| Revision as of 21:49, 3 January 2009 editජපස (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers60,630 edits →Undue weight in application to articles about pseudoscience: r← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:02, 3 January 2009 edit undoDicklyon (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers477,756 edits →Undue weight in application to articles about pseudoscienceNext edit → | ||
| Line 112: | Line 112: | ||
| ::]. The majority of the article should provide context to the reader as to why the particular pseudoscientific idea is notable and what the facts are surrounding it. In general, it's best to avoid a "criticisms" section outright and instead incorporate factual context into articles. By the way, you probably want to ask this question at ] to get more visibility. ] (]) 21:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC) | ::]. The majority of the article should provide context to the reader as to why the particular pseudoscientific idea is notable and what the facts are surrounding it. In general, it's best to avoid a "criticisms" section outright and instead incorporate factual context into articles. By the way, you probably want to ask this question at ] to get more visibility. ] (]) 21:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC) | ||
| :::I don't think that's right. ScienceApologist is all about swamping the articles on fringe or pseudoscience ideas with "factual" information about why they're wrong. But to "incorporate factual context" as he suggests is really to synthesize a debunking, to editorialize, to frame the fringe idea in the scientific point of view, as opposed to presenting it on its own terms, in a neutral point of view. I agree with ], but to choose facts to put a fringe idea into "context" is to distort the idea itself, and contravenes ]. What's better is to find reliable sources that assert facts and opinions about the topic idea itself, and report those. Don't go looking for contrary facts, just report what's been published about the topic idea itself. If it hasn't elicited much critical reaction, you won't have to say much. ] (]) 22:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 22:02, 3 January 2009
Shortcut
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.
 | Are you in the right place?For questions or discussions about the application of this policy to any specific article(s), please post your message at either the NPOV Noticeboard (any neutrality-related issue) or the Fringe Theories Noticeboard (undue weight given to a minority view). |
 | Spoken Misplaced Pages | |||
| ||||
- Archived discussions
- Archive_001 Discussions before October 2004
- Archive_002 Closing out 2004
- Archive_003 Discussions begun Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr 2005
- Archive 004 July to November 4, 2005
- Archive 005 to November 13, 2005
- Archive 006 to December 4, 2005
- Archive 007 to December 30, 2005
- Archive 008 to December 27, 2005
- Archive 009 to January 16, 2006
- Archive 010 to January 23, 2006
- Archive 011 to January 25, 2006
- Archive 012 to January 26, 2006
- Archive 013 to January 29, 2006
- Archive 014 to January 29, 2006
- Archive 015 to March 8, 2006
- Archive 016 to March 10, 2006
- Archive 017 to April 09, 2006
Note: Edit history of 001-017 is in 017.
- Archive 018: Apr 2006
- Archive 019: Apr 2006 - May 2006
- Archive 020: May 2006 - Jun 2006
- Archive 021: Jun 2006
- Archive 022: Jul 2006
- Archive 023: Jul-Aug 4 2006
- Archive 024: Aug 4-Sept 21 2006
- Archive 025: Sept 22 - Oct 2006
- Archive 26: Nov - Dec 2006
- Archive 27: Jan - Feb 2007
- Archive 28: Mar - May 2007
- Archive 29: May - September 2007
- Archive 30: Oct 2007 - Feb 2008
- Archive 31: Feb - May 2008
- Archive 32: May 2008 - July 2008
- Archive 33: July 2008
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.
FAQ pseudoscience discussion reopened
Moved discussion to Misplaced Pages talk:Neutral point of view/FAQ#FAQ pseudoscience discussion reopened
Map issues - India & China
Academic criticism
I have encountered, of late, a troubling trend of people dismissing peer-reviewed academic criticism as an insignificant and non-notable perspective, and removing accounts of academic criticism from articles. This, combined with the tendency we display by default to have articles based on what comes up on Google bothers me, in that it seems to me to cheapen our coverage. We're an encyclopedia, and part of that means respecting academic perspectives.
Accordingly, I would like to add a quick note somewhere in this policy, parallel to the declaration in WP:RS that "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources when available" that notes that academic and scholarly views are a particularly important viewpoint to make sure is represented when possible.
Thoughts? Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- I think this is a good thought. It is common good practice for sources of greater reliability to be accorded greater weight. For example, a current university textbook from Oxford University Press detailing ancient Christian history is usually going to be accorded much greater weight than an article in USA Today about the social climate of the early Christian church. Leaving aside questions about the accuracy of news reporting on academic subjects, it is not that USA Today is unreliable, but rather that a work from one of the most reputable academic presses will be considered significantly more reliable and appropriate for the topic than a newspaper article. Vassyana (talk) 01:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- I find myself in perfect agreement with the sentiments and concerns expressed above by Phil and Vassyana. Jayen466 01:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- I also agree. That said, when we encounter problems such as these, what's the best strategy for dealing with it? Post to the NPOV noticeboard? Something else? --Akhilleus (talk) 01:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Do you have any examples? This seems contrary to my experience. And isn't RS more the place for this? II | (t - c) 02:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- The characterization of fringe theories provides many examples. On Jesus myth hypothesis (which asserts that Jesus didn't exist), for instance, there was an editor who insists that quotes from books published by the Oxford University Press shouldn't be used, because the press (allegedly) has a conflict of interest when dealing with religious matters--it publishes bibles, you see? I'm not joking, the full post can be seen here. At the time there was a post to the reliable sources noticeboard, I think, but when this is a systematic problem on an article--that is, editors favor "popular" sources such as newspapers, magazines, mass-market publishers over academic journal articles and monographs, what's the appropriate way to deal with the issue? --Akhilleus (talk) 03:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- I don't see the need for this addition as it is covered in WP:SOURCES. It is already stated that the policies should not be read in isolation, and past experience suggests that when 2 or more policies cover the same detail, over time there can be changes to one which brings the them into conflict. So instead of clarity and harmony we end up with confusion and disharmony. --PBS (talk) 11:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
On Providing Justification for actions
Is there any rule about providing justification for actions occuring in History articles. For example can the words "in response", "because of" be used, with the reasons provided, however obvious and straightforward they may be, may come into question. For example a sentence like " 2 +2 =4 because according to definition of real numbers etc." is different from " Jack shot at Tom because of Tom's threat".
To give a better example how about this "Jack had said that he would shoot Tom but later changed his mind. In a few days Tom threatened Jack, in response Jack shot at Tom". Here with using the words "in response", the reader is left confused about weather Jack shoot Tom because of his threat, or because Jack wanted to shoot Tom anyway. This, I believe, goes beyond NPOV, unless it is rephrased " Jack claimed that he shot Tom because he was threatened". Is there any policy regarding giving reasons to actions and stating them as matter of fact , instead of simply trying to state the facts. The facts should speak for themselves about the reasons if given in a chronological order Kakaka79m (talk) 17:57, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- The key is whether there is a reliable source that discusses the cause of the event. If so, then there is no problem with our including the "because of" in our article. In other words, if a reliable source says someone did something "because of" something else (event to cause), then we can note this fact (citing the source)... but if no reliable source attributes event to cause then we can not do so on our own initiative... to do so would violate WP:NOR. Also, if some other reliable source presents an different cause for the event, we need to mention that view as well. Blueboar (talk) 16:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Conflict of interest guidelines
I'm trying to get the conflict of interest guidelines rewritten to be clearer in terms of what is allowable from people with conflicts of interest. At the moment they seem to allow most edits, but there are also several parts saying COI editing is strongly discouraged. It is not clear whether COI editing is generally unacceptable or only when it results in bad edits. I have written a proposed revision of the guidelines, but because of my own conflict of interest I really don't want to make any kind of change without consensus. Since obviously a lot of conflicts of interest result in POV problems, people who monitor this should put forward their thoughts at User talk:Helenalex/coirewrite or on the conflict of interest guidelines talkpage. --Helenalex (talk) 05:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Obvious edit
. I thought this one is a no-brainer, but apparently User:John doesn't think so. Searching for "balanced" sources is not okay in, for example, the evolution article if you are seeking to balance it with creationism. Instead, we are supposed to chose reliable sources. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- Agree. Additionally, it's problematic given that "balance" isn't defined until later in the article, and the definition is not common usage outside Misplaced Pages. --Ronz (talk) 20:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- disagree. My watchlist popped up User:John's reversion from "A careful selection of reliable sources" back to "A balanced selection of sources". The reversion resonated with me. Too often, I've seen a careful (unbalanced POV-pushing) selection of reliable sources. To address the use of "balanced" before its definition, perhaps the A simple formulation subsection needs to be moved from the Explanation of the neutral point of view section to the Achieving neutrality section so as to follow the subsection on balance which explains "Neutrality weights viewpoints in proportion to their prominence". That seems to me to be be a more logical location in any case, since formulation relates to achieving moreso than to explaining. After making that change in subsection location, I suggest changing the wording to read "A careful and balanced selection of reliable sources".-- Boracay Bill (talk) 00:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- Let's choose a word other than "balanced". How about "representative"? The issue is that a balance tends to imply equal amounts which is not inimical to our task. ScienceApologist (talk) 08:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
RFC at WP:NOR-notice
A concern was raised that the clause, "a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge" conflicts with WP:NPOV by placing a higher duty of care with primary sourced claims than secondary or tertiary sourced claims. An RFC has been initiated to stimulate wider input on the issue. Professor marginalia (talk) 06:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Undue weight in application to articles about pseudoscience
In application to an article about a theory which is generally considered pseudoscience, does WP:Undue weight mean that the majority of the article should be specifically about criticisms? At Talk:Bates method, an editor has argued for that, citing UNDUE. PSWG1920 (talk) 21:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- WP:ASF. The majority of the article should provide context to the reader as to why the particular pseudoscientific idea is notable and what the facts are surrounding it. In general, it's best to avoid a "criticisms" section outright and instead incorporate factual context into articles. By the way, you probably want to ask this question at WP:NPOVN to get more visibility. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think that's right. ScienceApologist is all about swamping the articles on fringe or pseudoscience ideas with "factual" information about why they're wrong. But to "incorporate factual context" as he suggests is really to synthesize a debunking, to editorialize, to frame the fringe idea in the scientific point of view, as opposed to presenting it on its own terms, in a neutral point of view. I agree with WP:ASF, but to choose facts to put a fringe idea into "context" is to distort the idea itself, and contravenes WP:NOR. What's better is to find reliable sources that assert facts and opinions about the topic idea itself, and report those. Don't go looking for contrary facts, just report what's been published about the topic idea itself. If it hasn't elicited much critical reaction, you won't have to say much. Dicklyon (talk) 22:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)