lot of propaganda (in non reliable sources) so they get high up in the Google rankings - but that they are basically irrelevant. If they are as important as you say, there must be many reliable articles about belladonna which talk about homeopathic uses. But the ones I have listed before, and this most recent one, do not even mention the homeopathic use of belladonna. All the ones I have found so far ignore homeopathy, which leads me to believe the article should to. And just because some articles contain rubbish doesn't meant that the one I am working on should too. Rather, all unsupported irrelevant or marginal information should be removed from articles making them shorter, cleaner and clearer. Stephen B Streater (talk) 21:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

You missed this "Hahnemann proved that tincture of Belladonna given in very small doses will protect from the infection of scarlet fever, and at one time Belladonnna leaves were held to be curative of cancer, when applied externally as a poultice, either fresh or dried and powdered." Now, what say you? Anthon01 (talk) 21:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

That first sentence is a tad dubious, which may remove it as a reliable source. Stephen might have wrongly identified it as one. Jefffire (talk) 21:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Predictably he'll say he doesn't believe it, even if the article says it. BTW, I'm a bit astounded that the top reference on google has moved to the "sponsored links" side, just in the hour since I checked it last. Does that mean this change happened just today? At any rate, it's advertising. Apparently the only advertising that links to belladonna, if you search google for that single word. And it's a homeopathic pharmacy . You can't "ignore" homeopathy any more than you can ignore astrology. So what if it's self-promoting? So is every politician, even the bad ones. That doesn't make them non-encyclopedic. SBHarris 21:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

A reasonable guess. But actually my problem with this is that the very small doses mentioned in the article are not homeopathic doses, which would be billions of times smaller. The article is not talking about homeopathy. Stephen B Streater (talk) 22:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I missed this comment. If you are correct, then Hahnemann was poisoning his patients. Anthon01 (talk) 01:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

In fact this reference to Hahnemann was clearly about a homeopathic remedy. Anthon01 (talk) 02:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily. The figures quoted for the eye of 1/50000 grain are very small and given as safe. As the part you are referring to talks about scarlet fever, this is relevant - an account of early controlled trials to test the efficacy of belladonna to help scarlet fever (mentioning the earlier homeopathic claims): Begbie concludes: It is our opinion that experience has altogether failed to recommend the employment of belladonna, and that we should now be prepared to abandon the practice, as not only insufficient but absurd. (Begbie 1855, p 101). Just because something was incorrectly thought to be helpful does not merit its inclusion in an encyclopaedia. Stephen B Streater (talk) 08:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm finding that this repeated mischaracterisation of the discussion very unhelpful. This isn't about censoring anything, its about ensuring proper sourcing. Now it's probably highly likely that we will find a suitable source for the uses of belladonna in homeopathy, but the discussion is also deeply confused by the push to put homeopathic mentions into a much larger number of article where its prominance is much more limited. Jefffire (talk) 22:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I think people are people. We can't force everyone to live by science anymore than we can by religion. Both are important to to all of us and both need to be represent in a general encyclopedia. For some science is the new religion. Attempts to sanitize WP from fringe or pseudoscience, unscientific concepts IMO, are unacceptable and in effect censorship. I would consider these arguments against inclusion more justified in a scientific encyclopedia.

Jefffire: There are a large volume of sources already provided. I think WP should be about inclusion, not exclusion. I'm sure we will find sources for the most prominently used plants in homeopathy. I'm not sure they will meet the high standards of those who are opposed the mention of pseudoscience concepts in wikipedia. Anthon01 (talk) 22:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

If you read all the policies and guidelines, you will see that Misplaced Pages is not supposed to reflect the views of its editors, but the views of published reliable sources. This usually acts against inclusionism. This is not something I think is good or bad - just what Misplaced Pages is. If you like inclusionism, you can go to Wikinfo, for example. Stephen B Streater (talk) 22:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Not willy-nilly but inclusion based on RS and V. Anthon01 (talk) 22:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Stephen B Streater (talk) 08:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:SIGNIF

I want to point out that WP:SIGNIF is currently simply a redirect to WP:N, but as the above discussion (and other discussions that have occurred from time to time) makes clear, determining significance of points of views is different from the notably of subjects. I would encourage making WP:SIGNIF a stand-alone guidance and putting an articulation of what is involved in determining which viewpoints are signficant there. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 01:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It almost seems as if some who are involved in this current brouhaha just don't "get" the concept that a minority view could be significant, and still be absolutely WRONG! LOL. Well, duh. Yeah, a lot of the significant viewpoints that people have and have had throughout history are indeed totally WRONG! No wonder the world is in the state it is. Nevertheless, I think Misplaced Pages must present all significant points of view published by reliable sources, and we can let the facts speak for themselves. Dlabtot (talk) 03:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep. There's a longish article in Misplaced Pages on Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations. And another on Flat Earth Society, and yet another on Young Earth creationism. Another on Free energy suppression. These are minority opinions important enough to have articles devoted mainly to them as major topics (most of the contra evidence actually exists in other articles). So? SBHarris 03:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The fact that a viewpoint may be notable, and get its own article, doesn't necessarily make it a significant viewpoint in an article on another subject. Notability and significance are completely different concepts. Notability occurs in isolation; significance is measured with respect to a field of other viewpoints. Lots of actors, philosophers, scientists, and religious figures have their own articles, but a lot fewer have their viewpoints included in the Acting, Philosophy, Science, or Religion articles. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 06:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. All that has been demonstrated in this particular case is that belladonna is significant to homeopathy. There might even be enough material for an article on all the experiments people have done which show that there is no benefit to scarlet fever patients from taking belladonna. But what has not been demonstrated is that homeopathy is worth a mention in the belladonna article, any more than the numerous other subjects which belladonna is important to are mentioned. Just because a subject (like homeopathy) is notable, it doesn't mean that it is important to everything it uses. Another subject like this is Jamie Oliver, a celebrity chef in the UK. He cooks leeks, peas, beans, goose etc, but is not mentioned in those articles. Similarly Homeopathy uses belladonna, but is not mentioned in that article. Stephen B Streater (talk) 08:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Permit me - with all due respect - to show a possible flaw in your comparison using Jamie Oliver. Jamie Oliver is a person notable for cooking. Much like Samuel Hahnemann is a person notable for homeopathy. Now your comparison would be applicable if we were trying to include information about Hahnemann in this article. But we are not. We are trying to include information about his profession. So, using your analogy, would we be more likely to see mention of "cooking" in the beans article or "beans" in cooking article? Clearly - and you can check this out for yourself to be true - cooking (as a use) is mentioned in the beans article, but beans are not mentioned in the cooking article. A direct comparison reveals that homeopathy (as a use) should be mentioned in the belladonna article, while mentioning belladonna in the homeopathy article would be a little too specific. There's really no beans about it. -- Levine2112 10:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a good point. Of course a lot more people eat cooking than use homeopathy. Here's a proposal: I'll come up with a (non-cooking) publication on beans which mentions cooking, and you come up with a (non-homeopathy) article on DN which mentions homeopathy. Then we will all be happy. Isn't it surprising that it is proving so hard to find such a DN publication? I had assumed that they would common, but every day which goes by makes me realise that homeopathy is less relevant to the subject. Stephen B Streater (talk) 12:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually I have already found such a book (a non-homeopathic book, not the non-cooking book). Remember The Oxford Book of Health Food? I found this quite readily. So in your opinion, can we include the info now? -- Levine2112 18:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean the sentence: As far as can be discovered, there is no experimental evidence to support the use of belladonna in homeopathic medicine? Stephen B Streater (talk) 18:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

What absurd lengths people will go to claiming sourcing! ScienceApologist (talk) 18:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps people come to Misplaced Pages to check claims of homeopathic use though. If it is mentioned elsewhere in sceptical publications, we can think about giving similar weight here. Stephen B Streater (talk) 19:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

What has been demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt is that homeopathy is relevant to botany. That's why the botany department of the Natural History Museum has a botany project called "plants and Fungi used in Homeopathy". We therefore have a perfectly adequate non-homeopathy source, i.e. a botanical one interested in classification, which can be used to source the use of various plants in homeopathy.Number48 (talk) 18:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

And here's another source that contains general information on DN which includes homeopathy anongst it's medicinal uses. .Number48 (talk) 18:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

So we have a number of articles which give perhaps 5% of their medicinal use to mentioning homeopathic uses. To me, the OUP one looks like it would be one of the better references in WP (as a whole) to a sentence about 1 or 2 lines long, perhaps added to a renamed Obsolete medicine section - perhaps renamed Other medicinal uses. This would not give undue weight as an entire section (which it does not receive in the references), but will demonstrate the issue has been considered by the world outside homeopathy. Stephen B Streater (talk) 19:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the sentence could read as such: According to The Oxford Book of Health Foods, Belladonna "is included... in homeopathic preparations for acne, boils, and sunburns" however "there is no experimental evidence to support the use of belladonna in homeopathic medicine." Sound reasonable? -- Levine2112 21:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I really don't see the need for so many qualifiers. Jefffire (talk) 21:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

What would be your suggested wording? -- Levine2112 22:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The reference will make it clear where it comes from. We could say: Belladonna is included in homeopathic preparations for acne, boils, and sunburns despite the absence of scientific support for its use. Stephen B Streater (talk) 08:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

How significant is the absence of evidence? Have studies disconfirmed or just not been performed? —Whig (talk) 08:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Studies have been performed for various claimed uses, and have all showed no discernable effect. I quoted an early one a few days ago. When making medical claims, the onus is on those making the claims to provide evidence that they are not just talking rubbish. We can't include a claim in this encyclopaedia just because some one said it.Stephen B Streater (talk) 08:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

No, of course we cannot include non V/RS claims. But it goes both directions, we can't make non V/RS negative claims either. —Whig (talk) 09:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Given the source we are using, I think Stephen B Streater's wording is acceptable. -- Levine2112 15:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

"eye of newt and toe of frog, wool of bat, and tongue of dog are frequently included in witch's brews, despite the absence of scientific support for their use." do you see the problem here? As soon as we say, "witch's brews", it is unnecessary to go further and point out that there is no scientific support. It is a statement that those things are included as ingredients, not a statement that witch's brews are effective. The question of whether or not witch's brews are effective does not even arise. But are witch's brews effective? Res ipsa loquitur. Dlabtot (talk) 16:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but my point is that the source which we are using for Belladonna actually does say: There is no experimental evidence to support the use of belladonna in homeopathic medicine. I figured why not include it? Especially if it is a compromise that will appease those otherwise wishing to keep this information off the page. Of course, if a reliable source was produced which negated the statement - a source which showed that there is experimental evidence to support the use of belladonna in homeopathy - then, of course the statement should be removed. -- Levine2112 17:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree - later experimental evidence trumps a prior lack of experimental evidence. The difference between witches brews and homeopathy is that some claim that homeopathy is supported by science, so a clear statement it is not is required. Putting homeopathic uses in WP automatically gives them some credence, and we wouldn't want people to think that the homeopathic claims were scientifically supported when they are not. PS The recent reduction in obsolete medicine section solves another undue weight issue! Stephen B Streater (talk) 19:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm speaking strictly in terms of what is the best style to use. Homeopathy is quackery; rational people understand that; non-rational people aren't going to change their minds because every time homeopathy is mentioned in Misplaced Pages (if ever, lol), we add a disclaimer that says it has no scientific basis. Such a disclaimer is simply unnecessary. But I recognize that given the ongoing battle raging on many pages, questions of what the best style for an encyclopedia to use are considered somewhat secondary. Dlabtot (talk) 19:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you comments regarding style. Unfortunately style in this case takes a back seat to compromise. Anthon01 (talk) 22:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the consensus (though not necessarily unanimous view) is now to include a proportionate mention. The warning balances the fact of the entry. I have added this to the article (!) as I think any further debate will be more balanced between different views from this point rather than the lack of mention position of the article. Stephen B Streater (talk) 19:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

To answer your specific point, the article in the original source thought it was worth mentioning , and as we are using this as our reliable source, I think we can safely mention it too. Not mentioning it may risk accusations of editorial bias. Stephen B Streater (talk) 19:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Scientific justification

I don't understand how a statement about people's beliefs or behavior could be regarded as non-fringe only if the belief or behavior itself is considered scientifically justified. If the use of belladonna for folk or homeopathic remedies is a significant human use of the plant, and this can be reliably documented, judgements about the reasonableness of the beliefs or behavior involved would not seem to matter. Since human beliefs and behvior are often characterized as unreasonable, omitting statements about them based on opinions of their accuracy/value, rather than on objective considerations such as observed frequency of occurrance, would seem to pose WP:NPOV difficulties . Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 19:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. -- Levine2112 20:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. But here we can do better, by providing a wikilink to the article about the beliefs, so people can explore the idea for themselves. Stephen B Streater (talk) 20:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

There are editors who will not have it, and so it is their on POV that will prevail. Anthon01 (talk) 20:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree with SBS; we should provide a link to homeopathy so interested readers can go there and learn more - that's the advantage of an electronic encyclopedia! -- Levine2112 20:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

And I don't want to get in revert wars with editors who seem to be ignoring NPOV in this particular instance. Edits such as this seem to me to be disregarding NPOV (and V and RS). -- Levine2112 20:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Does the inclusion of this text in anyway violate WP:NPOV

There is a lot of talk above. More editors favor inclusion than not. Those that are against inclusion maintain that the NPOV policy should be interpreted such that a source must be presented which shows not that Deadly Nightshade is notable to Homeopathy but rather that Homeopathy is notable to Deadly Nightshade. I have asked for passages from NPOV which justify this rationale and still have not see an answer. Meanwhile, many references have been provided all confirming that Deadly Nightshade is in fact used in the preparation of a homeopathic remedy. This usage has been notable enough to be researched in a few dozen studies published in notable scientific journals, and written about in both homeopathic and non-homeopathic books; most relevant to this discussion is its mention in the Oxford Book of Health Food and its description in Medline. Using these sources, we can easily devise a sentence which in effect would read: Deadly nightshade is included in homeopathic preparations for acne, boils, and sunburns despite the absence of scientific support for its use. It's neutrally worded from the sources and totally verified. The question which we would like answered here remains: Does the inclusion of this text at Deadly nightshade in anyway violate WP:NPOV? If so, how? Please be specific. If not, can we please include this text and move onto something better? Please! :-) -- Levine2112 03:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, it's no worse than any of the other mentions of uses for Deadly Nightshade (though whether that section at all should be there is another debate). If those stay in, there's nothing wrong with a mention of homeopathy. The reason, I suspect, that there's such a big deal about this is because there was a massive push by a group of pro-homeopathy editors to include mentions of homeopathy across the encyclopedia, in only tangentially-related articles. If these mentions had been made by neutral editors, I doubt there'd be much of an issue. But then the "defense" started to overflow, and so now you have another group trying to eradicate mentions of homeopathy wherever possible. --Infophile 04:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Chicken or egg --- who started it seems pretty irrelevant. Thank you for weighing in on the question of whether inclusion of this material is appropriate. I agree with your assessment that it is. Dlabtot (talk) 05:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Infophile: So let's agree with the other group of editors, the ones who are trying to expunge homeopathy, that only the most significant use of plants for homeopathy will be supported for inclusion, significant based upon the standard used here with belladonna. Anthon01 (talk) 11:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

How about we just leave those articles alone? At this point, any edit from either of these groups is just going to look like POV pushing. Leave these articles the way you found them (with regards to mentions of homeopathy, other positive edits can stay), and fight your battles elsewhere. (To be honest, I'd prefer the fight to stop completely, but I'm trying to be realistic.) --Infophile 18:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Since you ask for more input, the criterion for inclusion of any mention of this minority subject which lacks mainstream scientific support is, in WP:NPOV terms, its significance to the topic of the article. The implications of WP:SOAP for advocacy of ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view, such as esoteric claims about medicine, are clarified in WP:FRINGE. The need for notability is set out in WP:FRINGE#Identifying fringe theories, "In order to be notable, a fringe theory should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory. Even debunking or disparaging references are adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents. .. Theories should receive attention in Misplaced Pages in proportion to the level of detail in the sources from which the article is written." From WP:FRINGE#Unwarranted promotion of fringe theories, "Conjectures that have not received critical review from the scientific community or that have been rejected should be excluded from articles about scientific subjects." So, the significance to the subject has to be verified by third party reliable sources independent of the proponents of homeopathy. Where that's established, both the homeopathic claim and the mainstream view of such treatment have to be shown to avoid undue weight, and the formulation shown above appears to be on the right lines. . . dave souza, talk 22:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

We have discussed this in detail on another thread, Homeopathy cannot be described as fringe in that it is used by millions of people and is part of the mainstream of medicine in some countries. —Whig (talk) 22:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

"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 of study." That description applies to homeopathy in relation to mainstream medical science, regardless of what proportion of people use the medication in one or two countries. The term fringe may seem unfortunate, but that's what the guidance page is called. .. dave souza, talk 23:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Except, as I have pointed out, homeopathy is perfectly within the mainstream view in its field of study in India. —Whig (talk) 23:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Undue V Fringe

What happens when when you have a topic that conflicts with mainstream science, but where mainstream science's contribution is so small that it's actually the minority view?

For example, where you have a something fanciful that many people believe is true which is highly notable because it has substantial media coverage and popular culture coverage, but which has never been scientifically investigated because scientists just shrug their shoulders and say "nah, that's not possible". Making the unscientific popular view the majority view and the scientific opinion the hard to WP:V minority view?

How does undue weight apply. Do you approach the topic from the mainstream perspective even though there is no real mainstream perspective to speak of, or do you approach it from the majority perspective even though it is unscientific because it is the perspective from which weight applies?

More specifically, what happens when the topic is only notable because of the unscientific majority belief? - perfectblue (talk) 21:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It depends how something is presenting itself. If a subject wishes to present itself as being scientific, then it must be presented giving weight to the majority scientific opinion. However if a subject presents itself as a belief, with more of the article dedicated to aspects of this belief rather than claims of effectiveness or method of action, then the scientific opinion matters little to the subject. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - if no such claims are significantly made, then no such evidence is needed, but the reverse applies equally. LinaMishima (talk) 21:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Fringe status is with respect to a particular framework. The Great Story, for example, is an excellent example of fringe theology, opinion representing itself as theology which isn't accepted as legitimate by mainstream theologians. The same story might not be fringe with respect to a different framework. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 23:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to point-out that our project is not to write a scientific encyclopedia, so the initial discussion is perhaps a false dichotomy. We're simply writing an encyclopedia. Take for example Ginseng. This plant/herb is mentioned in literally dozens of what you might call health food, folk medicine, and homeopathic uses and yet receives not much attention in the way of peer-reviewed medical uses. Although we consider peer-reviewed journals to be a more reliable source than not, in a case where there is scant peer-review, we simply have to go with what we have.Wjhonson (talk) 01:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

LinaMishima, sadly, I've fought this battle many a time on pages with editors who seem to believe that every topic should be tackled solely from a scientific perspective, which is a bit silly since this most often occurs on pages about urban myths and legends where there is no scientific perspective other than "it's just a myth". I'd like something written into policy to stave off people trying to treat myth and science in the same way. So long as the introduction makes clear that the page is about a myth it shouldn't matter that there is no scientific credibility in it. - perfectblue (talk) 11:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Your comment above If a subject wishes to present itself as being scientific, then it must be presented giving weight to the majority scientific opinion seems to contradict WP:WEIGHT which says Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them—Misplaced Pages is not a paper encyclopedia. But on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it must make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. So appropriate reference is the correct reading. Anthon01 (talk) 12:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I think Anthon is agreeing with me - that if something presents itself as a myth, legend or belief then it should be addressed first and foremost as a myth, legend or belief, whilst if something purports to be a science, then the appropriate frame of reference is that of science. If someone can suggest a means to enhance the wording of the section to make this 'framework' aspect clear, perhaps we could discuss clarifying this? LinaMishima (talk) 16:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know where you got the impression that he is agreeing with you, considering that he explicitly disagreed. I disagree as well. This idea of a 'framework' under which 'a subject wishes to present itself' doesn't appear in the policy for several good reasons. One being that 'subjects', such as don't possess the ability to 'wish' nor do the poseess the ability to 'present themselves'. People, that is editors, must present the topic, and the frame of reference (another way of saying point of view) under which they must be presented is not a scientitific or mythic one but a neutral one, which represents fairly and, as much as possible, without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources). Undue weight also quite clearly says that it applies to "Articles that compare views", and then goes on to state that, as Anthon01 has already quoted, "Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them—Misplaced Pages is not a paper encyclopedia. But on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it must make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view." Note also that nothing in the NPOV policy treats the scientific view as a special case in any way. Dlabtot (talk) 19:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps not, but LinaMishima is correct regarding how topics are generally addressed here. The goal is to write an encyclopedia that could function as a respectable reference work. Topics that identify as "scientific" are generally treated from a scientific-majority perspective. ArbCom has codified this widespread practice in one of their more oft-cited decisions: "Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Misplaced Pages aspires to be such a respected work." In other words, on "scientific topics", there is a fairly clear overlap between SPOV and NPOV. The difficult detail, as always, is what constitutes a "scientific topic", and that can only be resolved on a case-by-case basis and not by generalities. MastCell 19:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The scientific point of view is not a competing policy with WP:NPOV. The WP:SPOV shortcut links to a page that says it is: A historical page is either no longer relevant or consensus has become unclear. Dlabtot (talk) 19:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

SPOV was rejected as a separate policy because of concerns that it would be applied outside strictly scientific fields, and because its salient points were already better covered under WP:NPOV. Nonetheless, the "scientific" point of view does overlap dramatically with the neutral point of view on scientific topics, given the goal of creating a useful and respectable reference work, as ArbCom has affirmed. MastCell 19:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

As you rightly point out, SPOV, is not a policy, it is a point of view. Therefore it can't by definition, 'overlap' with the policy that states how it, and other points of view, should be presented. If you want to claim that ArbCom "has affirmed" otherwise, you should provide a quote or diff that says that, not one that says something quite different from your assertion. Dlabtot (talk) 21:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Re-read the ArbCom ruling . Overviews of scientific topics are expected to be in line with respected scientific thought. Discussions of the SPOV proposal are somewhat of a red herring here. As for the discussion at hand, you seem to be advocating an 'absolute point of view', that there is such a thing as a truly neutral and purely objective view on anything (the closest thing to this is logic, which is the basis of the scientific method...). As irrational beings with instincts, emotions, upbringings and opinions, with experience of but a single ball of rock (in almost all cases), we simply cannot ourselves be the arbiters of what the absolute point of view is (however tragic this inability may be). As such, the best we can rationally achieve is an impartial point of view, including all opinions upon a matter in accordance to the prominence of each in relation to the others and those within related and interworking fields of study with relate to the subject to hand, and with respect to the direct topic at hand rather than those which relate but are not directly the subject in question (the wording of this entire passage is, I admit, utterly awful). What ultimately governs this coverage is, and may be widely observed to be throughout wikipedia, the notability of the various aspects of a subject (as much as a generally prefer to avoid notability). This is why we do not devote the majority of the article on a religion to the 14th century discussions over the importance of cheese to the faith (unless, of course, this forms the basis of the faith). Similarly, this is why we talk about the impact that a person themselves had in greater depth to that of their son's impacts upon the world. I could go on and on, but it should be clear that some form of determination has to be drawn as to what gets covered within an article, it is simply impossible to compartmentalise subjects in individual articles otherwise, and similarly those matters of greater importance to a subject must be covered in more depth. If someone reading this is feeling very kind, they may wish to translate much of the waffle here into plain english, it is most hard to write about such subjects without using terms such as neutral, impartial, weight, and so on! LinaMishima (talk) 23:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Since I never said or implied anything that remotely approximates what you say I "seem to be advocating", I don't have any response to your response to an argument I did not make. Dlabtot (talk) 23:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

As i understand it, Misplaced Pages has expressly rejected favoring scientific points of views as opposed to other points of views. Views are significant with respect to (a) sheer numbers (the most common popular viewpoint is generally significant) and (b) contribution to general culture/knowledge etc. Scientific points of view have made a major contribution to general culture and hence scientific points of view are essentially always significant, but religious, humanistic, philosophical, and other points of view are often significant as well. Viewpoints need to be represented as such. One good reason for including more than one viewpoint is that different viewpoints influence each other and can change each other over time. For example, half a century ago environmentalism was thought to be a non- or even anti-scientific point of view, whereas it is now commonly thought of as a scientific point of view. But non-scientific thought about the environment affected the cultural environment in which scientists did their work. The ArbCom ruling is limited to theories that purport to be scientific (if they claim to be scientific, then that claim must be backed up by mainstream science), and doesn't apply to general culture and other viewpoints that don't claim to be science-based. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 02:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Well put. Dlabtot (talk) 04:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Amen. —Whig (talk) 22:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

You say: "sheer numbers (the most common popular viewpoint is generally significant)". Are you suggesting science articles need to include the popular consensus or are you refering to popular viewpoints among scientists? If the former, that makes little sense when wrting an encyclopedia. What is your rationale for throwing all ideas, even those long discredited into the pot? This approach seems more like a history of science approach to writing about science. David D. (Talk) 03:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

WP favors the scientific consensus in whatever field of science an article is about. But the reason isn't that this is most scientific, but that within the sci field -within the subject range of the article- it is most notable. If an article isn't about science, then notability is followed in other ways. And certainly, in an article on evolution for instance, it wouldn't be complete without a mention of dissenting views. But the consensus in the scientific field of evolution takes up the vast majority of the article. It's about the notable presented neutrally. Science doesn't really even have to be considered as such. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

UNDUE vs DUE

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Imo, the undue weight section makes a laudable effort, but only in one direction. I think the concept works both ways and the section should be slightly amended to also warn against censorship in articles. I.e., information that has been covered by reliable sources should be given DUE weight, according to its significance within the entirety of the topic. Otherwise, as is frequently the case, some do game the policy by claiming UNDUE whenever someone tries to improve the completeness and thereby overall accuracy of an article. User:Dorftrottel 12:23, February 19, 2008

• support per above  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 19:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment The policies have generally been stated in only one direction, and consistentlantly. -- we have a WP:FRINGE identifying what to exclude, but no separate WP:SIGNIF identifying what to include. One reason is that we can inforce exclusion of inappropriate viewpoints by removing content. But it's not as simple to "enforce" the ommission of viewpoints that should be included or are underweighted; editors simply have to add the content. We can tag the article, but it's up to editors to balance it. I suspect there is some bias towards what is easier to enforce. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 20:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I've seen a fair cross-section of articles where editors "establish consensus" that certain information should not be included, in spite of reliable sources. — "But it's not as simple to "enforce" the ommission of viewpoints that should be included or are underweighted; editors simply have to add the content." — But many passers-by won't try for a very long time, and some will even revert sourced additions they don't like over and over, and I'm sure everyone has seen it. It can be enforced, and it should be, that's my very concern. Granted, an RfC can be opened etcpp, but many —understandably— don't bother to try that. The question is, why do we install stepping stones for accuracy and completeness in one direction, but not the other? It may be because of more notable experiences where people tried to insert fringe views, but I think the other, more low-level, variant is just as much of a problem and it should be able to simply point status quo guardians to a policy (they tend to deliberately ignore guidelines as being "just" guidelines) instead of having to open a full-fledged WP:DR. User:Dorftroffel 12:11, February 21, 2008
    • Do you have an example of where this is a problem? You seem to have a specific "they" in mind, so an illustration would probably help crystallize the issue. My 2 cents: WP:NPOV already states: "The article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." In fact, it's the first sentence of the WP:UNDUE subsection. I'm not sure that more policy creep is necessary; if there's a problem here, it's with practice, not with insufficient prescription in policy. MastCell  18:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Agree we have no need for more instructions to obey (instruction creep), but a guideline in the sense of an instruction manual, which one can read or ignore as liked, would be very helpful. What is DUE? How much is DUE, how much is undue? What is proportion, what is prominence? Are we counting votes? Who is eligable to vote? 2 billion people are Chinese, yet I do not feel they should have a major vote in the content of en.wikipedia. Any hints are welcome. And I would love to be shown some pages where consensus was reached to let certain things out. Do you mean real consensus, where a course of action chosen that is likely to satisfy the most persons (rather than merely the majority). ?  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 12:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems there is nothing there: Help Search  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 12:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

proposal: what is DUE

What determines a specialist? How does one measure the general population? Since most of the population doesn't know what the capital of Brunei is, do we say that Brunei doesn't have a known capital? Etc. etc. etc. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

your first two questions are very relevant! Your third one, I do not understand. The people who do not know Brunei do not have the view that it does not exist, they do not have a view. That's not a problem for Misplaced Pages, is it? We can ignore them.
Back to your first two questions: they cannot be answered rigourously or exactly. We can use indications: the community involved is the sum of all the stakeholders and all the participants in the debate. A specialist is someone who is considered by both parties to be more knowledgeable than average, but that need not imply that his/her expertise is good enough or that his/her conclusions can be relied upon. On the contrary: specialists' opinions will most likely be fiercly debated.
It does not matter that it is hard: we need a minimum DUE guideline, or else we have these discussions at 1.000.000 articles instead of over here.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 22:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

second proposal

every claim in an article representing the majority POV, when not attributed, may be balanced with a RS-sourced claim or statement representing a significant minority view. When attributed, all the majority claims together may be concisely balanced by representing the cardinal points for the significant minority view(s), including all non-disputed RS-based circumstances on which they make their case.

 — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 08:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Since there has been no further discussion upto now, I made a corresponding change, being BOLD. Let's hear if it needs more improving.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 14:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

  I edited the comments with two ideas in mind: one) minority viewpoints should only be described if they are prominent. two) balance is not the point of WEIGHT. The wording about "not describing majority viewpoints as fact" and "every majority viewpoints deserves a minority viewpoint" is counter the the sense in which this policy is made. For an example of why this is absurd see Apollo moon landing hoax accusations. Following your proposal would mean we wouldn't say that "Neil Armstrong stepped foot on the moon in 1969" anywhere in this encyclopedia -- an absurd proposition. More than this, given your new wording we would have to counter every mention of the moon landing with a fringe viewpoint in such a case: obviously this cannot happen. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not interpreting Xiutwel's comment that way. I heard "may be balanced with a RS-sourced claim or statement representing a >>significant<< minority view. Could anyone reasonably make a case that the Apollo moon landing hoax accusations are significant, and use that assertion to "mean we wouldn't say that "Neil Armstrong stepped foot on the moon in 1969" anywhere in this encyclopedia". Seems like a stretch. WNDL42 (talk) 15:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I just edited the text to suggest that "a prominent viewpoint" be "prominent viewpoints", insofar as often there are several prominent minority views. Simple example is Christianity. Catholicism is by far the most "prominent" perspective, but "a prominent minority view" would only require describing Protestantism, if "due" comes from a primarily numeric weight. However, Orthodox Christianity is another "prominent minority view". That's not a great example, because several million people would also made that group "of due weight", but this was intended as a simple example of the non-binary nature of prominence. --Christian Edward Gruber (talk) 16:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec) :::Opps, I see there's a discussion up here. The final result wasn't so bad but I don't see a case for needing them and my concerns I spoke about below are still valid. RxS (talk) 16:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it's way too prescriptive. The wording seems to address a relatively narrow content dispute in one area of the encyclopedia, but such prescriptive language is going to have all kinds of unintended consequences. Mandating "minimal due weight" - that a minority view's claims be presented in detail - will lead to the insertion of "rebuttals" and the refighting (rather than characterization) of disputes on Misplaced Pages.

Also, "majority viewpoint claims should be explicitely attributed as such, not presenting them as undisputed facts" is a recipe for disaster. I can guarantee, for example, that immediately after such language is enacted, a handful of editors will insist that we alter every reference to HIV/AIDS to read "AIDS is believed by the majority of scientists to be caused by HIV" - to accomodate the AIDS denialist viewpoint. Does that make the encyclopedia better or worse?

What problem are we trying to fix here? Also, the edit in question bore little resemblance to the "second proposal" archived above, unless I'm missing something. MastCell  17:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

"little resemblance"... In my opinion, and certainly in my intention, it meant exactly the same. I am not a native English speaker, and the sentences do not come naturally to me.  &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 08:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Quick note about the undue weight section

moved section up from more below to avoid confusion, Xiutwel, 08:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I took out the new content in the undue weight section. I'd rather not have editors who are involved in undue weight debates and minority views go and start changing relevant policy without discussion first. Being bold is a good thing but sometimes it can go too far. I realize some modifications were made to that section, but I'd still prefer changes to come from the ground up via discussion. Thanks. RxS (talk) 16:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I commented further up, in an earlier thread, to the effect that the proposed change was way too prescriptive and focused narrowly on a specific content dispute. I also agree on the undesirability of having changes to policy enacted by editors involved in a content dispute in which they would benefit directly from the proposed change. MastCell  20:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• I am happy with the contributions this proposal is getting. Let me make some points clear:
  1. What problem are we trying to fix here?
     —endless POV debates on countless talkpages. /X
  2. ...the undesirability of having changes to policy enacted by editors involved in a content dispute in which they would benefit directly from the proposed change.
     —If I get my way, I benefit. If we make an enhancement to policy together, all will benefit. (It appears I had to make a change to the policy first to get the debate here on the talk page going.) /X
  3. There are two issues at stake (let's edit the new proposals just underneath using strikethrough and red text):
     1. A.: What is the minimum DUE weight? /X

        • Keeping proportion in mind, the minimum due coverage would be to present those facts and claims which are deemed relevant from the perspective of the significant minority viewpoints even when they are not deemed significant from the view the majority viewpoint.

     2. And B.: When should the majority view be attributed, and when should it be presented as factual?.  &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 08:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

        • Majority viewpoint claims, when opposed by prominent significant minority views, should in principle be explicitely attributed as such, not presenting them as undisputed facts. In case they are not attributed (per sentence or per subsection or per article) each claim ought to be balanced by the corresponding significant minority claim on each separate occasion, regardless of overall proportion in the article.

Comment on proposal B: I've added the possibility of attributing per section, which would make it unnecessary to use weaselish words. Rationale for B is to "force" our editors to remain neutral and attribute claims appropriately. A good example is the evolution article, which in its first sentence explaines that part of is a theory and refers to Evolution as theory and fact, and after that it makes sense that the rest of the article is describing a theory, not absolute truth.  &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 09:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment I agree we must not make a policy which will lead to unreasonable editing. So if the proposals above can be mis-interpreted, please improve them!  &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 09:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see what is unclear about the policy as it stands. Why does it need to be changed? The case does not seem to have been made. Dlabtot (talk) 12:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Dlabtot. Evolution is a good example, as it's a science article and science, by definition, does not describe absolute truth. Adding these ideas to policy would provide a loophole for demands that every mention of evolution be qualified as being "the mainstream scientific theory", giving undue weight to creationist "teach the controversy" ideas. .. dave souza, talk 13:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, I think 1A is way too prescriptive. Mandating "minimum due weight" in policy is a bad idea - this should be left to the editors of individual articles, because the minimum due weight really does vary substantially depending on the view being described. Additionally, 1A substitutes "the perspective of the minority view" for the "perpective of the majority view", which conflicts with WP:WEIGHT and, I think, is a mistake on encyclopedic grounds as well.

As to 1B, again, I think this is too prescriptive and would be destructive if applied to large portions of the encyclopedia. My example is that of HIV/AIDS: according to 1B, our articles on HIV/AIDS would have to continuously say that AIDS is "believed by a majority of scientists" to be caused by HIV. That's awkward, misleading, and unencyclopedic, but 1B would presumably mandate it. MastCell  21:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Morally offensive views

I'm not entirely sure about what we have written for Morally offensive views:

Morally offensive views

What about views that are morally offensive to most Westerners, such as racism, sexism, and Holocaust denial, that some people actually hold? Surely we are not to be neutral about them?

We report views that have been published by reliable sources. We do not report views that are held by tiny minorities, or views that reliable sources do not write about. Beyond that, we make no judgements. No view is omitted because someone might see it as prejudiced; if it is omitted from Misplaced Pages, it is because reliable sources have omitted it.

What I think:

1. Yes, of course we report views held by tiny minorites - as long as there are reliable sources regarding them.
2. The questions asks about NPOV, and the answer talks about criteria for inclusion - reliable sources.

I don't know if other people could help with that...

Thanks, Drum guy (talk) 14:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Ad 1.: we report on "significant minority views", but not necessarily on tiny ones. If with report you mean "mention that they exist", then mention in a RS would be enough. If by "report" you mean: balance the article with this view to be overall neutral, then tiny views should not be addressed, simply because there are too many tiny views possible to write about: it would clutter the article and selection would be arbitrary.
  Ad 2.: I think you are right, and that needs clearing up. — Sockrates dual 22:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, and sorry for taking so long to get back :)

I was still thinking about the issue of whether to include them - even for a miniscule minority view (I'm thinking of, for example, Holocaust denial), if there are reliable sources, it does need (I think) to be included - i.e. given an article. I of course agree about having a neutral article, which includes not giving undue weight to a view that's considered wrong, or have random possible views that some people might have.

Again, thanks for waiting :D Drum guy (talk) 23:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The neutral point of view.

I've undone the alteration of the section caption. I feel that:

The neutral point of view

is more clear. NPOV has two meanings: it is a qualifier for an article, and it is a viewpoint which is not an opinion but a perspective. The word "the" has extra meaning and extra clarity for me, and that should imo overrule naming conventions.  &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 20:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Question above

I posted a question above late in the discussion but I fear that it may have gotten lost, buried above the many discussions which follow it. If anyone uninvolved in the immediate dispute has both the time and the inclination, I would appreciate reading some of your input. Thanks so much. -- Levine2112 04:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

You posted many questions and the link you gave does not go anywhere. I do not want to read through pages of nonsense and guess what you want answered. I think you are not understanding UNDUE, which can also have consequences across all of Misplaced Pages. We do not want to have 20,000 minihomeopathy articles here. So that is the concern I suspect that you are not quite getting. Also, there is a question of how notable the use of homeopathy is in a given article.--Filll (talk) 14:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

What you want doesn't matter, does it? Has anyone request 20,000 edits to include minihomeopathy articles? Or is this hyperbole? Anthon01 (talk) 18:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Filll, perhaps you are not clicking it correctly, but my link should take you to the section above entitled: "Does the inclusion of this text in anyway violate WP:NPOV? It is a pretty direct single question which if you would like to answer, I would appreciate it. That said, rather than stating that I don't understand UNDUE, I think it would be safer to say that I don't understand your understanding of UNDUE. Please feel free to elucidate your understanding with citations from the actual policy. Much thanks. -- Levine2112 04:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Applying WP:UNDUE to this specific question: if one can only find this information in reliable sources discussing homeopathy, undue weight may well be a reason to keep it out as a tiny minority view. If it is found in reliable sources discussing deadly nightshade, inclusion should reflect the weight given in those sources. Involved editors may also want to consider Infophile's comment above (diff). The encyclopedia can be skewed by a limited group of editors going through a lot of articles to add or remove the same (type of) content. This editing pattern may not be uncommon as I have observed it on several occasions. Such changes are best discussed one article at a time. Avb 15:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It can be skewed by addition and omission. Scholarly books and articles mention belladonna's use for making homeopathic belladonna in their "uses" section. I think that is enough for adding "belladonna is used for making homeopathic belladonna" Anthon01 (talk) 16:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy, NPOV and Minority Topics

This talk page is for discussing the policy itsself, not its interpretation in a specific case. Such a case may be an example of where the policy needs improving or discussing, but this Homeopathy debate has run off-topic, and has now become distracting to this page history, so I move the discussion to a subpage.  &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 08:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I see many cases being discussed here. I admit that the discussion was diverted from the topic, but I am committed to returning and remaining on topic. I would like to try to collapse the unecessary sections and leave this this discussion here. Anthon01 (talk) 13:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

So go ahead and propose new wording for the policy, since you are so certain you are correct.--Filll (talk) 13:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

I've done the bold thing and created Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, which was the last core/major policy whose implications seem to get fought over all the time and lead to no small number of edit wars. Lawrence § t/e 16:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Great idea! Anthon01 (talk) 16:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

User complaint

I have had additions I have made to articles removed that were verifiable and annotated clearly because editors, who had to make it clear they are part of Misplaced Pages's elite, did not agree with what I said. One addition, to a politician's page, was made "OK" through a lot of modification, was later moved to a separate page about a certain election, and later removed. You can threaten to banish me after one warning, you can stick your nose up in the air, you can demand politeness, but the TRUTH is that there are editors who seem to be highly placed who are damned hypocrites who have their own political adgenda that dictates what is allowable on Wiki, and I think it stinks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.141.198.58 (talk) 05:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

This is not the right place for this complaint. Try the village pump. Bensaccount (talk) 18:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Everywhere is the right place for this complaint. Dear anon, you are not alone. All I can say is: if you comply with all the WP policies, be stubborn, you will win at the end. Emmanuelm (talk) 15:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Remove templates

Would anyone mind if I removed the templates that are accumulating at the top of the page? They are unnecessary instruction creep. Bensaccount (talk) 22:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

This page, or the project page? Which templates? Thanks, Darkspots (talk) 22:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The project page. The nutshell and the 'reflect consensus' waste of space. Bensaccount (talk) 00:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

They should stay. As annoying as it is to regulars, the "page in a nutshell" really helps the (very) casual visitor. Darkspots (talk) 00:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

No it just repeats the introductory sentences in a box. Thats not helpful at all. Bensaccount (talk) 01:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Some people will come to this page because they click on a link in a template on their user talk page. If these people see nothing but a solid block of legalistic-looking text, they'll hit their back button faster than you'd believe possible. The templates soften the page, give their eyes something to rest on, something they may actually read. Seriously. Many, many people are like this. The two templates are simple, punchy points. Darkspots (talk) 04:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

We don't need to sacrifice having succinct nonrepetitive policy pages just to please people who are incapable of reading unboxed text. It is instruction creep and the clutter it creates outweighs any usefulness you may imagine it has.Bensaccount (talk) 05:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

If someone has an NPOV temp on their user talk page, we're not going to please them no matter what we do. If we can communicate, just a tiny bit, we're a little further ahead. If you quickly scan those text boxes you know that a) NPOV is a policy, b) we're serious about it, and c) NPOV means x. Maybe you'll stop whatever it is you're doing without a block, which means there's an incrementally larger chance you'll stick around and contribute effectively. The greater good of the project is worth a little clutter. Darkspots (talk) 13:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the threat, but I have been contributing effectively far longer than you, and I think I will stick around. The nutshell template and the reflect consensus templates on the project page are what I am speaking of. Your arguments are making very little sense with respect to this ("we aren't going to please people with NPOV templates on their user talk pages???") There is no good that comes from these boxes (never mind "greater good") Bensaccount (talk) 18:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa, whoa. The "you" in my post above is not you, Bensaccount. The "you" is a theoretical new user who has a {{Uw-npov1}} template on their user talk page. You misread my post--why in the world would I threaten you with a block? You and I are both longtime editors, and I've never thought differently.

We're talking about the same two templates. I'm talking about my impression of how the page would look to an impatient new user who made some edits that were considered tendentious and got an NPOV template slapped on their user talk page. They hit the link to this page, and look at it for the first time. My post above describes what they would see in a quick scan of the page. Perhaps they would then stop what they were doing because they realize that we have policy that covers this and we're serious about that policy. If they don't stop, they'll get blocked, and we almost certainly lose that contributor.

My above post is a little unclear, and I apologize for being unclear. But my arguments, I think, make a lot more sense than you give them credit for. I'm talking about a certain kind of user that this page needs to communicate with, and I think these text boxes could help to reach that kind of user. Every post I've made above describes that user in greater detail. My impression of your responses to me above is that you feel that impatient, tendentious new users can either read unvarnished plain text or lump it. I think that we need to try to reach these people, to do something to communicate with them, and that these text boxes are a good way to get across the points that need to be made to them. Darkspots (talk) 17:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE doesn't need changing

I'm concerned about the rush to introduce changes to a core policy, with discussions being templated closed after just a few days. WP:UNDUE is just fine and perfectly clear as it is. It already provides a sensible, workable guideline for determining what constitutes a significant view and what constitutes undue weight. It shouldn't be changed just because some folks aren't winning their battles. Dlabtot (talk) 12:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not about winning battles, it is about avoiding them. I admit I have my personal view on what the guideline is saying — I hope I am correct in it; the purpose of the discussion is to clear up misunderstandings. That can include me, if I am misunderstanding it.
The need? The battles I encountered exist because the policy is interpreted differently by different sides.
Discussions have been templated "closed archived" by me only to avoid confusion during discussing, because the same discussion has been accidently started at 3 different positions on this talk page. No implication of anything having been resolved is intended, nor any manipulation of any debate.
Are you willing to discuss the policy amendment with us now, or are you needing examples how and why the policy is causing disputes instead of avoiding them?  &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 12:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm totally willing to discuss the proposed policy change, which is unneeded and should not be implemented. Dlabtot (talk) 17:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The fights are because of differing interpretations. What needs to be done is to have the policies written more clearly, with examples, and possibly even with multiple choice tests to test your knowledge so you can understand what the policy actually is.--Filll (talk) 17:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The undue weight section definitely does still need changing. There are too many trolls here who like to argue just for the sake of fighting change. Bensaccount (talk) 18:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I like it how it is, but it is of no value if we will not enforce it, or the POV pushers and trolls interpret it in the opposite way from what it is intended. And the powers that be have decided NPOV and all related policies probably should not be enforced, so we end up in the mess we have now.--Filll (talk) 21:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

From the discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Neutral point of view/Homeopathy, NPOV and Minority Topics#Back to basics, it appears that there is a desire at alternative medicine articles at least for something on these lines:

Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them—Misplaced Pages is not a paper encyclopedia. On such pages the minority view may be spelled out in great detail, and appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint can be shown in a linked article devoted to majority views of the minority topic.

From my viewpoint, this would invite problems and conflict with WP:NPOV/FAQ and WP:FRINGE. A suggested revision which in my opinion clarifies the existing policies follows:

Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them—Misplaced Pages is not a paper encyclopedia. But on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, the article must include appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint showing the majority view of each topic covered in the article, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view.

My understanding is that this is the intent of existing policies, so that all articles represent fairly all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.. . .. dave souza, talk 21:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that undue weight is vague. This is why almost every other section on this talk page since 2005 is another person complaining about the vagueness of undue weight and subsequently being told that it is fine. Here are the changes that need to be made: It must state that the criteria for exclusion of viewpoints include lack of popularity, lack of relevance, and lack of expertise. It must also state that these are not absolutes, so consensus as to where the line is drawn must be worked out on the individual article pages. Everything else is useless rambling and must be removed. Bensaccount (talk) 22:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The other problem is that the lack of criteria and the vagueness seems to serve as a means to allow users to bypass discussion of reasons for inclusion or exclusion of a view and enforce the removal or inclusion of views based entirely on their personal biases. Bensaccount (talk) 22:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• It is better to have no guideline than one that is vague. UNDUE is not so vague but DUE is. So, it is incomplete. Let's have an example then, where I am involved in. For instance, suppose a French minister, a former British minister, and a former German minister are calling for an investigation into 911 government complicity, how much proportionate coverage is DUE? All I can find is a link to the 9/11 conspiracy theories article, which in turn focusses on the conspiracy theorists instead of the alleged lacunes in the official version. What is DUE? And how can participating editors use guidelines to ascertain that? A group of editors at the 911 article is blocking factual RS-sourced information on the basis that RS do not share the minority opinion. Is that what's intended?  &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 00:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

That example is way to confusing and personal to help us clarify anything here -- take it to the articles discussion page.Bensaccount (talk) 01:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

It's there already. Something else then: I have a little fantasy: it appears to me that you like majority opinions, and do not care when minority opinions are deleted using WP:UNDUE. But how about the core of NPOV, which says that significant minority views should get adequate treatment. We must be able to say more than "editors should discuss what is DUE"???  &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 02:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Undue weight is too vague to be "used" for deleting anything. The problem is that it nevertheless continues to be brandished by anyone who wants to exclude or include anything without reasonable discussion. Ideally it should provide the criteria that should be evaluated when considering to exclude a view. And popularity is only a small fraction of what needs to be considered. Bensaccount (talk) 02:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Undue weight is too vague to be "used" for deleting anything. That's not what I've encountered from at least 3 admins. Maybe you can find the time to have a look at Talk:9/11 at the undue weight discussions there?  &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 09:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

As I review past disputes on this topic, it strikes me that we have to do a better job of describing NPOV and documenting NPOV, handling difficult cases that "fall between the cracks" like what to do with FRINGE topics which have not been addressed by the mainstream in WP:RS since they are so obscure, giving examples and training people in NPOV. Part of the problem is that we just are too obscure and confusing when we describe NPOV. The information is spread over too many pages and too confusing. I would like to see an FAQ and other tools to help people understand NPOV. For example, creating an FAQ on the evolution talk page helped tremendously. I would like to see two versions; a succinct version with just short one sentence summary answers, and a longer set of FAQ answers.

Even if we do a better job of describing NPOV, we will always have some who are frantic to misinterpret NPOV or reinterpret NPOV. We will never change these. What we will do, is make it far easier for the average editor to get up to speed very fast on NPOV to slam these characters who want to misinterpret NPOV for their own purposes. --Filll (talk) 19:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

This thread is about the Undue Weight section. If your concerns are more general, create a new thread. Bensaccount (talk) 20:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the policy is perfectly clear. Just what is about the policy that you find confusing? Dlabtot (talk) 21:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

It is "clear" to those who need to be sure that others cannot speak of the policy with the same authority as they do. Not to me, or to the endless stream of editors who flood this page with requests to clarify it. Bensaccount (talk) 21:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Just what is about the policy that you find confusing? Dlabtot (talk) 16:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's an exact copy of what I said a a few lines above (as if this time anyone will read it or care): Here are the changes that need to be made: It must state that the criteria for exclusion of viewpoints include lack of popularity, lack of relevance, and lack of expertise. It must also state that these are not absolutes, so consensus as to where the line is drawn must be worked out on the individual article pages. Everything else is useless rambling and must be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bensaccount (talk • contribs) 23:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

lack of popularity, lack of relevance, and lack of expertise - ok - lack of popularity I understand. Lack of relevance - I'm not so sure.. I thought significance was established by citations to reliable sources ... of course there must be an editorial judgement as to whether a citation is relevant to the article topic - is that what you are referring to? I'm at a loss as to what you mean by "lack of expertise" in the the context of the NPOV policy, however. Could you elucidate? Dlabtot (talk) 05:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

ALthough I'm am not in principle opposed to modifying it I don't see the need to change it either at this time. Perhaps a companion essay or a guideline would be appropriate to clear up any confusion. Anthon01 (talk) 16:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I appears the problem is not with WP:UNDUE, but with those who'd like to alter it to give their viewpoints undue weight at Homeopathy articles. For that reason alone it is obvious that WP:UNDUE is functioning as it should. Odd nature (talk) 21:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Xiutwel: On second thought, do you have an example of what you would like to change? Anthon01 (talk) 02:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Often enough, I've added a sourced fact to an article, concerning news reports which are in my view relevant, which support a significant minority viewpoint that is disliked by other editors, and then gets removed/blocked from the article. I agree that a minority viewpoint should not take 50% of an article, but systemic deletion of the facts that support it, is not fair either. Someone wrote above that UNDUE cannot be "used" to block content, but in practice it is quoted when doing so. My question is: when 50% is (UNDUE) too much, how much would be DUE then? Giving significant minority views fair coverage means we cannot at the same time assert the majority view is the truth. This is a nuisance, but it is a fact: the majority view should be attributed to its proponents, and not stated as "the truth". Agree?
In my opinion, if we want to avoid using clumsy wording in every sentence, we should have either a broad disclaimer in the beginning of the article that it is presenting a majority view, with a small paragraph for the minority view, or it should be allowed to balance each unattributed claim with a counterclaim. This is the solution I proposed. Maybe I'm wrong, and looking in the wrong direction. But when 50% is UNDUE and 0% is too few, we have to have some guideline to help editors on a specific page get consensus on what is due. Even when all feel that no such criterion can be given in general, it would help to add the sentence: "The amount of coverage which is DUE should be decided upon by the editors on a per article basis." That would make things more clear already.  &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 16:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The question of whether a viewpoint is significant, and the further question of how much weight should be given to a significant minority view, is an editorial decision that is arrived at through consensus. Dlabtot (talk) 16:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

If "UNDUE" says no more than "SigMinView should not receive as much attention as the majority view", then I agree UNDUE does not need an amendment. However, I can use some help at discussing consensus at Talk:9/11, where a group of editors seem to me to feel that any addition which is unsupportive of their view is UNDUE.  &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 13:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I took the plea "I can use some help at discussing consensus at Talk 9/11" at face value and went there and read through that whole overlong, tedious, tendentious discussion. There's no help I can offer there except to echo, as gently as possible, the many things people there have already tried to tell you, that you're just not hearing. That's how it looks to me, a complete outsider. Woonpton (talk) 21:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

What happens when the majority view is out of sync with the evidence? When science says one thing but the public believe another wouldn't that make science the fringe view and thus mean that the entry should be weighed towards the popular opinion?

For example, if it could be demonstrated that 90% of the population believed that folk remedy XYZ worked, but 1 scientist does an experiment that said that proves that it didn't. Would the fringe be the uneducated masses or the educated scientist, and how would you weigh it? - perfectblue (talk) 17:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Classic argumentum ad populum. The truth of the matter is irrelevent of what people believe - Earth was still round when most people believed it was flat. To find reality, we follow the evidence. In most cases dealing with physical reality, scientists are the most capable at collecting and analyzing the evidence, and so their collective opinion is the strongest driving force (and we often further segregate it: physicists for physics, chemists for chemistry, historians for history, etc.). The public is easily swayed by propaganda and logical fallacies. The experts on a subject are (usually) better. They know what the pitfalls to investigation are, and so they try to avoid them. This is why our policy on undue weight appeals specifically to the expert opinion in the relevant field of study, and not public opinion. --Infophile 18:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh look - another person questions the vagueness that is 'undue weight' and is subsequently told that it is fine *see my comment above. Bensaccount (talk) 20:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Weight in an uneven environment?

How should you play it when you have a topic where the primary point of notability comes from sources that express one side of an argument but which are usually considered unreliable, while the other side of the argument comes from reliable sources but is not in itself notable enough to carry an entry, or even to justify its existence?

For example. On one side somebody claims to see a monster in the local lake. It generates masses of wild and spurious claims (sufficient to make it notable) all saying that the creature is real and that there is evidence for its existence and generating masses of potential content. On the other side there is a 1/2 page word entry in a peer reviewed journal explaining that the monster was something perfectly explainable, and that the evidence isn't. Not enough to make the entry notable. How do we weight it? Do you crop the first side down to give the second side the weight of the entry, do you give them equal billing, or do you do you say that because the first side has the weight of notability it should have the weight of the entry?

perfectblue (talk) 17:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Since the current section on weighting viewpoints is hopelessly vague I will explain to you how it actually works: Generally all views are included. The criteria for exclusion of viewpoints include lack of popularity, lack of relevance, and lack of expertise. These are not absolutes, so consensus as to where the line is drawn must be worked out on the individual article pages. Bensaccount (talk) 21:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

UNDUE Employed in Religious Pages

The "Dispute Resolution" page suggests asking questions on policy talk pages for deeper insights on them; so hello. I'm trying to understand when the "exceptions" for WP:UNDUE apply. Because the group I belong to is in a "tiny-minority", it is contended by editors from the mainstream Baha'is that the policy of undue weight exempts our views from being stated on the Baha'i divisions page; a page which outlines the history of division in the Faith. The discussions I've read here mainly have covered scientific views. My concern is religious in nature.

It has been contended on the talk page that the only appropriate place for criticisms of the mainstream group is on main article pages devoted to that particular group in the minority. I've contended that the policy states ""Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented *except* in articles devoted to those views". My question is what dictates exactly what is an "article devoted to those views"? Am I confused to think that an article that summarizes the history of dissent in the Faith is "devoted to those views"? The opposing contention is "This article is about Baha'i divisions, not Remeyite postions on Baha'i divisions. The majority position is the Baha'i position. As such your opinions are indeed tiny-minority ones — even here. Therefore, your insisting that it be "established or even eluded that anyone believed the UHJ was 'not elected per Shoghi Effendi's instructions'" be included is inappropriate. You've already got pages to make your own points." I wasn't ever trying to give and "extended treatment" to our view, but rather include one sentence that sums it up. They contend that the article is about the "majorities view" on the matter. So doesn't that mean its an "article devoted to those views"? _{Baha'i Under the Covenant} 07:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Someone will be along shortly to tell you that your questions regarding the vagueness that is 'undue weight' are unfounded and the section is fine. Bensaccount (talk) 17:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)